Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Govind on 15 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 147/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0188952013
State Vs. (1) Govind
S/o Rajender Prasad
R/o C9/104, Sultan Puri,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Anoop @ Lakhan
S/o Sh. Laxmi Prashad
R/o Jhuggi No. 253A,
C6 Block, Sultan Puri,
Delhi
(Acquitted)
(3) Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda
S/o Sh. Harphool Singh
R/o C6/237, Near Sunder Dairy,
Sultan Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 244/13
Police Station: Sultan Puri
Under Section: 302/120B/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to sessions Court: 7.8.2013
Date on which orders were reserved: 8.12.2014
Date on which judgment announced: 8.12.2014
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 1
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per the allegations on or before 6.4.2013 all the accused i.e. Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo and in pursuance to the same, on 6.4.2013 at about 5:00 PM at Second Floor of House No. P1/970, Sultan Puri, Delhi they all committed the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo by giving knife blows to them on their abdomen.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 06.04.2013 at about 6:35 PM an information was received at Police Station Sultan Puri regarding a stabbing incident of two boys at gali No. 5, P1 Block pursuant to which DD No. 47A was lodged and PSI Vikas Pawar along with Ct. Balbir reached the spot. When the police reached the given address they came to know that the spot of the incident was house No. P1/970, Second Floor since there was large crowd at that place. The police then reached the second floor where they found dead bodies of two boys, one on the floor with head towards the northern wall and the one on the folding bed with the head on the southern directions towards the door. On inquiry the police came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was that of Babloo and the body which lying on the floor was of one Ramesh @ Lamboo both of whom were friends. The police also came to know that St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 2 Babloo was residing on rent in the same room whereas Lamboo was a resident of Vijay Vihar. Crime Team was called at the spot and inquiries were made from public persons who had gathered at the spot regarding eye any witnesses but nobody came forward. In the meanwhile the SHO and the Crime Team also reached the spot and carried out the inspection and photography of the scene of crime. Both the dead bodies were removed from the spot and sent to the mortuary of SGM Hospital. PSI Vikas then converted the DD No.47A into rukka by making endorsement on the same on the basis of which the present case was registered and further investigations were conducted by Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi who then lifted the various exhibits from the spot.
(3) On 07.04.2013 the inquest proceeding were conducted and the postmortem on the dead bodies were conducted. Thereafter during investigations on the same day pursuant to a secret information the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda were apprehended and arrested from C6 Block Park, Sultan Puri. During their interrogation both the accused admitted their involvement in the present case and also disclosed the involvement of their associate Govind who is a resident of House No. 104, C9 Block who was injured in the incident after he jumped from the roof and was present in his house. Pursuant to the same both the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda led the police team to the house of accused Govind from where the accused Govind was apprehended, who disclosed his involvement in the Crime and St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 3 also disclosed that he had received injuries when he jumped from the room and was medically examined and treated in the Jeevan Hospital. The accused Govind produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which were taken into possession. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Govind got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident i.e. TShirt, Capri & Underwear which were taken into possession. Thereafter the accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala which Knife was measured, its sketch was prepared and thereafter it was seized. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against all the accused namely Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Soda @ Sonu.
CHARGES:
(4) Charges under Sections 120B and 302 r/w 120B Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Soda @ Sonu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 4
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of witness No.
1. PW1 Insp. Mahesh Police Witness Draftsman
2. PW2 HC Ganga Saran Police Witness MHCM
3. PW3 HC Rakesh Kumar Police Witness - Duty Officer
4. PW4 Ct. Karan Singh Police Witness - PCR Official
5. PW5 Ct. Vikramaditya Police Witness who had deposited the exhibits at FSL
6. PW6 Ct. Narender Police Witness - Computer Operator
7. PW7 ASI Ram Kumar Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
8. PW8 Ct. Rajbir Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
9. PW9 Vinod Public Witness who had seen the quarrel between the accused and the deceased
10. PW10 Sh. M.N. Vijayan Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices
11. PW11 Sh. Pawan Singh Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd.
12. PW12 Sagar Public Witness who had seen the quarrel between the accused and the deceased
13. PW13 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta Witness from Jeewan Hospital who has proved the medical record of the accused Govind
14. PW14 Indresh Kumar Mishra FSL Expert (Biology)
15. PW15 Sh. Santosh Tripathi FSL Expert (Chemistry)
16. PW16 Neeraj Public Witness - Landlord of the deceased Babloo
17. PW17 Dr. Manoj Dhingra Autopsy Surgeon who has proved the postmortem reports of both the deceased St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 5 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of witness No.
18. PW18 Dr. Vivek Autopsy Surgeon who has proved the postmortem reports of both the deceased
19. PW19 Rakesh Public Witness - Elder brother of the deceased Babloo
20. PW20 Roshan Lal Public Witness - Brother in Law (Jija) of the deceased Babloo
21. PW21 Kailash Public Witness - Brother in Law (Jija) of the deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo
22. PW22 Poonam Singh Public Witness - Sister of the deceased Babloo
23. PW23 Vijay Public Witness - Resident of the same are from whose mobile phone the PCR call was made
24. PW24 Master Gaurav Kumar Child Witness who had handed over the mobile phone to the accused Govind
25. PW25 Babli Public Witness - Mother of child witness Gaurav Kumar
26. PW26 SI Mahender Pratap Police Witness who had joined investigations with Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi
27. PW27 Ct. Satish Kumar Police Witness who had reached the spot on receipt of information
28. PW28 PSI Vikas Pawar Police Witness who had reached the spot on receipt of information
29. PW29 Ct. Balbir Police Witness who had reached the spot along with PSI Vikas Pawar
30. PW30 Ct. Komesh Kumar Police Witness who had reached the spot with on receipt of information
31. PW31 Ct. Bajrang Bahadur Police Witness who had joined the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 6 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of witness No. investigations with Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi
32. PW32 Insp. KSN Subudhi Investigating Officer of the case
33. PW33 Insp. Satya Prakash Subsequent Investigating Officer List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
No.
1. PW1/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness Insp. Insp. Mahesh
Mahesh
2. PW1/A Scaled Site Plan
3. PW2/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness HC Ganga HC Ganga Saran
Saran
4. PW2/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 9924
5. PW2/B Copy of Reg No. 21 Sr. No RC 190/21/13
6. PW2/C Copy of Reg No. 21 Sr. No. RC 191/21/13
7. PW2/D FSL Receipt
8. PW2/E FSL Receipt
9. PW2/F Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No 9926
10. PW2/G Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No 9928
11. PW3/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness HC Rakesh HC Rakesh
12. PW3/A DD No. 49A
13. PW3/B FIR
14. PW3/C Endorsement on Rukka
15. PW4/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness Ct Karan Ct. Karan Singh
Singh
16. PW4/C PCR Form
17. PW5/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness Ct. Ct. Vikramaditya
Vikramaditya
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 7
18. PW6/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness Ct. Narender Ct. Narender
19. PW7/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness ASI Ram ASI Ram Kumar
Kumar
20. PW7/A Crime Team Report
21. PW8/1 Affidavit of evidence of witness Ct. Rajbir Ct. Rajbir
22. PW8/A1 to Photographs of Scene of Crime
PW8/A7
23. PW8/B Negatives of above photographs
24. PW10/A Copy of Customer Application Form Sh. M.N. Vijayan
9266495006
25. PW10/B Copy of residence proof
26. PW10/C Call detail record of 9266495006
27. PW10/D Cell ID Chart
28. PW10/E Certificate U/s 65B of evidence Act
29. PW11/A Copy of Customer Application Form Sh. Pawan Singh
8743977286
30. PW11/B Copy of residence proof
31. PW11/C Call Detail Record of 8743977286
32. PW11/D Cell ID Chart
33. PW11/E Certificate U/s 65B
34. PW13/A OPD Receipt Dr. Ashutosh
35. PW13/B Copy of Registration Certificate of Doctor
36. PW14/A Biological report Sh. Indresh Kumar
Mishra
37. PW14/B Serological report
38. PW15/A FSL Report Santosh Tripathi
39. PW16/A Seizure memo of knife Neeraj
40. PW16/B Pointing out memo of accused Satish
41. PW16/C Pointing out memo of accused Lakhan
42. PW16/D Pointing out memo of accused Govind
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 8
43. PW17/A Postmortem report of Babloo Dr. Manoj Dhingra
44. PW17/B Postmortem report of Ramesh
45. PW17/C Application for Opinion
46. PW17/D Opinion of Autopsy Surgeon on weapon of
offence (knife)
47. PW19/A Dead body of Babloo identification Memo Rakesh
48. PW19/B Dead body handing over memo of deceased
Babloo
49. PW20/A Dead body of Babloo identification memo
50. PW21/A Dead body of Ramesh identification Memo Kailash
51. PW21/B Dead body handing over memo of deceased
of Ramesh @ Lamboo
52. PW22/A Dead body identification memo of Ramesh Poonam Singh
@ Lamboo
53. PW26/A Seizure memo of Viscera, clothes, blood SI Mahender Pratap
gauze and sample seal
54. PW26/B Seizure memo of Viscera, clothes, blood
gauze and sample seal
55. PW26/C Arrest memo of accused Satish
56. PW26/D Arrest memo of accused Lakhan @ Anuup
57. PW26/E Personal search memo of accused Satish
58. PW26/F Personal search memo of accused Lakhan @
Anoop
59. PW26/G Disclosure statement of accused Satish
60. PW26/H Disclosure statement of accused Lakhan @
Anoop
61. PW26/I Medical papers of accused Govind
62. PW26/J Arrest memo of accused Govind
63. PW26/K Personal search memo of accused Govind
64. PW26/L Disclosure statement of accused Govind
65. PW26/M Seizure memo of clothes of accused Govind
66. PW26/N Sketch of knife
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 9
67. PW27/A DD No. 47A Ct. Satish
68. PW28/A Rukka PSI Vikas Pawar
69. PW28/B Site Plan of Scene of Crime
70. PW28/C Seizure memo of Earth Control
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many
as Thirty Three Witnesses as under:
Public Witnesses:
(7) PW9 Vinod has deposed that on 06.04.13 he was smoking in
the park situated in the C6, Sultan Puri area along with Sagar at about 12.30 noon. According to the witness he saw that a quarrel was going on between Lamboo and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan and Soda in other group during which Lamboo slapped Govind. He has testified that he and Sagar pacified the matter. According to the witness, Govind was having a knife which was snatched by Lamboo after which Lamboo and Babloo left the park. He has also deposed that Govind was using abusive language against Lamboo and Babloo and then Govind followed Lamboo and returned back with his knife. The witness has testified that Govind was uttering to see them and thereafter they left the spot. He has proved that his statement was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate which is Ex.PX4 bearing his signature at point A. He has correctly identified the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan & Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda, in the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 10 court.
(8) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that his father is employed in a school as Peon and sometime he went to the school to perform sweeping work in absence of his father. Witness has further deposed that the school is Government Aided school managed by a management body. According to the witness he is dealing in pigs and is addict of Ganja and on the date of incident he was present along with Sagar in the park with this object. Witness has further deposed that the park is situated at a walking distance of two minutes from his house. He has explained that he has two house, one is at the corner of park and other is situated at some distance. According to the witness he and Sagar had gone to park for consuming Ganja and at that time he and Sagar were alone in the park. He has testified that he saw the quarrel between two groups from a distance of ten yards. He has admitted that before seeing the quarrel between two groups as stated above, they already smoked Ganja. Witness has also deposed that the knife was rusted and was made of iron. During his examination the witness has explained the length of knife with his hand and also explained the width by gesturing as about 2 ½ inches. According to the witness he was familiar with Govind, Lakhan and Soda before this incident and the quarrel/ jhagda continued for about 1015 minutes.
(9) When specifically asked to explain what did he mean by Jhagda the witness has explained that there was galigaloch between them and St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 11 Lamboo slapped accused Sauda and thereafter Lamboo snatched the knife of Govind after which Govind followed Lamboo and took his knife back but when he was taking his knife back there was no physical altercation.
(10) The witness has further deposed that after the quarrel everything became calm in the park between the parties. He has also deposed that at the time when the quarrel was going on, none bothered to call the police. According to the witness, he is maintaining the mobile phone but he does not recollect that at the time of the quarrel whether he was having his mobile phone or not. Witness has admitted that there are large number of houses and some shops near the park. He has deposed that large number of persons had collected but none called the police. Witness has denied the suggestion that no quarrel as claimed by him took place and that is why no call was made to the police by anybody. Witness has further deposed that he left the spot after all the persons left from there. He has also deposed that he had gone to his house along with Sagar and has explained that Sagar had not gone to his house. The witness has further deposed that he came to know about the murder of Lamboo and Babloo at about 4 or 6 PM on the same day itself. According to the witness he came to know about this fact from the cousin of Babloo but he had not gone to see Babloo and Lamboo after their murder. Witness has further testified that the houses of Lamboo and Babloo were situated in the PBlock whereas his house is situated in the C Block and there is walking St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 12 distance of ten minutes between his block and the block of deceased. According to him, the police officials visited his house on the next day i.e. 07.04.13 and asked him about the incident and had narrated the entire facts to the police. According to the witness his statement was recorded in the Police Station on 07.04.2013 and once his statement was recorded by the Ld. MM regarding this case in this court complex. He has further deposed that he had visited the Police Station once regarding this case and has explained that one criminal case is also pending against him. Witness has admitted that due to this case, police officials knew him. He has denied the suggestion that before his deposition he was tutored by the police officials outside the court. Witness has denied the suggestion that Sagar used to obey him. He is unable to tell as to where Govind, Lakhan and Soda had gone after the quarrel. He has denied the suggestion that he was inimical to the accused and did not go there along with them and that is why he had falsely implicated and named them in the court. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being drug addict or that he was under the influence of police officials.
(11) PW12 Sagar has deposed that on 06.04.2013 he was smoking in the park situated in the C6, Sultan Puri area along with Vinod at about 12.30 noon. According to the witness, he saw that a quarrel was going on between Lamboo and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan and Soda in other group during which Lamboo slapped Govind. Witness has further deposed that he and Vinod pacified the matter and he saw that St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 13 Govind was having a knife which was snatched by Lamboo (deceased). Witness has further deposed that Lamboo and Babloo thereafter left the park along with the knife. According to the witness Govind was using abusive language against Lamboo and Babloo after which Govind followed Lamboo and returned back with his knife. Witness has also deposed that Govind was using abusive language and threatened to see them and also uttered "Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga". He has testified that thereafter they left the spot. He has proved that his statement was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate which is Ex.PX6. Witness has further deposed that Govind was under the influence of intoxicating pills and was giving threats. He has correctly identified accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan & Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda, in the Court.
(12) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he is illiterate and a poor person and is doing nothing being unemployed. Witness has further deposed that he used to reside at his home as well as roamed around the park daily as his jhuggi is situated in front of the park. Witness has admitted that he is also addicted to Ganja but has explained that he does not consume intoxicating pills. He has explained that Ganja is available at a very cheap rate in the market and he used to spend Rs.30/ to purchase Ganja. According to him, his parents used to give him pocket money Rs.1020 per day. He has also deposed that he had seen the knife in the hand of Govind when they St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 14 tried to pacify the matter and they were closed to Govind. He is not aware the colour of knife but states that it was long and was heavy also. Witness has expressed the length of knife after showing the length of his palm and hand. According to the witness, he is familiar with Govind, Lakhan and Soda as they are residents of the same locality and had no friendship with Lakhan, Soda and Govind nor any enmity with them. He has explained that he knew them only being the residents of the same locality. The witness has also stated that he had come to the court previously on one occasion and has voluntarily explained that the Investigating Officer had brought him when his statement was recorded by Ld. MM. According to the witness he is not involved in any criminal case. Witness has denied the suggestion that police official used to take him to the Police Station being a drug addict. Witness has also deposed that the quarrel between Lamboo and Govind ran up to two to four minutes in the park. He has deposed that at that time no other public person had gathered there apart from him and Vinod. He has testified that since they left the spot thereafter, therefore he is unable to tell who remained in the park. According to the witness on the day of his deposition in the court police officials who was present outside the court, did not tutor him and did not tell him what he had to depose in the court. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being a drug addict or that he is under the influence of the police officials. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was inimical to the accused and did not go along there St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 15 with them and that is why he has falsely implicated and named them in the court. Witness has admitted that after he left the part at 12.30 PM he does not know what happened. According to the witness, the park is hardly two minutes away from his house and states that after he left the park he went to the house of Vinod which is five minutes walking distance from the park. He has testified that he remained in the house of Vinod for about 2025 minutes and then returned at home at around 1.00 PM. Witness has further deposed that at about 6.00 PM, he came to know about the murder of Lamboo and Babloo but did not call the police nor he informed the police about the incident of park. According to the witness, the police had visited his house on 07.04.13 at 9.00 AM after which he and his brother were taken to the Police Station where their statements were recorded and has voluntarily explained that the policemen were telling them to get the accused apprehended (Unko Pakadwao). Witness has further deposed that he had gone to the spot when he heard about the murder of Lamboo and Babloo and found large number of police officials there. He has admitted that police were inquiring from the public persons what had happened. According to the witness he did not tell the police that he had seen Lamboo and Babloo in the park with the three accused and has voluntarily explained that his mother had called him back from the spot because she was very apprehensive and nervous. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was a planted witness or that he was deposing falsely on the tutoring of the Investigating Officers.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 16 (13) PW16 Neeraj is the landlord of the deceased Babloo who has deposed that on 06.04.13 in the noon time when he was about to go to his inlaws house, he saw that two boys namely Govind and Lakhan reached outside his house and at that time he was in the balcony. According to the witness those boys were calling Lamboo on which he (witness) informed them that no person by the name of Lamboo was residing there after which they left and thereafter he (witness) also left his house and went to his in laws house at Uttam Nagar. He has explained that Lamboo was the friend of Babloo and used to visit the house of Babloo who was living in their house on rent. According to the witness his house No. is P1/970 and Babloo was residing on the third floor. Witness has further deposed that he had gone to his inlaws house on his motorcycle at about 11:00 AM and those two boys were also calling Babloo. Witness has also deposed that Govind and Lakhan remained in the gali but he had left for his inlaws house. According to him, at about 6:007:00 PM his grandmother telephoned him about the murder of Lamboo and Babloo and he then reached back there. He has also deposed that police had verified about the incident from him on 08.04.13 when the police officials came his house in a police gypsy. Witness has further deposed that at that time Govind and Lakhan were in the police vehicle and they were shown to him. He has also deposed that he identified them and stated before police that those were the same boys who were calling Lamboo and Babloo on 06.04.13 and thereafter Govind led police party at a nala where he had thrown the knife St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 17 used in the commission of offence and Govind recovered a knife from the dried nala. Witness has also deposed that the knife was blood stained when it was recovered and Govind also disclosed about the involvement of Sonu in this crime. According to the witness, the accused Sonu disclosed in his presence that Govind and Lakhan went to upstairs in house no. P1/970, Sultan Puri whereas he remained outside the house. Witness has further testified that Sonu also disclosed that after committing the incident, Lakhan & Govind came down and informed him how they had committed the murder. According to the witness, the police had also prepared the sketch of knife. He has also deposed that he had also put his signatures on some documents but he is unable to tell the details of the document being hardly 6th pass. Witness has further deposed that the police had prepared a cloth pullanda of the knife and thereafter the pullanda was put in polythene.
(14) The witness has correctly identified the accused Govind, Lakhan and Sonu in the Court and has also identified the knife having some brown stains on the blades as the same which was recovered at the instance of accused Govind from the dried nala, which is Ex.P1. (15) The witness Neeraj has further explained that when he was going to his inlaws house, he had seen Govind, Lakhan and Sonu @ Soda talking to each other at the corner of the gali and he advised them not to call anyone like this. He has further deposed that the accused persons were taken to the spot and they also identified the place where they had St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 18 committed the offence and also pointed out their positions. According to him, police had prepared memos in this regard which were signed by him and Sonu disclosed that after committing the incident, Govind jumped the house and had sustained injuries in his leg. Witness has further deposed that when he had seen the Govind in police vehicle he was having injuries in both the legs (iske dono paon toote hue the and chot thi). He has proved the seizure memo of knife which is Ex.PW16/A, pointing out memo prepared at the instance of Satish @ Sonu @ Soda which is Ex.PW16/B, pointing out memo prepared at the instance of Lakhan which is Ex.PW16/C and the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Govind which is Ex.PW16/D which bears his signature at point A. Witness has also deposed that police had recorded his statement on 07.04.13 and asked him about who used to visit the premises of Babloo and also other persons and narrated this fact to the police. (16) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he is doing Government Job as Sweeper in MCD and his duty timings are from 7.00 AM to 3.30 PM. According to the witness, his house is two storied and constructed in 25 sq. yards and he was residing at ground floor, one other tenant was residing at the first floor and Babloo was residing at the second floor. Witness has further deposed that if anyone talks at any floor of his house, the voices can be heard from one floor to another floor. He has also deposed that Lamboo used to visit the room of Babloo during the noon time and sister in law of Babloo used to St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 19 visit his room along with her children and Babloo used to roam outside. Witness has further deposed that very few persons used to visit the room of Babloo and only Lamboo used to visit the same. According to him, Babloo was doing the work of waiters and most of the time Babloo used to remain with Lamboo. He has also deposed that he came to know that Babloo was involved in stealing/ theft but he is unable to tell whether he (Babloo) used to quarrel with other persons outside the house and has voluntarily explained that sometime he used to quarrel with his mother. Witness has denied the suggestion that Babloo used to call many persons at their house to celebrate the party of drink or other intoxicants. He has admitted that he knew that Babloo was not the man of good character. Witness has further explained that his grandmother had asked Babloo to vacate the house due to his bad habits but he had requested to his grandmother saying that his daughter was studying and her education was continuing in a local school due to which reason he was not vacating their premises/ rented room. Witness has further deposed that on the day of incident the said minor girl of Babloo was not present in the room. According to him, he had seen Govind and Lakhan outside his house when they were calling Lamboo and Babloo. He has also deposed that he had not noticed any other person calling Babloo or Lamboo in this way before that. According to the witness he told Lakhan and Govind not to call Babloo & Lakhan so loudly as his 1½ year son was sleeping. Witness has also deposed that thereafter they left and he had seen them second time on St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 20 the same day when they were standing in the other gali along with third person namely Sonu. Witness has further deposed that they had visited his house about 11.00 AM and he had left his house at about 1212.30 PM. According to the witness he was called by his Aunty but he is unable to tell the exact time. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he reached at his house at about 9:009:30 PM and when he reached at his house, the police officials were already present there. He is unable to tell as to who informed the police and states that there were many police officials along with the media persons. The witness has testified accused persons were brought to his house on 08.04.13 or 07.04.13. He has further deposed that accused Govind led the police party near a nala situated at Budh Vihar and there were many persons present at the time of recovery of weapon of offence. The witness is also unable to tell whether their statement was recorded by the police or not. He has explained that the Knife was not easily visible in the dried nala and it was in the side which was identified by the accused. Witness has admitted that nala is situated in the open space and it is not covered. He has testified that he was called by the police in the Police Station on one or two times. According to the witness he had signed on many documents but the contents of the document were not read over to him before his signing. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Sonu did not disclose anything in his presence or that no weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of Govind or that he did not join the investigation at any point of time or that he was compelled by the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 21 police officials to become a witness as the murder of two persons had taken place in their house.
(17) PW19 Sh. Rakesh is the elder brother of the deceased Babloo who has deposed that he is residing at House No. P1/804, Sultanpuri, Delhi along with his family and Babloo was his younger brother who used to reside at P1/970, Sultanpuri i.e. near his house with his parents. According to the witness on 06.04.2013 he was in the factory when at around 6:00 PM he received information from his family that his brother Babloo had been murdered and he was asked to rush home, on which he immediately rushed to his house where the dead body of his brother was lying. He has testified that on the next day i.e. 07.04.2013 he went to the mortuary of SGM Hospital along with his Jija Rohan Lal where he identified the dead body of his brother vide memo Ex.PW19/A and after the postmortem the dead body of Babloo was handed over to him and he received the same vide Ex.PW19/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in this regard.
(18) PW20 Sh. Roshan Lal has deposed that he is residing at house No. 17, Pragya Vihar, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP along with his family and his younger brother in law Babloo used to reside at P1/970, Sultanpuri with his parents. According to the witness on 06.04.2013 he received information regarding the death of his brother in law Babloo and on the next day i.e. 07.04.2013 he went to the Mortuary of SGM Hospital along St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 22 with his brother in law Rakesh where he identified the dead body of his younger brother in law namely Babloo vide memo Ex.PW20/A. He has also proved that after postmortem the dead body of Babloo was handed over to Rakesh and they received the same vide memo Ex.PW19/B. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in this regard.
(19) PW21 Sh. Kailash has deposed that he is residing at L81, Vijay Vihar PhaseII, Delhi along with his family and Lamboo was his brother in law/ sala and used to reside at C443, Avantika, Sector1, Rohini, Delhi. According to him, on 07.04.2013 he received information regarding the death of his brother in law Lamboo on which he went to Police Station Sultanpuri from where he along with his sister in law/ sali Poonam went to SGM Hospital Mortuary where he identified the dead body of his brother in law Lamboo vide memo Ex.PW21/A. He has testified that after the postmortem he received the dead body of his brother in law Lamboo vide memo Ex.PW21/B. (20) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that his brother in law Lamboo was a habitual alcoholic but he is unable to tell anything about his other habits. (21) PW22 Ms. Poonam Singh is the sister of the deceased Lamboo who has deposed that she is residing at C443, Avantika, Sector1, Rohini, Delhi along with her family and Lamboo was her elder St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 23 brother. According to the witness on 07.04.2013 she received information regarding the death of her elder brother Lamboo on which she went to Police Station Sultanpuri along with her brother in law Kailash from where they went to SGM Hospital Mortuary where she identified the dead body of her elder brother Lamboo vide memo Ex.PW22/A. She has testified that after the postmortem they received the dead body of her elder brother Lamboo vide memo Ex.PW21/B. (22) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that her elder brother was habitual drinker but she is unable to tell if he used to take drugs or not.
(23) PW23 Sh. Vijay has deposed that he is residing at house No. P1/327, Sultanpuri, Jhandewalan Park along with his family and is a safai karamchari in Ring Road Mall, Rohini. According to the witness it was sixth of month he does not recollect, around 67 months ago, he was standing in the gali near his house when one lady came to the gali and he noticed that she was crying and was running here and there. Witness has further deposed that there was a lot of crowd in the gali and she requested him for his mobile and told him that she wanted to make a 100 number call as there was murder of two persons who had been stabbed. He has also deposed that on this he gave her his mobile with No. 8130317255 from where she made a 100 number call and then returned the mobile to him whereas he remained in the gali for sometime and then returned to his house. Witness has further deposed that his statement was recorded by the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 24 police after twothree days. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in this regard. (24) PW24 Master Gaurav Kumar is a child aged about 14 years and before recording his statement, this Court had interacted with the child for some some and found him to be intelligent and understanding the nature of questions and queries put to him and also the sanctity of oath, after which his statement was recorded on oath. The witness has deposed that he is residing at Jhuggie No.P1/84, Sultanpuri, Delhi along with his family and is studying in class 10th of Swatantar Bharat Inter College, Salarpur, Hapur, UP. According to the witness, his mother, sister Pooja and brother Rajeev @ Raju used to stay in Delhi whereas he resides in the village along with his father. According to the witness on 08.04.2013 the police had come to him and made inquiries on which he informed them that on 06.04.2013 one person was sitting in front of their house on chabutra and both his legs were injured. The witness has pointed out towards the accused Govind in the Court and identified him as the said person. He has further deposed that he saw the said person rubbing his feet and crying in pain (pehle hath se mal rahe thai aur phir dard se karrarahe thai) and the said person (i.e. Govind as pointed out by the witness) was asking if anybody was having a phone as he wanted to make a call to his house so that some could come and pick him up. According to the witness, his mother Smt. Babli Devi used to leave her mobile phone at St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 25 home for emergency purposes and he gave her mobile phone to the said person i.e. Govind for making a call on which he made a call to somebody and after some time two persons came and lifted him and took him away. (25) During leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has admitted that the mobile number of his mother was 8743977286 and has voluntarily explained that he had recollect the initially numbers but he was slightly confused about the last two digits. (26) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that he does not know the name of the said person who was sitting outside their house till date and it was also observed by this Court that the witness has only identified the accused Govind by pointing out towards him and not by name. He has also admitted that the said person was repeatedly saying that he had met with an accident with a motorcycle and wanted to call somebody from his house. (27) PW25 Smt. Babli is the mother of Child Witness Gaurav who has deposed that she is residing at P1/84, Sultanpuri, Delhi along with her family and is working in a factory. She has explained that her husband and her son Gaurav reside in the village where her husband is working and her son is studying whereas she is residing at Sultanpuri with her daughter and her other son Raju. According to the witness, she is an illiterate lady and is maintaining a mobile phone whose details she does not recollect but she can tell after seeing his mobile phone. After seeing the mobile the witness has given her number as 8743977286. The witness has further deposed St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 26 that her son Gaurav had come from the village but she does not recollect the date. According to the witness, her son Gaurav had given her mobile phone which she used to leave at home for the use of the family, to one boy who was having injuries on his legs as he wanted to call somebody from his family to pick him up. She has testified that police made inquiries from her and she had informed this fact to them. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in this regard.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
(28) PW13 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta has deposed that on 06.04.2013 he was working as Orthopedics Surgeon at Jeevan Charitable Hospital and on that day at about 7:30 PM patient namely Govind, 24 years male was brought by mother namely Santosh brother namely Bunty and another brother namely Ram Kishan with alleged history of fall from height.
According to the witness he medically examined the above said patient in OPD vide OPD Receipt Ex.PW13/A bearing his signatures at point A. Witness has further deposed that after examination he advised XRay of both ankles and applied the plaster below knee on both legs as the patient had fracture in both heel bones. He has proved that on 09.04.2013 as per directions of police officials he had given the copy of his DMC (Delhi Medical Council) Registration Certificate which is Ex.PW13/B to the police official. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 27 Counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in this regard. (29) PW17 Dr. Manoj Dhingra and PW18 Dr. Vivek Rawat have both deposed that on 07.04.2013 they conducted the postmortem on the body of Babloo S/o Chandan Singh, aged 32 years male, which body was sent by Inspector Subudhi from Police Station Sultanpuri with alleged history of found dead at his home on 06.04.2013 at about 6:30 PM and there was history of chronic alcoholism. According to the witnesses, on external examination following injuries were found:
1. Stab wound 4cm x 1.3cm cavity deep (up to pancreas and aorta) wedge shaped lying obliquely in epigastrium area, 0.5cm lateral to midline and 5.5cm down to xiphisternum.
2. Incised wound 2cm x 0.5x0.3cm, seen over mid lateral aspect of dorsum of left hand.
3. Incised wound 1.5cm x 0.3 x 0.3cm over mid lateral border of left palm.
(30) Both the witnesses have proved that on internal examination of Abdomen Peritoneum, Peritoneal cavity : 2.8 litre of fluid blood was seen in retroperitoneal space and in peritoneal cavity; there was Laceration of pancreas with tearing of descending aorta just behind the stomach; Stomach and its contents: Partially masticated food particles mixed with fluid blood were present and there was perforation of 3 x 1cm seen over anterior and posterior walls of pylorus. They have proved having opined St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 28 that the cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for abdominal structures under injury No. 1 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, all injuries are caused by sharp, single edged weapon and time since death was within six hours prior to preservation in SGMH Mortuary. They have proved the detailed postmortem report in this regard which is Ex.PW17/A (running into four pages) bearing the signature of Dr. Manoj Dhingra at point A and that of Dr. Vivek Rawat at point B on each page.
(31) Both these witnesses have further proved that on 07.04.2013 they also conducted the postmortem on the body of Ramesh S/o Ram Parkash, aged 35 years male which body was sent by Inspector Subudhi of Police Station Sultanpuri with alleged history of found dead at his friend's home on 06.04.2013 at about 6:30 PM and there was history of chronic alcoholism. They have proved that on external examination following injuries were found:
1. Stab wound 4cm x 1.3cm cavity deep (up to pancreas and aorta) wedge shaped lying obliquely in epigastrium area, 0.5cm lateral to midline and 5.5cm down to xiphisternum with evisceration of loop of small intestine through the wound.
2. Incised wound 3cm x 1.2 cavity deep wedged shaped situated 3.5cm inferolateral to injury No. 1.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 29
3. Abrasion reddish colored 4cm x 3cm over left knee. (32) According to the witnesses on internal examination of Abdomen Peritoneum, Peritoneal cavity : 2.8 liter of fluid blood was seen in retroperitoneal space and in peritoneal cavity; there was Laceration of pancreas with tearing of descending aorta just behind the stomach; Stomach and its contents: Partially masticated food particles mixed with fluid blood were seen and there was perforation 3 x 1cm seen over anterior and posterior walls of pylorus. They have proved having opined that the cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for abdominal structures under injury No. 1 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature; all injuries were caused by sharp, single edged weapon and the time since death was within six hours prior to preservation in SGMH Mortuary. They have proved the detailed postmortem report in this regard which is Ex.PW17/B (running into four pages) bearing the signatures of Dr. Manoj Dhingra at point A and that of Dr. Vivek Rawat at point B on each page.
(33) Further, Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW17) has deposed that on 15.04.2013 he received an application along with a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of KSN from SHO Police Station Sultanpuri for opinion on the weapon of offence which application is Ex.PW17/C. Witness has further deposed that after opening the parcel it found to St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 30 contain a knife and after going through the Postmortem Reports No. 295/13 and 296/13 he was of the opinion that the injury mentioned on the Postmortem Report is possible by this knife or similar such weapon which opinion is Ex.PW17/D bearing his signatures at point A also showing the sketch of the knife at point X. (34) He has correctly identified the knife in the Court as the same which was examined by him which knife is Ex.P1. It has been observed by this Court that the sketch was matching with the knife Ex.P1. (35) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW17) has denied the suggestion that the opinion with regard to the cause of death, time of death and the weapon of offence has been given by him on the asking of the Investigating Officer. He has however admitted that the opinion with regard to the weapon of offence was only tentative and has voluntarily explained that it was subject to the findings of the FSL with regard to the use of weapon but he meant that the injuries matched with the weapon and could have been caused by this weapon or by similar weapon.
(36) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW18) has denied the suggestion that the opinion with regard to the cause of death and time of death has been given by him on the asking of the Investigating Officer.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 31 FSL Experts:
(37) PW14 Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) has deposed that on 17.04.2013 ten sealed parcels were received in their office and same were assigned to him for biological and serological examination and he found that the seals were intact as per the specimen seal. According to the witness after examination he gave the Biological Report which is Ex.PW14/A according to which blood was detected on exhibits 1(dirty gauze cloth piece described as blood of deceased), exhibit 2 (piece of cloth having brown stains), exhibit 4 (cemented material having light brown stains described as blooded earth), exhibit 5a(one jacket having brown stains), exhibit 5b (one shirt having brown stains), exhibit 5c(one banian having brown stains), 5d (pants with belt having brown stains), 5e(underwear having dark brown stains),exhibit 6a (one banian having brown stains), exhibit 6b (one underwear having dark brown stains), exhibit 7 (gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood gauze piece of the deceased), 8 (gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood gauze piece of the deceased) and exhibit 9a (one Tshirt having light brown stains). However, blood could not be detected on exhibit 3 (cemented material described as earth control), exhibit 9b (one half pant), exhibit 9c (one underwear) and exhibit 10 (one knife having rusty stains). The witness has testified that he had also examined the exhibits serologically and prepared the Serological Report in this regard which is Ex.PW14/B according to which Human Blood of AB group was St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 32 detected on exhibit 1 (gauze cloth piece), exhibit 5a (jacket), exhibit 5b (shirt), exhibit 5c (banian), exhibit 7 (gauze cloth piece) and exhibit 8 (gauze cloth piece). He has also proved that that after examination the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of IKM FSL Delhi.
This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in this regard.
(38) PW15 Sh. Santosh Tripathi has deposed that on 17.4.2013 two sealed parcels were received in their office and same were marked to Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo for examination and after examination Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo gave his detailed examination report which is Ex.PW15/A bearing signatures of Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo at various points mark A which he duly identified. Witness has further deposed that according to Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo exhibit 1A (stomach pieces of small intestine with contents kept in a jar), exhibit 1B(pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a jar), exhibit 1C (blood sample volume 200 ml. approx. kept in a jar), exhibit 2A (stomach pieces of small intestine with contents, kept in a jar), exhibit 2B (pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a jar) and exhibit 2C (blood sample, volume 200ml. Approx. kept in a jar) were found to contain ethyl alcohol. Further, Exhibits 1C (blood sample, volume 200ml. Approx. kept in a jar) and exhibit 2C (blood sample, volume 200ml. Approx. kept in a jar) were found to contain ethyl alcohol 82.4mg and 47.4 mg per 100 ml of blood respectively. The witness has also deposed that Exhibits 1D (preservative sample, common salt solid, kept in a small container) and 2D(preservative St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 33 sample, common salt solid, kept in a container) gave negative test for common poisons. According to him, after examination the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seals of FSL LRS DELHI. (39) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that as per the available literature any person having around 82% ethyl alcohol present in the blood stream would lead to inebriated state. According to the witness in the present case alcohol was present in the viscera and also in the percentages as mentioned. Nodal Officers:
(40) PW10 Sh. M.N. Vijayan Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices has proved that mobile No. 9266495006 has been issued in the name of Govind S/o Rajender Parkash, R/o House No. 104, Block C9, Sultanpuri, New Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW10/A, copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW10/B;
Call details from the period 05.04.2013 to 07.04.2013 which are Ex.PW10/C (running into two pages); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW10/D (running into one page) and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW10/E. (41) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Hyderabad and he had retrieved the call details from the official computer system alloted to him St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 34 from where he have a direct access from the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss. Witness has denied the suggestion that the above calls details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(42) PW11 Sh. Pawan Singh Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd. has proved that mobile No. 8743977286 has been issued in the name of Babli W/o Bhup Singh R/o House No. 84, Block P1, Sultanpuri, New Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW11/A, copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW11/B; Call details from the period 05.04.2013 to 07.04.2013 which are Ex.PW11/C (running into one page); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW11/D (running into 49 pages) and Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW11/E. (43) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Pune and he had retrieved the call details from the official computer system alloted to him from where he has a direct access from the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss. Witness has denied the suggestion that the above calls details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 35 Police/ Official witnesses:
(44) PW1 Inspector Mahesh is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the spot of incident and having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW1/A. (45) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that he did not hand over the rough notes to the Investigating Officer. According to the witness he cannot produce the rough notes because they had been destroyed. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot nor prepared the site plan or that the above site plan was prepared by him while sitting in the office at the instance of the Investigating Officer or that the same is not as per the site.
(46) PW2 HC Ganga Saran is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved entry in register No. 19 vide Mud No. 9924, copy of which is Ex.PW2/A; entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 190/21/13 and 191/21/13, copies of which are Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively; receipt of FSL which are Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E respectively; entry in register No. 19 vide entry No. 9926 copy of which is Ex.PW2/F (running into two pages) and entry No. 9928 copy of which is Ex.PW2/G (running into two pages).St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 36
(47) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the entries made in the register No. 19 have been manipulated and fabricated at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(48) PW3 HC Rakesh Kumar is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having lodged DD No. 49A copy of which is Ex.PW3/A, copy of FIR which is Ex.PW3/B and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW3/C. (49) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the time in the rukka and the FIR has been fabricated on the directions of the senior officers.
(50) PW4 Ct. Karan Singh is a formal witness being the PCR official who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the PCR Form which is Ex.PW4/A. This witness has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(51) PW5 Ct. Vikramaditya is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 190/21 and 191/21 copies of which are Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively and receipt of FSL which are Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E. In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has denied St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 37 the suggestion that the exhibits were tampered during the time they remained in his possession.
(52) PW6 Ct. Narender is also a formal witness being the Computer Operator who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having recorded the FIR in the computer copy of which FIR which is Ex.PW3/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(53) PW7 ASI Ram Kumar is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the spot of the incident and having inspected the same after which he prepared the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW7/A. (54) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he received the information at about 5:35 PM and he reached the spot at about 6 PM and remained there till about 7:30 PM. Witness has admitted that large number of public persons were present at the spot but they could not lift any chance prints at the spot. Witness has denied the suggestion that the scene of crime was disturbed as public persons were freely moving about in the room and has voluntarily explained that public persons were all outside. He has denied the suggestion that he gave his report on the asking of the Investigating Officer after manipulation and St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 38 fabrication of scene of crime.
(55) PW8 Ct. Rajbir is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW8/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the photographs of the scene of crime which are Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A7 and negatives of the same are collectively Ex.PW8/B. (56) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he reached the spot at about 6 PM and remained there till 7:20 PM and he had taken six photographs from a still camera. Witness has admitted that he did not hand over the negatives to the Investigating Officer previously and has voluntarily explained that he had brought the same on the day of his deposition in the court. Witness has denied the suggestion that the spot was photographed after manipulation.
(57) PW26 SI Mahender Pratap has deposed that on 07.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultan Puri and on that day he had gone to SGM Hospital Mortuary along with SHO & other police staff. According to the witness two dead bodies, one of Babloo and one of Lamboo were found. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared the inquest proceeding and dead bodies were identified by the witnesses and the dead body of Babloo was handed over after the postmortem whereas the dead body of Lamboo was again preserved as relatives of the Lamboo had not reached. According to him, the Autopsy Surgeon handed over the pullandas relating to both the deceased i.e. viscera, clothes, blood gauze St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 39 along with the sample seal which were then taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/A & Ex.PW26/B. Witness has further testified that thereafter they returned to C Block, Sultan Puri where the statement of Sagar @ Katla, Vinod and Neeraj were recorded and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and case property was deposited with the MHC(M). Witness has deposed that his statement was also recorded by the Investigating Officer of this case.
(58) According to the witness, on 08.04.2013, he joined the investigations of this case along with Ct. Bajrang, Ct. Baldev and Investigating Officer of this case i.e. Inspector K.S.N. Subuddhi. He has also deposed that at P1 Block, Sultan Puri they received an information that two accused namely Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu wanted in this case were sitting at C6 Block Park after which the Investigating Officer constituted a raiding party and on the way some public persons were asked to join the raiding team but none agreed and left without disclosing their names and addresses. Witness has further deposed that all the members of raiding party then reached at C6 Block Park, where both the accused namely Lakhan @ Anoop and Satish @ Sonu were found present standing at the corner of the park and on the pointing out of the secret informer, both of them were apprehended and were interrogated during which they admitted about their involvement. He has proved that both the accused were then arrested in this case. The accused Satish was arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/C, the accused Lakhan @ Anoop was St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 40 arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/D, personal search of accused Satish was conducted vide Ex.PW26/E and personal search of accused Lakhan was conducted vide Ex.PW26/F. Witness has further deposed that both the accused persons were thoroughly interrogated who made their disclosure statement, the disclosure statement of accused Satish is Ex.PW26/G and disclosure statement of accused Lakhan @ Anoop is Ex.PW26/H. He has also deposed that the accused persons disclosed the name of their third associate as Govind R/o C9 Block who was injured and was present in his house on which all the members of raiding party and the accused persons reached at House No. C9/104 from where the accused Govind was apprehended. According to the witness, the accused Govind disclosed that he had received injuries at the time of incident and was medically examined and treated in the Jeevan Hospital. Witness has further deposed that the accused Govind produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/I, which treatment papers are Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B. He has also deposed that thereafter the accused Govind was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/J and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/K. According to the witness the accused was thoroughly interrogated and he made disclosure statement which was reduced into writing which disclosure statement is Ex.PW26/L. Witness has testified that in his disclosure statement accused Govind disclosed that he could get the weapon of offence recover and also St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 41 could get the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident recover.
According to him, thereafter the accused Govind got recovered the said clothes which were lying on the floor of the inner room. He has also deposed that the said clothes were Tshirt, Capri & underwear which were converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo ExPW26/M. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they all members of raiding party along with accused persons reached at P1 Block Chowk where one Neeraj, son of the landlord of the place of incident was found, who identified all the three accused persons and disclosed that they were the same persons who had met him on 06.04.2013. He has also deposed that Neeraj was asked to join the investigation and thereafter the accused persons pointed out the place of incident. He has proved the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Satish which is Ex.PW16/B, pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Lakhan Ex.PW16/C and the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Govind which is Ex.PW16/D. Witness has further deposed that thereafter the accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block, Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala. He has also deposed that the knife was measured and thereafter the sketch of knife was prepared which is Ex.PW26/N after which the knife was converted into pullanda and sealed St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 42 with the seal of KSS and thereafter pullanda was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/6A. Witness has proved that recovery site plan was also prepared which is Ex.PW26/P and statement of relevant witnesses were also recorded in this regard.
(59) He has correctly identified all the three accused in the Court and also the case property i.e. the knife recovered at the instance of Govind which is Ex.P1; one Tshirt, one capri and one underwear as the clothes as the same which were recovered at the instance of Govind which clothes are Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively.
(60) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he along with Investigating OfficerInspector K.S.N. Subudhi left for SGM Hospital Mortuary at about 9.30 AM and a departure entry was made in this regard but he does not recollect the DD number. Witness has further deposed that they had collected six pullandas along with two sample seal from the Hospital and same were sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital Mortuary and two memos were prepared in this regard by the Investigating Officer. He has testified that they remained in the hospital till 3:00 PM and after the hospital, they went to P1 Block. Witness has further deposed that first they went to the house where the place of incident was situated and also met one tenant Kanta at the first floor of the said house but they did not record her statement. According to the witness, during investigation he only once visited the place of occurrence. Witness has also deposed that Sagar @ Katla and Vinod met them at their St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 43 respective houses in the evening hours. According to him, they remained in the same vicinity and made further investigation regarding the accused persons but did not record the statement of any person there and reached at Police Station at about 9.30 PM. He has further deposed that the secret informer had given them the information about the accused persons. According to the witness six police officials were present in the raiding party along with secret informer and secret informer pointed out towards accused persons from a distance of about ten steps while sitting in the police gypsy with them. He has also deposed that the park surrounded by houses and no one was called to join the investigation at the park and the accused persons did not try to run away.
(61) According to the witness, accused Satish was apprehended by Ct. Bajrang whereas accused Lakhan @ Anoop was apprehended by Ct. Baldev. He is unable to tell the name of that person to whom Investigating Officer Inspector KSN Subudhi had informed regarding the arrest of accused persons. He has further deposed that personal search memo and arrest memo were prepared in the park by the Investigating Officer and they remained in the park from about 2.30 PM to 3.45 PM. Witness has further deposed that they went to the house of accused Govind along with two accused persons and accused Govind found them lying on the bed in his house. He has testified that they remained at the house of accused Govind till 5.15 PM. According to the witness he does not have any idea whether any of the family members of accused Govind or any neighbour St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 44 came there. He has also deposed that arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused Govind was prepared by the Investigating Officer. He is unable to tell the name of that person to whom Investigating Officer Inspector KSN Subudhi had informed regarding the arrest of accused Govind. He has also deposed that thereafter all the accused persons were taken to P1 Block Chowk. He has admitted that P1 Block is surrounded by shops and houses but he is not aware whether the Investigating Officer had called any public person to join the investigation. The witness has further deposed that the pointing out memos were prepared in his handwriting but he is unable to tell the exact number of papers prepared by him. He has also admitted that the place from where the knife was recovered is an open area. According to him, his two statements were recorded in this case on 07.04.13 & 8.04.13. Witness has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by any of the accused persons in his presence or that nothing had been recovered at the instance of accused persons. He has also denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation at any point of time or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. The witness has further denied the suggestion that knife has been planted later on to strengthen this case by the Investigating Officer or that all the written work was done in the Police Station or that no place of occurrence was pointed out by any of the accused.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 45 (62) PW27 Ct. Satish Kumar has deposed that on 06.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and on that day he received DD No. 47A which is Ex.PW27/A from the Duty Officer HC Rakesh and on his directions he took the same to P1 Block, Sultanpuri where he met PSI Vikas Pawar and Ct. Balbir and handed over the DD to him. According to the witness, thereafter they all went to house No. P1/970, second floor where they found two dead bodies lying, one on the floor and one on the folding bed. On inquiry they came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which was lying on the floor was of one Lamboo and the inquiry also revealed that the owner of the house was one Neeraj. Witness has further deposed that Crime Team was also called by PSI Vikas who came to the spot and PSI Vikas made inquiries from public persons who had gathered at the spot regarding eye witnesses but no body came forward as an eye witness and hence PSI Vikas converted the DD No. 47A into rukka by making endorsement on the same and handed over the same to him with the directions to take the same to Police Station for registration of the FIR. Witness has also deposed that he handed over the rukka to HC Rakesh and after the registration of the case, the Duty Officer handed over to him the computer copy of the FIR and original rukka which he brought to the spot i.e. P1/970, Sultanpuri and handed over the same to SHO Police Station Sultanpuri who had also reached there. According to the witness, thereafter the SHO lifted the various exhibits from the spot i.e. blood samples from the gadda by cutting St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 46 the piece of the same and thereafter put the same into a plastic container and sealed with the seal of KSS. Witness has further deposed that the Investigating Officer also lifted blood samples from the floor and two more samples were lifted, details of which he is unable to tell. According to the witness a total number for four exhibits were lifted by the SHO who converted the same into four different pullandas and seal after use was handed over to PSI Vikas.
(63) Leading questions were put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has admitted that the pieces of floor containing the blood were broken and put in the plastic container which were sealed with the seal of KSS and earth control sample were also lifted and put in the container and thereafter sealed with the seal of KSS. (64) He has identified the case property i.e. one plastic container containing blood gauze which was lifted from the spot by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.P5; one plastic container containing piece of blood stained mattress/gadda which was lifted from the spot by the Investigating Officer by cutting the mattress/gadda which is Ex.P6; one plastic container containing earth control which was lifted from the spot by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.P7; one plastic container containing blood stained cemented floor which the Investigating Officer had lifted by breaking the floor which is Ex.P8.
(65) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that they left the Police Station at about 5:30 PM on receipt of DD St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 47 entry and reached the spot on a government motorcycle. According to the witness SI Vikas did not record statement of any person in his presence. Witness has also deposed that he started from the spot with the rukka at about 8:30 PM and reached back with the FIR at about 9:35 PM. He has admitted that his signatures are not present in any of the documents. He has denied the suggestion that no exhibits were lifted in his presence and that is why his signatures are not present on any of the documents including the seizure memo of the exhibits.
(66) PW28 PSI Vikas Pawar has deposed that on 06.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8PM. According to the witness on that day at around 6:35 PM he received information vide DD No. 47A dated 06.04.2013 through Ct. Satish regarding stabbing incident relating to two boys at gali No. 5, P1 Block when he was in the area along with Ct. Balbir. Witness has also deposed that when he reached there he came to know that the spot of the incident was house No. P1/970, Second Floor as there was large crowd at that place and he reached the second floor along with Ct. Balbir and Ct. Satish where they found dead bodies of two boys, one on the floor with head towards the north wall and the one on the folding bed with the head on the south directions towards the door. He has testified that on inquiry they came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which lying on the floor was of one Ramesh @ Lamboo both of whom were friends. According to the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 48 witness, he came to know that Babloo was residing on rent in the same room and Lamboo was a resident of Vijay Vihar. Witness has also deposed that he then immediately informed the Duty Officer about the situation of the same and called the Crime Team and made inquiries from public persons who had gathered at the spot regarding eye witnesses but nobody came forward as an eye witness. He has testified that meanwhile the SHO and the Crime Team also came to the spot and carried out the inspection and photography of the scene of crime. Witness has further deposed that thereafter both the dead bodies were got removed from the spot and sent to the mortuary of SGM hospital through Ct. Balbir and Ct. Komesh after which he converted the DD No.47A into rukka by making endorsement on the same which is Ex.PW28/A and handed over the same to Ct. Satish with the directions to take the same to Police Station for registration of the FIR. According to him, the SHO then prepared the site plan at his instance which site plan is Ex.PW28/B and meanwhile Ct. Satish returned to the spot along with computerized copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to the SHO. He has further deposed that thereafter SHO lifted the various exhibits from the spot i.e. the blood samples from the gadda by cutting the piece of the same and thereafter put the same into a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of KSS; blood sample from the floor with the help of gauze; blood sample from the floor by breaking the floor and earth control from the floor which he put in separate containers and sealed with the seal of KSS St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 49 which seal after use was handed over to him. According to the witness the Investigating Officer then prepared the seizure memo of the same vide Ex.PW28/C and he was then relived from the spot after his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
(67) He has identified the case property i.e. one plastic container containing blood gauze which was lifted from the spot by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.P5; one plastic container containing piece of blood stained mattress/gadda which was lifted from the spot by the Investigating Officer by cutting the mattress/gadda which is Ex.P6; one plastic container containing earth control which was lifted from the spot by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.P7; one plastic container containing blood stained cemented floor which the Investigating Officer had lifted by breaking the floor which is Ex.P8.
(68) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he was on another call in the area when he received the information of the present case. He is unable to tell the details of the said call but has clarified that he received this information at about 6:40 PM and within ten minutes reached the spot of the incident where the body was found. Witness has further deposed that there were around 300400 persons present at the spot. According to the witness, the gali where the house is situated is very wide. He has explained that he had seen that some people were watching from their houses whereas others were standing in St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 50 the gali. He has testified that he did not make a public announcement to find out if anybody had witnessed the incident but only made inquiries from the persons who were present inside the house. He is unable to tell who was the owner of the house in question and under whom the deceased Babloo was a tenant. He has clarified that nobody from the family of Babloo or Lamboo had come. According to the witness, later he came to know about the names of the deceased as Babloo and Lamboo from some relative of Babloo who was present at the spot but the details of the said relative he is unable to tell. Witness has further deposed that the said person had only told him that he was the uncle of Babloo but he is not aware the other details. According to him, he did not meet any person who could inform him about the probable cause of the incident or where the deceased were before the incident or after the incident. He has admitted that there was smell of alcohol present in the room where the body was found. The witness has also deposed that there were few empty glasses lying on the ground in the room but he could not see any bottle of alcohol. He has testified that he did not come to know from the local inquiry that both the deceased were diehard alcoholics and drug addicts and remained together. He has denied the suggestion that he is deliberately concealing these facts or that no exhibits were lifted in his presence or that all documentation was done while sitting in the Police Station or that he only signed the seizure memo later on the asking of the Investigating Officer. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 51 (69) PW29 Ct. Balbir Singh has deposed that on 06.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and on that day he was on Emergency Duty from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. According to the witness he was present with SI Vikas Pawar and was attending a call when they received information vide DD No. 47A dated 06.04.2013 through Ct. Satish regarding stabbing incident relating to two boys at gali No. 5, P1 Block. Witness has further deposed that when they reached there they came to know that the spot of the incident was house No. P1/970, Second Floor as there was large crowd of persons at that place and PCR officials had already reached the spot. According to the witness they reached the second floor where they found dead bodies of two boys, one on the floor with head towards the northern wall and one on the folding bed with the head on the southern direction towards the door. He has also deposed that on inquiry they came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which was lying on the floor was of one Ramesh @ Lamboo both of whom were friends. According to the witness they came to know that Babloo was residing on rent in the same room and Ramesh @ Lamboo was resident of Vijay Vihar. He has testified that SI Vikas then immediately informed the Duty Officer about the situation of the same and called the Crime Team. According to the witness he made inquiries from public persons who had gathered at the spot regarding eye witnesses but nobody came forward as eye witnesses. He has also deposed that in the meanwhile the SHO had also reached the spot and Crime Team came and St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 52 carried out the inspection and photography of the scene of crime. Witness has further deposed that thereafter on the directions of SI Vikas the bodies were shifted to the mortuary of the SGM Hospital by him and Ct. Komesh and an application was given to him by SI Vikas addressed to CMO mortuary for preserving the dead bodies which he handed over to the concerned CMO. He has also deposed that he and Ct. Komesh remained with the dead bodies and on the next day after the identification of the dead bodies by the relatives, the postmortem was conducted on the bodies of the deceased and the Autopsy Surgeon then handed over eight sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of the hospital along with sample seals to the Investigating Officer who then seized the same vide memos Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B. (70) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he was on another call in the area when he received the information of the present case but he is unable to tell the details of the said call. According to the witness, he received this information at about 6:30 PM and within three to four minutes reached the spot of the incident where the body was found. Witness has further deposed that there were around 400500 persons present at the spot and the gali where the house is situated is very wide. He has testified that some people were watching from their houses whereas others were standing in the gali and SI Vikas did not make a public announcement to find out if any body had witnessed the incident but only made inquiries from the tenants who were on the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 53 ground floor and other persons present inside the house. He is unable to tell who was the owner of the house in question and under whom the deceased Babloo was a tenant and states that nobody from the family of Babloo or Lamboo were present. Witness has further deposed that they came to know about the names of the deceased as Babloo and Lamboo from public persons who were present at the spot but he cannot tell their names. He has also deposed that he did not meet any person who could inform him about the probable cause of the incident or where the deceased were before the incident or after the incident. Witness has admitted that there was smell of alcohol present in the room where the body was found but he is unable to tell if any bottles or glasses of alcohol were also lying in the room. Witness has further deposed that he did not come to know from the local inquiry that both the deceased were diehard alcoholics and drug addicts and remained together. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately concealing these facts.
(71) PW30 Ct. Komesh Kumar has deposed that on 06.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and on that day he was on patrolling duty at P1 Block. According to the witness at about 6:307:00 PM he received a telephone call from Duty Officer who asked him to reach gali No. 5, P1 Block where two boys had been stabbed and when he reached gali No. P1 he saw large number of persons and SI Vikas, Ct. Balbir and Ct. Satish and SHO were already present in house No. P1/970, Second Floor. He has testified that he found dead bodies of two boys, one St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 54 on the floor with head towards the northern wall and one on the folding bed with the head on the southern directions towards the door and they came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which was lying on the floor of one was of Ramesh @ Lamboo both of whom were friends. Witness has further deposed that SI Vikas then called the Crime Team who inspected the spot and took photographs of the same. Thereafter on the directions of SI Vikas the bodies were shifted to the Mortuary of SGM hospital by him and Ct. Balbir and an application was given to him and Ct. Balbir by SI Vikas addressed to CMO mortuary for preserving the dead bodies which he handed over to the concerned CMO. He has also deposed that he and Ct. Balbir remained with the dead bodies and on the next day after the identification of the dead bodies by the relatives, the postmortem was conducted on the bodies of the deceased and the Autopsy Surgeon then handed over eight sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of the hospital along with sample seals containing the viscera petties, clothes and blood sample of both the deceased to the Investigating Officer who then seized the same vide memos Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B. (72) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he was on patrolling duty when he received information as he was the Beat Constable in the area and he reached the spot within ten minutes of receiving the information. According to the witness there were around 200300 persons present at the spot and the gali where the house is St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 55 situated is very wide. Witness has further deposed that the public persons standing at the spot disclosed the names of the deceased persons. According to the witness, he was not aware if any document relating to the identity of the deceased were found on their bodies or in the room where the bodies were found. He is unable to tell who was the owner of the house in question and under whom the deceased Babloo was a tenant. He has further deposed that nobody from the family of Babloo or Lamboo were present and he did not notice any smell of alcohol in the room where the bodies were found. Witness has further deposed that public persons were remarking that both the deceased were diehard alcoholics and drug addicts and remained together.
(73) PW31 Ct. Bajrang Bahadur has deposed that on 06.04.2013, he was posted at Police Station Sultan Puri and performing his duty in the Beat Area when at about 9.30 PM Duty Officer called him in the Police Station and handed over to him the four envelopes containing the copy of FIR of this case. According to the witness, he went to the house of Joint CP, NR and DCP outer District, Ld. MM concerned area, ACP Sultan Puri and delivered the copies of FIR and thereafter returned to the Police Station.
(74) Witness has further deposed that on 08.04.13, he joined the investigation of this case along with SI Mahender, Ct. Baldev and Investigating Officer of this case Inspector K.S.N. Subuddhi when they were at P1 Block, Sultan Puri they received an information that two St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 56 accused namely Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu wanted in this case were sitting in C6 Block Park. Witness has further deposed that the Investigating Officer constituted a raiding party with the help of above noted police officials and on the way some public persons were asked to join the raiding team but none agreed and left without giving their names and addresses. According to the witness all the members of the raiding party reached at C6 Block Park where both the accused persons were found standing at the corner of the park. He has also deposed that on the pointing of secret informer, both of them were apprehended and they were interrogated during which they admitted about their involvement after which they were arrested in this case and their personal search were conducted. He has proved the arrest memo of Satish which is Ex.PW26/C, arrest memo of Lakhan @ Anoop which is Ex.PW26/D, personal search memo of accused Satish which is Ex.PW26/E and personal search memo of accused Lakhan which is Ex.PW26/F. According to the witness both the accused persons were thoroughly interrogated who made their disclosure statements which were reduced into writing, disclosure statement of accused Satish which is Ex.PW26/G and disclosure statement of accused Lakhan @ Anoop is Ex.PW26/H. He has testified that the accused persons disclosed the name of their third associate as Govind resident of C9 Block who was injured and present in his house. According to the witness, thereafter all the members of raiding St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 57 party and the accused persons reached house No. C9/104, from where accused Govind was apprehended, who disclosed that he had received injuries at the time of incident and also disclosed that he was medically examined and treated in the Jeevan Hospital. Witness has further deposed that the accused Govind produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/I which treatment papers are Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B. He has also deposed that the accused Govind was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/J, personal search of accused Govind was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/K after which the accused was thoroughly interrogated and he made disclosure statement which was reduced into writing which is Ex.PW26/L. The witness has also deposed that in his disclosure statement accused disclosed that he could get the weapon of offence recover and also can get the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident recovered. He has further deposed that thereafter the accused got recovered the said clothes which were lying on the floor of the inner room which clothes were T shirt, Capri & underwear. The witness has proved that the said clothes were converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/M. According to the witness thereafter they all the member of raiding party along with accused persons reached at P1 Block Chowk where one Neeraj, son of the Landlord of the place of incident was found, St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 58 who identified all the three accused persons and stated that these were the same persons who had met him on 06.04.2013. Witness has further deposed that Neeraj was asked to join the investigation and thereafter the accused persons pointed out the place of incident. He has proved the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Satish which is Ex.PW16/B; pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Lakhan which is Ex.PW16/C and the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Govind which is Ex.PW16/C. Witness has further deposed that thereafter accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala. He has also proved that the said Knife was measured and thereafter sketch of knife was prepared which is Ex.PW26/N after which the knife was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter pullanda was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW16/A. Witness has further deposed that recovery site plan was also prepared which is Ex.PW26/P and statement of relevant witnesses were also recorded in this regard.
(75) The witness has correctly identified all the three accused in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. knife which was recovered at the instance of Govind which knife is Ex.P1; one Tshirt, one capri and one underwear which were recovered at the instance of Govind which clothes are Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P4.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 59 (76) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that he had tampered with the facts of the FIR. Witness has further deposed that he along with Investigating Officer Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi left for SGM hospital mortuary at about 10:30 AM and a departure entry was made in this regard but he does not recollect the DD number. Witness has further deposed that no pullanda was collected from the hospital in his presence and they remained in the hospital till 2 PM and after the hospital, they went to P1 Block. According to the witness first they went to the house of place of incident and they also met one tenant Kanta at the first floor of the said house but they had not recorded her statement and during investigations, he only once visited the place of occurrence.
(77) Witness has further deposed that Sagar @ Katla and Vinod met them at their respective houses in the morning time and no other person was found at the house of Sagar and Vinod except them. According to the witness they went to the house of Satish but his house was found locked and accused Satish was arrested from the park situated at C6, Sultanpuri. He has also deposed that secret informer pointed out towards the accused while standing in front of gate of park and the park surrounded by houses and shops and the accused persons did not try to run away. He does not remember who apprehended which accused and also does not remember to which relative information was given about the arrest of accused. According to the witness personal search memo and arrest memo were St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 60 prepared in the park by the Investigating Officer. He has also deposed that they remained in the park till 4:00 PM and went to the house of accused Govind along with two accused persons. Witness has further testified that accused Govind was found lying on a bed in his house and they remained at the house of accused Govind till 5:15 PM and outside the house, mother and younger brother of accused Govind were present. Witness has also deposed that no statement of the mother and brother of accused Govind was recorded. He has also deposed that arrest memo, personal search memo and seizure memo of clothes of accused Govind was prepared by the Investigating Officer. He is unable to tell the name of that person to whom Investigating Officer KSN Subudhi informed regarding the arrest of accused Govind. He has admitted that P1 Block is surrounded by shops and houses and states that the Investigating Officer called some public persons to join the investigations but they denied for the same. He has further admitted that the place from where the knife was recovered is an open area. According to the witness his statements were recorded in this case on 07.04.2013 and 08.04.2013. He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by any of the accused persons in his presence or that he had not joined the investigations at any point of time or that accused persons had been falsely implicated in this case or that knife has been planted later on to strengthen this case by the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that all the writing work was done in the Police Station or that no place of occurrence was pointed out by any of the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 61 accused.
(78) PW32 Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi has deposed that on 06.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri as SHO and on that day while he was on patrolling duty, at around 6:40 PM he received information from Control Room as well as from Duty Officer regarding the stabbing incident relating to two boys at gali No. 5, P1 Block. According to the witness when he reached there he came to know that the spot of the incident was house No. P1/970, Second Floor as there was large crowd at that place. He has also deposed that at the spot he found SI Vikas Pawar, Ct. Balbir and Ct. Komesh already present and he found dead bodies of two boys, one on the floor with head towards the northern wall and the one on the folding bed with the head on the southern direction towards the door. Witness has further testified that he also came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which was lying on the floor was of one Ramesh @ Lamboo both of whom were friends. According to the witness, he also came to know that Babloo was residing on rent in the same room whereas Lamboo was a resident of Vijay Vihar. He has also deposed that SI Vikas had already called the Crime Team who inspected the Scene of Crime and took photographs of the same. Witness has further deposed that during the local inquiries from public persons who had gathered at the spot regarding eye witnesses, nobody came forward as an eye witness and thereafter both the dead bodies were got removed from the spot and sent to the mortuary of SGM Hospital through St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 62 Ct. Balbir and Ct. Komesh. The witness has further testified that SI Vikas converted DD No.47A into rukka by making endorsement on the same and handed over the same to Ct. Satish with the directions to take the same to Police Station for registration of the FIR and he then prepared a site plan at his instance which site plan is Ex.PW28/B. Meanwhile Ct. Satish returned to the spot along with computerized copy of FIR which is Ex.PW3/B and original rukka which is Ex.PW28/A and handed over the same to him. He has further deposed that he then lifted the various exhibits from the spot i.e. the blood samples from the gadda by cutting the piece of the same and thereafter put the same into a plastic container and sealed with the seal of KSS; blood sample from the floor with the help of gauze; blood sample from the floor by breaking the floor and earth control from the floor which he put in separate containers and sealed with the seal of KSS which seal after use was handed over to SI Vikas. He has proved having prepared the seizure memo of the same vide Ex.PW28/C and having recorded the statement of SI Vikas and Ct. Satish and relieved them. (79) Witness has further deposed that he continued to conduct local inquiry regarding the incident and to find out the eye witnesses but nobody came forward and thereafter he returned to the Police Station and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. According to him, on 07.04.2013 he along with SI Mahender Partap went to SGM Hospital Mortuary along with other police staff and prepared the inquest proceeding. He has proved that the dead bodies were identified by their St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 63 relatives vide Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW22/A. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he handed over the inquest papers to the Autopsy Surgeon and postmortem was conducted on the body of both the victims. He has also proved that the dead body of Babloo was handed over to its relatives vide memo Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW21/B after the postmortem and the dead body of Lamboo was again preserved as relatives of the Lamboo had not reached the hospital. Witness has further deposed that Autopsy Surgeon handed over the pullandas related to both the deceased i.e. viscera, clothes, blood gauze along with the sample seal and same were taken into possession vide memos Ex.PW26/A & Ex.PW26/B. (80) Witness has further deposed that thereafter they returned to C Block, Sultan Puri where statement of Sagar @ Katla and Vinod were recorded and thereafter they went to P1 Block where they met Neeraj and recorded his statement and then returned to the Police Station where the case property was deposited with the MHC(M). He has testified that on 08.04.2013, he along with SI Mahender Partap, Ct. Bajrang, Ct. Baldev and his driver and Operator went in search of accused at CBlock, Sultanpuri and then they went to P1 Block where they received information that two accused namely Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu wanted in this case were sitting in C6 Block Park. Witness has testified that he then constituted a raiding party and on the way some public persons were asked to join the raiding team but none agreed and left without giving St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 64 their names and addresses. He has deposed that thereafter all the members of raiding party reached at C6 Block Park, where both the accused Lakhan @ Anoop and Satish @ Sonu were found present standing at the corner of the park. Witness has further testified that on the pointing of secret informer, both the accused were apprehended and they were interrogated during which they admitted about his involvement after which they were arrested in this case and their personal search were conducted. He has proved the arrest memo of Satish which is Ex.PW26/C, arrest memo of Lakhan @ Anoop which is Ex.PW26/D, personal search memo of accused which Satish is Ex.PW26/E and personal search memo of accused Lakhan which is Ex.PW26/F. Witness has further deposed that both the accused persons were thoroughly interrogated who made their disclosure statement and the same was reduced into writing, the disclosure statement of accused Satish is Ex.PW26/G and disclosure statement of accused Lakhan @ Anoop is Ex.PW26/H. Witness has further deposed that during the interrogation both the accused Lakhan and Satish disclosed the name of their third associate as Govind R/o House No. 104, C9 Block who was injured in the incident after he jumped from the roof was present in his house. According to the witness thereafter all the members of raiding party and the accused persons reached at the house C9/104, from where accused Govind was apprehended, who disclosed that he had received injuries at the time of incident and also disclosed that he was St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 65 medically examined and treated in the Jeevan Hospital. Witness has further deposed that the accused Govind produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/I which treatment papers are Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B. The witness has proved that the accused Govind was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/J, personal search of accused Govind was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/K and the accused was thoroughly interrogated after which he made a disclosure statement which was reduced into writing vide Ex.PW26/L. Witness has testified that in his disclosure statement the accused Govind disclosed that he could get the weapon of offence recovered and could also get recovered the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident. Thereafter the accused Govind got recovered the said clothes which were lying on the floor of the inner room. According to the witness the clothes were Tshirt, Capri & underwear and the same were converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/M. He has further deposed that thereafter they all the member of raiding party along with accused persons reached at P1 Block Chowk where one Neeraj, son of the Landlord of the place of incident was found, who identified all the three accused persons namely Lakhan, Satish and Govind and stated that these were the same persons who had met him on 06.04.2013. According to the witness Neeraj was asked to join the investigations and St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 66 thereafter the accused persons took them to P1/970 and pointed out the place of incident i.e. room on the second floor. He has proved that the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Satish which is Ex.PW16/B; pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Lakhan which is Ex.PW16/C and the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Govind Ex.PW16/D. He has also deposed that thereafter the accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala which Knife was measured and thereafter sketch of knife was prepared vide Ex.PW26/N. According to the witness the knife was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter the pullanda was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW/16A and the site plan of spot of recovery was prepared which is Ex.PW26/P. Witness has further deposed that while they were still at ganda nala, one child by the name of Gaurav came to the spot as many public persons had gathered and identified Govind as the person who was having injuries on both his legs and had requested him for using his mobile to call somebody from his family to pick him up and he recorded the statement of the child Gaurav and relieved him. Witness has further deposed that the accused were then sent to SGM hospital and their medical examination were got conducted and then they returned to the Police Station from where intimation regarding the arrest of the accused were given to their family members and St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 67 their signatures were taken on the arrest memos and the case property was deposited in the malkahana. According to the witness statement of relevant police witnesses and Neeraj were recorded after which they were relieved. Witness has further deposed that on the next day all the three accused were produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate and they were remanded to Judicial Custody.
(81) The witness has also deposed that on 18.04.2013 he moved an application for recording the statements of Sagar @ Katla and Vinod under Section 164 Cr. P.C. which application is Ex.PX2 and Ex.PX6 and on 20.04.2013 their statements were recorded by the Ld. MM vide proceedings Ex.PX3, Ex.PX4 and Ex.PX7. He has testified that the 100 number call had been made by one Vijay and he recorded his statement and also collected the customer application forms and call details records of Vijay from which 100 number call was made and Babli whose phone was used by accused Govind for making a call. According to the witness, he send the various exhibits to FSL Rohini for examination through constables and their statements were recorded and he also got prepared the scaled site plan from SI Mahesh draftsman recorded his statement and relieved him and also recorded the statements of all the remaining witnesses. He has further deposed that on 01.07.2013 he was transferred from the Police Station Sultanpuri and he handed over the case file to MHC(R). (82) He has correctly identified the Govind, Lakhan and Satish in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. knife which was St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 68 recovered at the instance of Govind which is Ex.P1; one Tshirt, one capri and one underwear which were recovered at the instance of Govind which clothes are Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P4.; one plastic container containing blood gauze which was lifted from the spot which is Ex.P5; one plastic container containing piece of blood stained mattress/ gadda was lifted from the spot which is Ex.P6; one plastic container containing earth control was lifted from the spot which is Ex.P7 and one plastic container containing blood stained cemented floor which he had lifted by breaking the floor which is Ex.P8.
(83) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he was on patrolling duty in the area when he received the information of the present case but he is unable to tell the details. Witness has further deposed that he received this information at about 6:40 PM and within fifteen minutes reached the spot of the incident where the body was found and there were around 150200 persons present at the spot and has voluntarily explained that the people were present outside in the gali. Witness has further deposed that the gali where the house is situated is not very wide and Neeraj was the owner of the house in question and under whom the deceased Babloo was a tenant. According to the witness nobody from the family of Babloo or Lamboo had come initially but later on they had come and identified the bodies. He has also deposed that he came to know about the names of the deceased as Babloo and Lamboo from one of St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 69 the relatives of Babloo who was present at the spot but the details of the said relative he is unable to tell and has voluntarily explained that the said person had only told him that he was the distinct relation of Babloo. According to him, he did not meet any eye witness or person who could inform him about the probable cause of the incident or where the deceased were before the incident or after the incident. He has admitted that there was smell of alcohol present in the room where the bodies was found and has voluntarily added that nothing like alcohol bottle or glasses was found near the bodies. According to the witness he came to know from the local inquiry that both the deceased were diehard alcoholics and drug addicts and remained together. He has denied the suggestion that he did not lift any exhibit or that all documentation was done while sitting in the Police Station. The witness has further testified that he left for SGM Hospital mortuary at about 9.30 AM and departure entry was made only for the purpose investigation but he is unable to tell the DD Number. According to the witness after the postmortem eight pullandas were handed over to him and since they were sealed, he is unable to tell their contents and they remained in the hospital till 2.303.00PM. Witness has further deposed that after going to the P1 Block they first reached the house of Neeraj where they met him and there were some other tenants in the house but he only recorded the statement of Neeraj and during investigation he visited the place of occurrence on three occasions.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 70 (84) He has also deposed that Sagar @ Katla and Vinod met them at their respective houses and it was in the morning when he met them and he recorded their statement immediately and he did not record any other statement except that of Sagar and Vinod. Witness has further deposed that secret informer had met him after 2.00 PM and he did not share this information to his senior officers and also did not record this information in writing because there was no time. He is unable to tell the name of any person who refused to join the raiding party and states that he did not give any notice to public persons for not joining the investigation and has voluntarily explained that there was no time for that. Witness has further deposed that the secret informer remained with them till confirmation of the identity of the accused i.e. approximately 2:40 PM and secret informer pointed out towards accused persons at the distance of about 2025 feet. According to the witness the secret informer was with him in the park when he pointed out towards accused. Witness has admitted that the park surrounded by houses and has explained that nobody was called from the house to join the investigation at the park and accused persons did not try to resist or run away when they apprehended them.
(85) Witness has further deposed that accused Satish was apprehended by Ct. Bajrang whereas accused Lakhan @ Anoop was apprehended by Ct. Baldev and the information of arrest of both accused Satish and Lakhan were given to their fathers. According to the witness all the documents were prepared by him while sitting in the park where they St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 71 remained upto approximately 4.00PM. He has also deposed that they went to the house of accused Govind along with two accused persons where they reached 4.05PM and has voluntarily added that his house is hardly five minutes from the park. Witness has further deposed that accused Govind was lying on a cot and they remained at the house of accused Govind till 5.15 PM and the mother of Govind was present in the house. According to the witness his real cousin brother was informed about his arrest and he had requested neighbours to join the proceedings but none agreed and has voluntarily explained that most of the neighbours were ladies with no male member in the house as it was evening time and they refused. He has further deposed that all documents relating to arrest of Govind were prepared at his house. He has admitted that P1 Block is surrounded by shops and houses. He has also deposed that he had tried to call the resident of the area and those who had collected at the time of proceedings to join the same but none agreed but he did not give them any notice for non joining. According to the witness some documents were prepared in the handwriting of SI Mahender Pratap whereas personal search memo, conviction slip and arrest memo were in his handwriting. He has admitted that the place from where the knife was recovered is an open area. He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by any of the accused namely Govind, Lakhan and Satish or that he recorded the same of his own only to work out the present case. Witness has denied the suggestion that nothing has been recovered at the instance of accused St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 72 persons or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. He has also denied the suggestion that knife has been planted later on to strengthen this case by him or that all the written work was done in the Police Station or that no place of occurrence was pointed out by any of the accused. He has admitted that in the local inquiry he came to know that deceased Babloo and Lamboo were pick pockets and were involved in petty offences but he could not get their involvements confirmed on account of his transfer.
(86) PW33 Inspector Satya Prakash has deposed that he had joined the Police Station Sultanpuri on 24.06.2013 and the case file received by him for further investigations from MHC(R). According to the witness investigations in this case was almost complete and after completion of the investigation, the case file was sent for judicial verdict and he had collected the FSL report during trial and same were produced in the court through supplementary challan. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in this regard.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(87) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. All the accused St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 73 Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and no recovery was made by them or their instance. According to the accused, all the evidence in this matter is false and fabricated and planted later on to strengthen this case. They have further stated that police officials wanted to save the real culprits and that is why the present case has been foisted upon them. However, the accused have not examined any witness in their defence.
FINDINGS:
(88) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
Public Witnesses:
1 Vinod (PW9) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 06.04.13 he was smoking in the park
situated in the C6, Sultan Puri area along with Sagar at about 12.30 noon.
2. That he saw that a quarrel was going on between Lamboo and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan and Soda in other group during which St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 74 Lamboo slapped Govind.
3. That he and Sagar pacified the matter.
4. That Govind was having a knife which was snatched by Lamboo after which Lamboo and Babloo left the park.
5. That Govind was using abusive language against Lamboo and Babloo and then Govind followed Lamboo and returned back with his knife.
6. That Govind was uttering to see them and thereafter they left the spot.
7. That his statement was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate which is Ex.PX4 bearing his signature at point A. He has correctly identified the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan & Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda, in the court.
2 Sagar (PW12) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 06.04.2013 he was smoking in the park situated in the C6, Sultan Puri area along with Vinod at about 12.30 noon.
2. That he saw that a quarrel was going on between Lamboo and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan and Soda in other group during which Lamboo slapped Govind.
3. That he and Vinod pacified the matter and he saw that Govind was having a knife which was snatched by Lamboo (deceased).
4. That Lamboo and Babloo thereafter left the park along with the knife.
5. That Govind was using abusive language against Lamboo and Babloo after which Govind followed Lamboo and returned back with his knife.
6. That Govind was using abusive language and threatened to see them and also uttered "Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga".
7. That thereafter they left the spot. He has proved that his statement was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate which is Ex.PX6.St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 75
8. That Govind was under the influence of intoxicating pills and was giving threats.
He has correctly identified accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan & Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda, in the Court.
3 Neeraj (PW16) He is the landlord of the deceased Babloo who has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 06.04.13 in the noon time when he was about to go to his inlaws house, he saw that two boys namely Govind and Lakhan reached outside his house and at that time he was in the balcony.
2. That those boys i.e. Govind and Lakhan were calling Lamboo on which he (witness) informed them that no person by the name of Lamboo was residing there after which they left and thereafter he (witness) also left his house and went to his inlaws house at Uttam Nagar.
3. That Lamboo was the friend of Babloo and used to visit the house of Babloo who was living in their house on rent.
4. That his house No. is P1/970 and Babloo was residing on the third floor.
5. That he had gone to his inlaws house on his motorcycle at about 11:00 AM and those two boys were also calling Babloo.
6. That Govind and Lakhan remained in the gali but he had left for his inlaws house.
7. That at about 6:007:00 PM his grandmother telephoned him about the murder of Lamboo and Babloo and he then reached back there.
8. That police had verified about the incident from him on 08.04.13 when the police officials came his house in a police gypsy.
9. That at that time Govind and Lakhan were in the police vehicle and they were shown to him.
10. That he identified them and stated before police that those were the same boys who were calling Lamboo and Babloo on 06.04.13.St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 76
11. That the accused Govind led police party at a nala where he had thrown the knife used in the commission of offence and Govind recovered a knife from the dried nala.
12. That the knife was blood stained when it was recovered and Govind also disclosed about the involvement of Sonu in this crime.
13. That the accused Sonu disclosed in his presence that Govind and Lakhan went to upstairs in house no. P1/970, Sultan Puri whereas he remained outside the house.
14. That Sonu also disclosed that after committing the incident, Lakhan & Govind came down and informed him how they had committed the murder.
15. That the police had also prepared the sketch of knife.
16. That he had also put his signatures on some documents but he is unable to tell the details of the document being hardly 6th pass.
17. That the police had prepared a cloth pullanda of the knife and thereafter the pullanda was put in polythene.
The witness has correctly identified the accused Govind, Lakhan and Sonu in the Court and has also identified the knife having some brown stains on the blades as the same which was recovered at the instance of accused Govind from the dried nala, which is Ex.P1.
Further, he has proved the following aspects:
1. That when he was going to his inlaws house, he had seen Govind, Lakhan and Sonu @ Soda talking to each other at the corner of the gali and he advised them not to call anyone like this.
2. That the accused persons were taken to the spot and they also identified the place where they had committed the offence and also pointed out their positions.
3. That police had prepared memos in this regard which were signed by him and Sonu disclosed that St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 77 after committing the incident, Govind jumped the house and had sustained injuries in his leg.
4. That when he had seen the Govind in police vehicle he was having injuries in both the legs (iske dono paon toote hue the and chot thi).
5. That the seizure memo of knife which is Ex.PW16/A, pointing out memo prepared at the instance of Satish @ Sonu @ Soda which is Ex.PW16/B, pointing out memo prepared at the instance of Lakhan which is Ex.PW16/C and the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Govind which is Ex.PW16/D which bears his signature at point A.
6. That police had recorded his statement on 07.04.13 and asked him about who used to visit the premises of Babloo and also other persons and narrated this fact to the police.
4 Rakesh (PW19) He is the elder brother of the deceased Babloo who has deposed as under:
1. That he is residing at House No. P1/804, Sultanpuri, Delhi along with his family and Babloo was his younger brother who used to reside at P1/970, Sultanpuri i.e. near his house with his parents.
2. That on 06.04.2013 he was in the factory when at around 6:00 PM he received information from his family that his brother Babloo had been murdered and he was asked to rush home, on which he immediately rushed to his house where the dead body of his brother was lying.
3. That on the next day i.e. 07.04.2013 he went to the mortuary of SGM Hospital along with his Jija Rohan Lal where he identified the dead body of his brother vide memo Ex.PW19/A.
4. That after the postmortem the dead body of Babloo was handed over to him and he received the same vide Ex.PW19/B. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 78 5 Roshan Lal He is the brother in law (Jija) of deceased Babloo and has (PW20) proved the following aspects:
1. That he is residing at house No. 17, Pragya Vihar, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP along with his family and his younger brother in law Babloo used to reside at P1/970, Sultanpuri with his parents.
2. That on 06.04.2013 he received information regarding the death of his brother in law Babloo and on the next day i.e. 07.04.2013 he went to the Mortuary of SGM Hospital along with his brother in law Rakesh where he identified the dead body of his younger brother in law namely Babloo vide memo Ex.PW20/A.
3. That after postmortem the dead body of Babloo was handed over to Rakesh and they received the same vide memo Ex.PW19/B. 6 Kailash (PW21) He is the brother in law (Jija) of deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo and has proved the following aspects:
1. That he is residing at L81, Vijay Vihar PhaseII, Delhi along with his family and Lamboo was his brother in law/ sala and used to reside at C443, Avantika, Sector1, Rohini, Delhi.
2. That on 07.04.2013 he received information regarding the death of his brother in law Lamboo on which he went to Police Station Sultanpuri from where he along with his sister in law/ sali Poonam went to SGM Hospital Mortuary where he identified the dead body of his brother in law Lamboo vide memo Ex.PW21/A.
3. That after the postmortem he received the dead body of his brother in law Lamboo vide memo Ex.PW21/B. 7 Ms. Poonam She is the sister of the deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo and Singh (PW22) has proved the following aspects:
1. That she is residing at C443, Avantika, Sector1, Rohini, Delhi along with her family and Lamboo was her elder brother.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 79
2. That on 07.04.2013 she received information regarding the death of her elder brother Lamboo on which she went to Police Station Sultanpuri along with her brother in law Kailash from where they went to SGM Hospital Mortuary where she identified the dead body of her elder brother Lamboo vide memo Ex.PW22/A.
3. That after the postmortem they received the dead body of her elder brother Lamboo vide memo Ex.PW21/B.
8. Vijay (PW23) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is residing at house No. P1/327, Sultanpuri, Jhandewalan Park along with his family and is a safai karamchari in Ring Road Mall, Rohini.
2. That it was sixth of month he does not recollect, around 67 months ago, he was standing in the gali near his house when one lady came to the gali and he noticed that she was crying and was running here and there.
3. That there was a lot of crowd in the gali and she requested him for his mobile and told him that she wanted to make a 100 number call as there was murder of two persons who had been stabbed.
4. That on this he gave her his mobile with No. 8130317255 from where she made a 100 number call and then returned the mobile to him whereas he remained in the gali for sometime and then returned to his house.
5. That his statement was recorded by the police after twothree days.
9. Master Gaurav He is a child aged about 14 years, who has deposed on the Kumar (PW24) following aspects:
1. That he is residing at Jhuggie No.P1/84, Sultanpuri, Delhi along with his family and is studying in class 10th of Swatantar Bharat Inter College, Salarpur, Hapur, UP.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 80
2. That his mother, sister Pooja and brother Rajeev @ Raju used to stay in Delhi whereas he resides in the village along with his father.
3. That on 08.04.2013 the police had come to him and made inquiries on which he informed them that on 06.04.2013 one person was sitting in front of their house on chabutra and both his legs were injured (the witness has pointed out towards the accused Govind in the Court and identified him as the said person).
4. That he saw the said person rubbing his feet and crying in pain (pehle hath se mal rahe thai aur phir dard se karrarahe thai) and the said person (i.e. Govind as pointed out by the witness) was asking if anybody was having a phone as he wanted to make a call to his house so that some could come and pick him up.
5. That his mother Smt. Babli Devi used to leave her mobile phone bearing No. 8743977286 at home for emergency purposes and he gave her mobile phone to the said person i.e. Govind for making a call on which he made a call to somebody and after some time two persons came and lifted him and took him away.
10. Smt. Babli She is the mother of Child Witness Gaurav who has (PW25) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That she is residing at P1/84, Sultanpuri, Delhi along with her family and is working in a factory.
2. That her husband and her son Gaurav reside in the village where her husband is working and her son is studying whereas she is residing at Sultanpuri with her daughter and her other son Raju.
3. That she is an illiterate lady and is maintaining a mobile phone bearing No. 8743977286.
4. That her son Gaurav had come from the village but she does not recollect the date.
5. That her son Gaurav had given her mobile phone which she used to leave at home for the use of the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 81 family, to one boy who was having injuries on his legs as he wanted to call somebody from his family to pick him up.
6. That police made inquiries from her and she had informed this fact to them.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
11 Dr. Ashutosh This witness has proved the following aspects:
Gupta (PW13) 1. That on 06.04.2013 he was working as Orthopedics Surgeon at Jeevan Charitable Hospital and on that day at about 7:30 PM patient namely Govind, 24 years male was brought by mother namely Santosh brother namely Bunty and another brother namely Ram Kishan with alleged history of fall from height.
2. That he medically examined the above said patient in OPD vide OPD Receipt Ex.PW13/A bearing his signatures at point A.
3. That after examination he advised XRay of both ankles and applied the plaster below knee on both legs as the patient had fracture in both heel bones.
4. That on 09.04.2013 as per directions of police officials he had given the copy of his DMC (Delhi Medical Council) Registration Certificate which is Ex.PW13/B to the police official.
12. Dr. Manoj Both these witnesses have proved that on 07.04.2013 they Dhingra (PW17) conducted the postmortem on the body of Babloo S/o and Dr. Vivek Chandan Singh, aged 32 years male, which body was sent Rawat (PW18) by Inspector Subudhi from Police Station Sultanpuri with alleged history of found dead at his home on 06.04.2013 at about 6:30 PM and there was history of chronic alcoholism. According to the witnesses, on external examination following injuries were found:
1. Stab wound 4cm x 1.3cm cavity deep (up to pancreas and aorta) wedge shaped lying obliquely in epigastrium area, 0.5cm lateral to midline and
5.5cm down to xiphisternum.
2. Incised wound 2cm x 0.5x0.3cm, seen over mid St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 82 lateral aspect of dorsum of left hand.
3. Incised wound 1.5cm x 0.3 x 0.3cm over mid lateral border of left palm.
Both the witnesses have proved that on internal examination of Abdomen Peritoneum, Peritoneal cavity : 2.8 litre of fluid blood was seen in retroperitoneal space and in peritoneal cavity; there was Laceration of pancreas with tearing of descending aorta just behind the stomach; Stomach and its contents: Partially masticated food particles mixed with fluid blood were present and there was perforation of 3 x 1cm seen over anterior and posterior walls of pylorus. They have proved having opined that the cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for abdominal structures under injury No. 1 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, all injuries are caused by sharp, single edged weapon and time since death was within six hours prior to preservation in SGMH Mortuary. They have proved the detailed postmortem report in this regard which is Ex.PW17/A (running into four pages) bearing the signature of Dr. Manoj Dhingra at point A and that of Dr. Vivek Rawat at point B on each page.
Further, both these witnesses i.e. Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW17) and Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW18) have further proved that on 07.04.2013 they also conducted the postmortem on the body of Ramesh S/o Ram Parkash, aged 35 years male which body was sent by Inspector Subudhi of Police Station Sultanpuri with alleged history of found dead at his friend's home on 06.04.2013 at about 6:30 PM and there was history of chronic alcoholism. They have proved that on external examination following injuries were found:
1. Stab wound 4cm x 1.3cm cavity deep (up to pancreas and aorta) wedge shaped lying obliquely in epigastrium area, 0.5cm lateral to midline and 5.5cm down to xiphisternum with evisceration of loop of small intestine through the wound.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 83
2. Incised wound 3cm x 1.2 cavity deep wedged shaped situated 3.5cm inferolateral to injury No. 1.
3. Abrasion reddish colored 4cm x 3cm over left knee.
According to the witnesses on internal examination of Abdomen Peritoneum, Peritoneal cavity :
2.8 liter of fluid blood was seen in retroperitoneal space and in peritoneal cavity; there was Laceration of pancreas with tearing of descending aorta just behind the stomach;
Stomach and its contents: Partially masticated food particles mixed with fluid blood were seen and there was perforation 3 x 1cm seen over anterior and posterior walls of pylorus. They have proved having opined that the cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for abdominal structures under injury No. 1 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature; all injuries were caused by sharp, single edged weapon and the time since death was within six hours prior to preservation in SGMH Mortuary. They have proved the detailed postmortem report in this regard which is Ex.PW17/B (running into four pages) bearing the signatures of Dr. Manoj Dhingra at point A and that of Dr. Vivek Rawat at point B on each page.
Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW17) has also proved the following aspects:
1. That on 15.04.2013 he received an application along with a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of KSN from SHO Police Station Sultanpuri for opinion on the weapon of offence which application is Ex.PW17/C.
2. That after opening the parcel it found to contain a knife and after going through the Postmortem Reports No. 295/13 and 296/13 he was of the opinion that the injury mentioned on the Postmortem Report is possible by this knife or similar such weapon which opinion is Ex.PW17/D bearing his signatures at point A also showing the sketch of the knife at point X. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 84 He has identified the knife in the Court as the same which was examined by him which knife is Ex.P1. It has been observed by this Court that the sketch was matching with the knife Ex.P1.
Forensic Evidence:
13. Sh. Indresh He is the Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) who has Kumar Mishra deposed on the following aspects:
(PW14) 1. That on 17.04.2013 ten sealed parcels were received in their office and same were assigned to him for biological and serological examination and he found that the seals were intact as per the specimen seal.
2. That after examination he gave the Biological Report which is Ex.PW14/A according to which blood was detected on exhibits 1(dirty gauze cloth piece described as blood of deceased), exhibit 2 (piece of cloth having brown stains), exhibit 4 (cemented material having light brown stains described as blooded earth), exhibit 5a(one jacket having brown stains), exhibit 5b (one shirt having brown stains), exhibit 5c(one banian having brown stains), 5d (pants with belt having brown stains), 5e(underwear having dark brown stains),exhibit 6a (one banian having brown stains), exhibit 6b (one underwear having dark brown stains), exhibit 7 (gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood gauze piece of the deceased), 8 (gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood gauze piece of the deceased) and exhibit 9a (one Tshirt having light brown stains).
3. That blood could not be detected on exhibit 3 (cemented material described as earth control), exhibit 9b (one half pant), exhibit 9c (one underwear) and exhibit 10 (one knife having rusty stains).
4. That he had also examined the exhibits serologically and prepared the Serological Report in this regard which is Ex.PW14/B according to St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 85 which Human Blood of AB group was detected on exhibit 1 (gauze cloth piece), exhibit 5a (jacket), exhibit 5b (shirt), exhibit 5c (banian), exhibit 7 (gauze cloth piece) and exhibit 8 (gauze cloth piece).
5. That after examination the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of IKM FSL Delhi.
14. Sh. Santosh This witness has proved the following aspects:
Tripathi (PW15) 1. That on 17.4.2013 two sealed parcels were received in their office and same were marked to Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo for examination and after examination Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo gave his detailed examination report which is Ex.PW15/A.
2. That according to Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo exhibit 1A (stomach pieces of small intestine with contents kept in a jar), exhibit 1B(pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a jar), exhibit 1C (blood sample volume 200 ml. approx. kept in a jar), exhibit 2A (stomach pieces of small intestine with contents, kept in a jar), exhibit 2B (pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a jar) and exhibit 2C (blood sample, volume 200ml. Approx. kept in a jar) were found to contain ethyl alcohol.
3. That Exhibits 1C (blood sample, volume 200ml.
Approx. kept in a jar) and exhibit 2C (blood sample, volume 200ml. Approx. kept in a jar) were found to contain ethyl alcohol 82.4mg and 47.4 mg per 100 ml of blood respectively.
4. That Exhibits 1D (preservative sample, common salt solid, kept in a small container) and 2D(preservative sample, common salt solid, kept in a container) gave negative test for common poisons.
5. That after examination the remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seals of FSL LRS DELHI.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that as per the available literature any person having around 82% ethyl alcohol present in the blood stream would lead to inebriated state. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 86 Nodal Officers:
15. Sh. M.N. Vijayan He is the Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices who has (PW10) proved that mobile No. 9266495006 has been issued in the name of Govind S/o Rajender Parkash, R/o House No. 104, Block C9, Sultanpuri, New Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW10/A, copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW10/B; Call details from the period 05.04.2013 to 07.04.2013 which are Ex.PW10/C (running into two pages); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW10/D (running into one page) and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW10/E.
16. Sh. Pawan Singh He is the Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd. has proved (PW11) that mobile No. 8743977286 has been issued in the name of Babli W/o Bhup Singh R/o House No. 84, Block P1, Sultanpuri, New Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW11/A, copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW11/B; Call details from the period 05.04.2013 to 07.04.2013 which are Ex.PW11/C (running into one page); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW11/D (running into 49 pages) and Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW11/E. Police/ Official Witnesses:
17. Inspector Mahesh He is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has (PW1) proved having visited the spot of incident and having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW1/A.
18. HC Ganga Saran He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has proved (PW2) entry in register No. 19 vide Mud No. 9924, copy of which is Ex.PW2/A; entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 190/21/13 and 191/21/13, copies of which are Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively; receipt of FSL which are Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E respectively; entry in register No. 19 vide entry No. 9926 copy of which is Ex.PW2/F (running into two pages) and entry No. 9928 copy of which is Ex.PW2/G (running into two pages).
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 87
19. HC Rakesh He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has Kumar (PW3) proved having lodged DD No. 49A copy of which is Ex.PW3/A, copy of FIR which is Ex.PW3/B and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW3/C.
20. Ct. Karan Singh He is a formal witness being the PCR official who has (PW4) proved the PCR Form which is Ex.PW4/A.
21. Ct. Vikramaditya He is also a formal witness who has proved entry in (PW5) register No. 21 vide RC No. 190/21 and 191/21 copies of which are Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively and receipt of FSL which are Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E.
22. Ct. Narender He is also a formal witness being the Computer Operator (PW6) who has proved having recorded the FIR in the computer copy of which FIR which is Ex.PW3/B.
23. ASI Ram Kumar He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who (PW7) has proved having visited the spot of the incident and having inspected the same after which he prepared the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW7/A.
24. Ct. Rajbir (PW8) He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has proved the photographs of the scene of crime which are Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A7 and negatives of the same are collectively Ex.PW8/B.
25. SI Mahender This witness has proved the following aspects:
Pratap (PW26) 1. That on 07.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultan Puri and on that day he had gone to SGM Hospital Mortuary along with SHO & other police staff.
2. That two dead bodies, one of Babloo and one of Lamboo were found.
3. That Investigating Officer prepared the inquest proceeding and dead bodies were identified by the witnesses and the dead body of Babloo was handed over after the postmortem whereas the dead body of Lamboo was again preserved as relatives of the Lamboo had not reached.
4. That the Autopsy Surgeon handed over the pullandas relating to both the deceased i.e. viscera, St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 88 clothes, blood gauze along with the sample seal which were then taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/A & Ex.PW26/B.
5. That thereafter they returned to C Block, Sultan Puri where the statement of Sagar @ Katla, Vinod and Neeraj were recorded and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and case property was deposited with the MHC(M).
6. That on 08.04.2013, he joined the investigations of this case along with Ct. Bajrang, Ct. Baldev and Investigating Officer of this case i.e. Inspector K.S.N. Subuddhi.
7. That at P1 Block, Sultan Puri they received an information that two accused namely Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu wanted in this case were sitting at C6 Block Park after which the Investigating Officer constituted a raiding party and on the way some public persons were asked to join the raiding team but none agreed and left without disclosing their names and addresses.
8. That all the members of raiding party then reached at C6 Block Park, where both the accused namely Lakhan @ Anoop and Satish @ Sonu were found present standing at the corner of the park and on the pointing out of the secret informer, both of them were apprehended and were interrogated during which they admitted about their involvement.
9. That the accused Satish was arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/C, the accused Lakhan @ Anoop was arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/D, personal search of accused Satish was conducted vide Ex.PW26/E and personal search of accused Lakhan was conducted vide Ex.PW26/F.
10. That both the accused persons were thoroughly interrogated who made their disclosure statement, the disclosure statement of accused Satish is Ex.PW26/G and disclosure statement of accused Lakhan @ Anoop is Ex.PW26/H. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 89
11. That the accused persons disclosed the name of their third associate as Govind R/o C9 Block who was injured and was present in his house on which all the members of raiding party and the accused persons reached at House No. C9/104 from where the accused Govind was apprehended.
12. That the accused Govind disclosed that he had received injuries at the time of incident and was medically examined and treated in the Jeevan Hospital.
13. That the accused Govind produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/I, which treatment papers are Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B.
14. That thereafter the accused Govind was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/J and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/K.
15. That the accused was thoroughly interrogated and he made disclosure statement which was reduced into writing which disclosure statement is Ex.PW26/L.
16. That in his disclosure statement accused Govind disclosed that he could get the weapon of offence recover and also could get the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident recover.
17. That thereafter the accused Govind got recovered the said clothes which were lying on the floor of the inner room.
18. That the said clothes i.e. Tshirt, Capri & underwear were converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo ExPW26/M.
19. That thereafter all the members of raiding party along with accused persons reached at P1 Block Chowk where one Neeraj, son of the landlord of the place of incident was found, who identified all the three accused persons and disclosed that they were the same persons who had met him on 06.04.2013.St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 90
20. That Neeraj was asked to join the investigation and thereafter the accused persons pointed out the place of incident.
21. That the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Satish is Ex.PW16/B, pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Lakhan Ex.PW16/C and the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Govind is Ex.PW16/D.
22. That thereafter the accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block, Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala.
23. That the knife was measured and thereafter the sketch of knife was prepared which is Ex.PW26/N after which the knife was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter pullanda was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/6A.
24. That recovery site plan was also prepared which is Ex.PW26/P and statement of relevant witnesses were also recorded in this regard.
He has identified all the three accused in the Court and also the case property i.e. the knife recovered at the instance of Govind which is Ex.P1; one Tshirt, one capri and one underwear as the clothes as the same which were recovered at the instance of Govind which clothes are Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively.
26. Ct. Satish Kumar This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW27) 1. That on 06.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and on that day he received DD No. 47A which is Ex.PW27/A from the Duty Officer HC Rakesh and on his directions he took the same to P1 Block, Sultanpuri where he met PSI Vikas Pawar and Ct. Balbir and handed over the DD to him.
2. That thereafter they all went to house No. P1/970, second floor where they found two dead bodies St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 91 lying, one on the floor and one on the folding bed.
3. That on inquiry they came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which was lying on the floor was of one Lamboo and the inquiry also revealed that the owner of the house was one Neeraj.
4. That Crime Team was also called by PSI Vikas who came to the spot and PSI Vikas made inquiries from public persons who had gathered at the spot regarding eye witnesses but no body came forward as an eye witness.
5. That PSI Vikas converted the DD No. 47A into rukka by making endorsement on the same and handed over the same to him with the directions to take the same to Police Station for registration of the FIR.
6. That he handed over the rukka to HC Rakesh and after the registration of the case, the Duty Officer handed over to him the computer copy of the FIR and original rukka which he brought to the spot i.e. P1/970, Sultanpuri and handed over the same to SHO Police Station Sultanpuri who had also reached there.
7. That thereafter the SHO lifted the various exhibits from the spot i.e. blood samples from the gadda by cutting the piece of the same and thereafter put the same into a plastic container and sealed with the seal of KSS.
8. That the Investigating Officer also lifted pieces of floor containing the blood were broken and put in the plastic container which were sealed with the seal of KSS and earth control sample were also lifted and put in the container and thereafter sealed it with the seal of KSS.
9. That a total number for four exhibits were lifted by the SHO who converted the same into four different pullandas and seal after use was handed over to PSI Vikas.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 92
27. PSI Vikas Pawar This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW28) 1. That on 06.04.2013 at around 6:35 PM he received information vide DD No. 47A dated 06.04.2013 through Ct. Satish regarding stabbing incident relating to two boys at gali No. 5, P1 Block when he was in the area along with Ct. Balbir.
2. That when he reached there he came to know that the spot of the incident was house No. P1/970, Second Floor as there was large crowd at that place.
3. That he reached the second floor along with Ct.
Balbir and Ct. Satish where they found dead bodies of two boys, one on the floor with head towards the north wall and the one on the folding bed with the head on the south directions towards the door.
4. That on inquiry they came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which lying on the floor was of one Ramesh @ Lamboo both of whom were friends.
5. That he came to know that Babloo was residing on rent in the same room and Lamboo was a resident of Vijay Vihar.
6. That he then immediately informed the Duty Officer about the situation of the same and called the Crime Team and made inquiries from public persons who had gathered at the spot regarding eye witnesses but nobody came forward as an eye witness.
7. That meanwhile the SHO and the Crime Team also came to the spot and carried out the inspection and photography of the scene of crime.
8. That thereafter both the dead bodies were got removed from the spot and sent to the mortuary of SGM hospital through Ct. Balbir and Ct. Komesh after which he converted the DD No.47A into rukka by making endorsement on the same which is Ex.PW28/A and handed over the same to Ct. Satish with the directions to take the same to Police Station for registration of the FIR.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 93
9. That the SHO then prepared the site plan at his instance which site plan is Ex.PW28/B and meanwhile Ct. Satish returned to the spot along with computerized copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to the SHO.
10. That thereafter SHO lifted the various exhibits from the spot i.e. the blood samples from the gadda by cutting the piece of the same and thereafter put the same into a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of KSS; blood sample from the floor with the help of gauze; blood sample from the floor by breaking the floor and earth control from the floor which he put in separate containers and sealed with the seal of KSS which seal after use was handed over to him.
11. That the Investigating Officer then prepared the seizure memo of the same vide Ex.PW28/C and he was then relived from the spot after his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
28. Ct. Balbir Singh This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW29) 1. That on 06.04.2013 he was present with SI Vikas Pawar and was attending a call when they received information vide DD No. 47A dated 06.04.2013 through Ct. Satish regarding stabbing incident relating to two boys at gali No. 5, P1 Block.
2. That when they reached there they came to know that the spot of the incident was house No. P1/970, Second Floor as there was large crowd of persons at that place and PCR officials had already reached the spot.
3. That they reached the second floor where they found dead bodies of two boys, one on the floor with head towards the northern wall and one on the folding bed with the head on the southern direction towards the door.
4. That on inquiry they came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which was lying on the floor was of one Ramesh @ Lamboo both of whom were friends.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 94
5. That they came to know that Babloo was residing on rent in the same room and Ramesh @ Lamboo was resident of Vijay Vihar.
6. That SI Vikas then immediately informed the Duty Officer about the situation of the same and called the Crime Team.
7. That he made inquiries from public persons who had gathered at the spot regarding eye witnesses but nobody came forward as eye witnesses.
8. That in the meanwhile the SHO had also reached the spot and Crime Team came and carried out the inspection and photography of the scene of crime.
9. That thereafter on the directions of SI Vikas the bodies were shifted to the mortuary of the SGM Hospital by him and Ct. Komesh and an application was given to him by SI Vikas addressed to CMO mortuary for preserving the dead bodies which he handed over to the concerned CMO.
10. That he and Ct. Komesh remained with the dead bodies and on the next day after the identification of the dead bodies by the relatives, the postmortem was conducted on the bodies of the deceased.
11. That the Autopsy Surgeon then handed over eight sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of the hospital along with sample seals to the Investigating Officer who then seized the same vide memos Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B.
29. Ct. Komesh This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
Kumar (PW30) 1. That on 06.04.2013 at about 6:307:00 PM he received a telephone call from Duty Officer who asked him to reach gali No. 5, P1 Block where two boys had been stabbed.
2. That when he reached gali No. P1 he saw large number of persons and SI Vikas, Ct. Balbir and Ct.
Satish and SHO were already present in house No. P1/970, Second Floor.
3. That he found dead bodies of two boys, one on the floor with head towards the northern wall and one on the folding bed with the head on the southern St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 95 directions towards the door and they came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which was lying on the floor of one was of Ramesh @ Lamboo both of whom were friends.
4. That SI Vikas then called the Crime Team who inspected the spot and took photographs of the same.
5. That thereafter on the directions of SI Vikas the bodies were shifted to the Mortuary of SGM hospital by him and Ct. Balbir and an application was given to him and Ct. Balbir by SI Vikas addressed to CMO mortuary for preserving the dead bodies which he handed over to the concerned CMO.
6. That he and Ct. Balbir remained with the dead bodies and on the next day after the identification of the dead bodies by the relatives, the postmortem was conducted on the bodies of the deceased.
7. That the Autopsy Surgeon then handed over eight sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of the hospital along with sample seals containing the viscera petties, clothes and blood sample of both the deceased to the Investigating Officer who then seized the same vide memos Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B.
30. Ct. Bajrang This witness has proved the following aspects:
Bahadur (PW31) 1. That on 06.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultan Puri and performing his duty in the Beat Area when at about 9.30 PM Duty Officer called him in the Police Station and handed over to him the four envelopes containing the copy of FIR of this case.
2. That he went to the house of Joint CP, NR and DCP outer District, Ld. MM concerned area, ACP Sultan Puri and delivered the copies of FIR and thereafter returned to the Police Station.
3. That on 08.04.13, he joined the investigation of this case along with SI Mahender, Ct. Baldev and St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 96 Investigating Officer of this case Inspector K.S.N. Subuddhi when they were at P1 Block, Sultan Puri they received an information that two accused namely Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu wanted in this case were sitting in C6 Block Park.
4. That the Investigating Officer constituted a raiding party with the help of above noted police officials and on the way some public persons were asked to join the raiding team but none agreed and left without giving their names and addresses.
5. That all the members of the raiding party reached at C6 Block Park where both the accused persons were found standing at the corner of the park.
6. That on the pointing of secret informer, both of them were apprehended and they were interrogated during which they admitted about their involvement after which they were arrested in this case and their personal search were conducted.
7. That the arrest memo of Satish is Ex.PW26/C, arrest memo of Lakhan @ Anoop is Ex.PW26/D, personal search memo of accused Satish is Ex.PW26/E and personal search memo of accused Lakhan is Ex.PW26/F.
8. That both the accused persons were thoroughly interrogated who made their disclosure statements which were reduced into writing, disclosure statement of accused Satish which is Ex.PW26/G and disclosure statement of accused Lakhan @ Anoop is Ex.PW26/H.
9. That the accused persons disclosed the name of their third associate as Govind resident of C9 Block who was injured and present in his house.
10. That thereafter all the members of raiding party and the accused persons reached house No. C9/104, from where accused Govind was apprehended, who disclosed that he had received injuries at the time of incident and also disclosed that he was medically examined and treated in the Jeevan Hospital.St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 97
11. That the accused Govind produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/I which treatment papers are Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B.
12. That the accused Govind was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/J, personal search of accused Govind was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/K after which the accused was thoroughly interrogated and he made disclosure statement which was reduced into writing which is Ex.PW26/L.
13. That in his disclosure statement accused disclosed that he could get the weapon of offence recover and also can get the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident recovered.
14. That thereafter the accused got recovered the said clothes which were lying on the floor of the inner room which clothes were Tshirt, Capri & underwear.
15. That the said clothes were converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/M.
16. That thereafter they all the member of raiding party along with accused persons reached at P1 Block Chowk where one Neeraj, son of the Landlord of the place of incident was found, who identified all the three accused persons and stated that these were the same persons who had met him on 06.04.2013.
17. That Neeraj was asked to join the investigation and thereafter the accused persons pointed out the place of incident.
18. That the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Satish is Ex.PW16/B;
pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Lakhan is Ex.PW16/C and the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Govind is Ex.PW16/C. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 98
19. That thereafter accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala.
20. That the said Knife was measured and thereafter sketch of knife was prepared which is Ex.PW26/N after which the knife was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter pullanda was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW16/A.
21. That recovery site plan was also prepared which is Ex.PW26/P and statement of relevant witnesses were also recorded in this regard.
The witness has identified all the three accused in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. knife which was recovered at the instance of Govind which knife is Ex.P1; one Tshirt, one capri and one underwear which were recovered at the instance of Govind which clothes are Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P4.
31. Inspector K.S.N. He is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has Subudhi (PW32) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 06.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri as SHO and on that day while he was on patrolling duty, at around 6:40 PM he received information from the Control Room as well as from Duty Officer regarding the stabbing incident relating to two boys at gali No. 5, P1 Block.
2. That when he reached there he came to know that the spot of the incident was house No. P1/970, Second Floor as there was large crowd at that place.
3. That at the spot he found SI Vikas Pawar, Ct. Balbir and Ct. Komesh already present and he found dead bodies of two boys, one on the floor with head towards the northern wall and the one on the folding bed with the head on the southern direction towards the door.St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 99
4. That he also came to know that the body lying on the folding bed was of Babloo and the body which was lying on the floor was of one Ramesh @ Lamboo both of whom were friends.
5. That he also came to know that Babloo was residing on rent in the same room whereas Lamboo was a resident of Vijay Vihar.
6. That SI Vikas had already called the Crime Team who inspected the Scene of Crime and took photographs of the same.
7. That during the local inquiries from public persons who had gathered at the spot regarding eye witnesses, nobody came forward as an eye witness and thereafter both the dead bodies were got removed from the spot and sent to the mortuary of SGM Hospital through Ct. Balbir and Ct. Komesh.
8. That SI Vikas converted DD No.47A into rukka by making endorsement on the same and handed over the same to Ct. Satish with the directions to take the same to Police Station for registration of the FIR and he then prepared a site plan at his instance which site plan is Ex.PW28/B.
9. That meanwhile Ct. Satish returned to the spot along with computerized copy of FIR which is Ex.PW3/B and original rukka which is Ex.PW28/A and handed over the same to him.
10. That he then lifted the various exhibits from the spot i.e. the blood samples from the gadda by cutting the piece of the same and thereafter put the same into a plastic container and sealed with the seal of KSS;
blood sample from the floor with the help of gauze; blood sample from the floor by breaking the floor and earth control from the floor which he put in separate containers and sealed with the seal of KSS which seal after use was handed over to SI Vikas.
11. That he prepared the seizure memo of the same vide Ex.PW28/C and having recorded the statement of SI Vikas and Ct. Satish and relieved them.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 100
12. That he continued to conduct local inquiry regarding the incident and to find out the eye witnesses but nobody came forward and thereafter he returned to the Police Station and deposited the case property in the Malkhana.
13. That on 07.04.2013 he along with SI Mahender Partap went to SGM Hospital Mortuary along with other police staff and prepared the inquest proceeding.
14. That the dead bodies were identified by their relatives vide Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW22/A.
15. That thereafter he handed over the inquest papers to the Autopsy Surgeon and postmortem was conducted on the body of both the victims.
16. That the dead body of Babloo was handed over to its relatives vide memo Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW21/B after the postmortem and the dead body of Lamboo was again preserved as relatives of the Lamboo had not reached the hospital.
17. That the Autopsy Surgeon handed over the pullandas related to both the deceased i.e. viscera, clothes, blood gauze along with the sample seal and same were taken into possession vide memos Ex.PW26/A & Ex.PW26/B.
18. That thereafter they returned to C Block, Sultan Puri where statement of Sagar @ Katla and Vinod were recorded and then they went to P1 Block where they met Neeraj and recorded his statement and then returned to the Police Station where the case property was deposited with the MHC(M).
19. That on 08.04.2013, he along with SI Mahender Partap, Ct. Bajrang, Ct. Baldev and his driver and Operator went in search of accused at CBlock, Sultanpuri and then they went to P1 Block where they received information that two accused namely Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu wanted in this case were sitting in C6 Block Park.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 101
20. That he then constituted a raiding party and on the way some public persons were asked to join the raiding team but none agreed and left without giving their names and addresses.
21. That thereafter all the members of raiding party reached at C6 Block Park, where both the accused Lakhan @ Anoop and Satish @ Sonu were found present standing at the corner of the park.
22. That on the pointing of secret informer, both the accused were apprehended and they were interrogated during which they admitted about his involvement after which they were arrested in this case and their personal search were conducted.
23. That the arrest memo of Satish is Ex.PW26/C, arrest memo of Lakhan @ Anoop is Ex.PW26/D, personal search memo of accused Satish is Ex.PW26/E and personal search memo of accused Lakhan is Ex.PW26/F.
24. That both the accused persons were thoroughly interrogated who made their disclosure statement and the same was reduced into writing, the disclosure statement of accused Satish is Ex.PW26/G and disclosure statement of accused Lakhan @ Anoop is Ex.PW26/H.
25. That during the interrogation both the accused Lakhan and Satish disclosed the name of their third associate as Govind R/o House No. 104, C9 Block who was injured in the incident after he jumped from the roof was present in his house.
26. That thereafter all the members of raiding party and the accused persons reached at the house C9/104, from where accused Govind was apprehended, who disclosed that he had received injuries at the time of incident and also disclosed that he was medically examined and treated in the Jeevan Hospital.
27. That the accused Govind produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which were taken into St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 102 possession vide memo Ex.PW26/I which treatment papers are Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B.
28. That the accused Govind was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/J, personal search of accused Govind was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/K and the accused was thoroughly interrogated after which he made a disclosure statement which was reduced into writing vide Ex.PW26/L.
29. That in his disclosure statement the accused Govind disclosed that he could get the weapon of offence recovered and could also get recovered the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident.
30. That thereafter the accused Govind got recovered the said clothes which were lying on the floor of the inner room.
31. That the clothes were Tshirt, Capri & underwear and the same were converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/M.
32. That thereafter they all the member of raiding party along with accused persons reached at P1 Block Chowk where one Neeraj, son of the Landlord of the place of incident was found, who identified all the three accused persons namely Lakhan, Satish and Govind and stated that these were the same persons who had met him on 06.04.2013.
33. That Neeraj was asked to join the investigations and thereafter the accused persons took them to P1/970 and pointed out the place of incident i.e. room on the second floor.
34. That the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Satish which is Ex.PW16/B; pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Lakhan which is Ex.PW16/C and the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Govind Ex.PW16/D. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 103
35. That thereafter the accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala which Knife was measured and thereafter sketch of knife was prepared vide Ex.PW26/N.
36. That the knife was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KSS and thereafter the pullanda was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW/16A and the site plan of spot of recovery was prepared which is Ex.PW26/P.
37. That while they were still at ganda nala, one child by the name of Gaurav came to the spot as many public persons had gathered and identified Govind as the person who was having injuries on both his legs and had requested him for using his mobile to call somebody from his family to pick him up and he recorded the statement of the child Gaurav and relieved him.
38. That the accused were then sent to SGM hospital and their medical examination were got conducted and then they returned to the Police Station from where intimation regarding the arrest of the accused were given to their family members and their signatures were taken on the arrest memos and the case property was deposited in the malkahana.
39. That statement of relevant police witnesses and Neeraj were recorded after which they were relieved.
40. That on the next day all the three accused were produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate and they were remanded to Judicial Custody.
41. That on 18.04.2013 he moved an application for recording the statements of Sagar @ Katla and Vinod under Section 164 Cr. P.C. which application is Ex.PX2 and Ex.PX6.
42. That on 20.04.2013 their statements were recorded by the Ld. MM vide proceedings Ex.PX3, Ex.PX4 St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 104 and Ex.PX7.
43. That the 100 number call had been made by one Vijay and he recorded his statement and also collected the customer application forms and call details records of Vijay from which 100 number call was made and Babli whose phone was used by accused Govind for making a call.
44. That he send the various exhibits to FSL Rohini for examination through constables and their statements were recorded and he also got prepared the scaled site plan from SI Mahesh draftsman recorded his statement and relieved him and also recorded the statements of all the remaining witnesses.
45. That on 01.07.2013 he was transferred from the Police Station Sultanpuri and he handed over the case file to MHC(R).
He has correctly identified the Govind, Lakhan and Satish in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. knife which was recovered at the instance of Govind which is Ex.P1; one Tshirt, one capri and one underwear which were recovered at the instance of Govind which clothes are Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P4.; one plastic container containing blood gauze which was lifted from the spot which is Ex.P5; one plastic container containing piece of blood stained mattress/ gadda was lifted from the spot which is Ex.P6; one plastic container containing earth control was lifted from the spot which is Ex.P7 and one plastic container containing blood stained cemented floor which he had lifted by breaking the floor which is Ex.P8.
32. Inspector Satya This witness has proved that on 24.06.2013 the case file Prakash (PW33) received by him for further investigations from MHC(R) and since the investigations were almost complete, he submitted the charge sheet after collecting the FSL report during trial and same were produced in the court through supplementary challan.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 105 (89) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused.
Medical Evidence:
(90) The case of the prosecution is that all the three accused i.e. Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda in pursuance to their criminal conspiracy had gone to the rented accommodation of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo and killed them by inflicting knife injuries upon them after which in order to escape from the spot the accused Govind had jumped from the roof resulting into fracture of both his ankles. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance upon the testimony of Dr. Ashutosh Gupta (PW13) who has proved the MLC of the accused Govind and on the testimonies of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW17) and Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW18) who have proved the postmortem reports of the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo.
MLC of the accused Govind:
(91) Coming first to the medical record of the accused Govind. Dr. Ashutosh Gupta (PW13), Orthopedics Surgeon, Jeevan Charitable Hospital, R225226227228229, Mangolpuri, Delhi has proved that on 06.04.2013 at about 7:30 PM Govind was brought to the hospital by mother namely Santosh, brother namely Bunty and another brother namely Ram Kishan with an alleged history of fall from height and on medical St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 106 examination fracture in both heel bones was observed. He has proved that the OPD Receipt which is Ex.PW13/A and has also proved the Registration Certification issued by Delhi Medical Council which is Ex.PW13/B. (92) The above medical record of the accused Govind confirms that the accused Govind and his family members had themselves given the history of fall from height and the medical evidence as aforesaid confirm that the nature of injuries were fracture of heel bones (ankles) which injuries could only be caused on account of fall from the height and not by accident with bike as the accused Govind is now claiming. I may observe that when this incriminating material was put to the accused Govind in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has desperately tried to explain these injuries claiming that he had received these injuries on account of the accident. How can a person receive a fracture on both the heels due to an accident? Such an injury can only be caused on account of a fall from a height or by use of extreme blunt force on heels while the person is either sitting or lying down with his heels exposed. But in the present case the fracture extends till ankles in both the feet which confirms that the force on both the feet was equal and could only be caused on account of fall from height and hence rules out accident. Therefore, the nature of injuries as reflected in the MLC of the accused Govind and as proved by Dr. Ashutosh Gupta (PW13) belies this claim and defence of accident so raised by the accused. Further, the accused Govind himself and his family members had St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 107 given the history to Dr. Ashutosh Gupta as that of fall from height, confirms that the explanation that injury was on account of an accident is only an after thought on legal advise. There is no reason why at first instance he would have lied to the Doctor and in case if the injuries were due to accident, he would have honestly disclosed the same to the doctor.
Hence, I hold that what he had first disclosed to the Doctor i.e. of having received injuries due to fall from the height is the correct history. (93) This being the background, I hereby hold that the above medical record of accused Govind lends credence to the prosecution version that after committing the double murder the accused had tried to escape from the spot which is a room on the second floor of property No. P1/970, Sultan Puri, Delhi by jumping from the roof in which process he received fracture of heel bones of both his feet, a fact which also find independent confirmation from the testimony of child witness Gaurav Kumar (PW24).
Postmortem of the deceased:
(94) The case of the prosecution is that after the double murder was detected the bodies of the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo were got preserved in the Mortuary of SGM Hospital for postmortem examination. In this regard they have placed their reliance on the testimonies of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW17) and Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW18) and the reports prepared by them. Both Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW17) and Dr. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 108 Vivek Rawat (PW18) have proved that they conducted the postmortem on the body of Babloo S/o Chandan Singh, aged 32 years male, which body was sent by Insp. Subudhi from Police Station Sultanpuri with alleged history of being found dead at his home on 06.04.2013 at about 6:30 PM and there was history of chronic alcoholism. According to the witnesses, on external examination following injuries were found:
1. Stab wound 4cm x 1.3cm cavity deep (up to pancreas and aorta) wedge shaped lying obliquely in epigastrium area, 0.5cm lateral to midline and 5.5cm down to xiphisternum.
2. Incised wound 2cm x 0.5x0.3cm, seen over mid lateral aspect of dorsum of left hand.
3. Incised wound 1.5cm x 0.3 x 0.3cm over mid lateral border of left palm.
(95) They have proved that on Internal Examination of Abdomen Peritoneum, Peritoneal cavity 2.8 litre of fluid blood was seen in retroperitoneal space and in peritoneal cavity; there was Laceration of pancreas with tearing of descending Aorta just behind the stomach; Partially masticated food particles mixed with fluid blood was found and perforation of 3 x 1cm seen over anterior and posterior walls of pylorus. They have also proved having opined that the cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for abdominal structures under injury No.1 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and is St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 109 sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature; all injuries were caused by sharp, single edged weapon and the time since death was within six hours prior to preservation in SGMH Mortuary. They have further proved the detailed postmortem report in this regard which is Ex.PW17/A (running into four pages).
(96) Both these witnesses i.e. Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW17) and Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW18) have also proved having conducted postmortem on the body of Ramesh S/o Ram Parkash, aged 35 years male on 7.4.2013, which body had been sent by Inspector Subudhi from police station Sultanpuri with alleged history of found dead at his friend's home on 06.04.2013 at about 6:30 PM and there was history of chronic alcoholism. They have proved that on external examination the following injuries were found:
1. Stab wound 4cm x 1.3cm cavity deep (up to pancreas and aorta) wedge shaped lying obliquely in epigastrium area, 0.5cm lateral to midline and 5.5cm down to xiphisternum with evisceration of loop of small intestine through the wound.
2. Incised wound 3cm x 1.2 cavity deep wedged shaped situated 3.5cm inferolateral to injury No. 1.
3. Abrasion reddish colored 4cm x 3cm over left knee. (97) They have also proved that on Internal Examination of Abdomen: Peritoneum, Peritoneal cavity: 2.8 liter of fluid blood was seen St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 110 in retroperitoneal space and in peritoneal cavity; Laceration of pancreas with tearing of descending Aorta just behind the stomach was seen; there was partially masticated food particles mixed with fluid blood and there was a perforation 3 x 1cm over anterior and posterior walls of pylorus. They have proved having opined that the cause of death was due to shock associated with damage for abdominal structures under injury No. 1 which was fresh and antemortem at the time of death and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature; all injuries are caused by sharp, single edged weapon and time since death was within six hours prior to preservation in SGMH Mortuary. They have proved the detailed postmortem report in this regard which is Ex.PW17/B (running into four pages).
(98) Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW17) has further proved that on 15.04.2013 he received an application along with a sealed pullanda from SHO Police Station Sultanpuri for opinion on the weapon of offence which application is Ex.PW17/C. He has also proved that after opening the parcel it found to contain a knife and after going through the Postmortem Reports No.295/13 and 296/13 he was of the opinion that the injury mentioned on the Postmortem Reports are possible by this knife or similar such weapon which opinion is Ex.PW17/D also showing the sketch of the knife at point X. He has identified the said knife which is Ex.P1. Here, I may observe that the sketches of the weapon of offence i.e. sketch St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 111 Ex.PW17/D as prepared by Dr. Manoj Dingra and Sketch Ex.PW26/N as prepared by the Investigating Officer confirms the maximum width of the knife around 5 cms and connects the same with the injury on the body of both the deceased.
(99) It is writ large from the the reports of the Autopsy Surgeons as also confirmed from the oral evidence which has come on record that there was a history of chronic alcoholism in respect of both the victims i.e. Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo. In so far as Babloo is concerned the fatal injury was the Injury No.1 i.e. Stab wound 4 cm x 1.3 cm cavity deep (up to pancreas and aorta). Further, there were also two incised wounds on the left hand. In so far as the victim Ramesh @ Lamboo is concerned, again the fatal injury was the Injury No.1 i.e. stab wound measuring 4 cm x 1.3 cm cavity deep (up to pancreas and aorta). Further, another incised wound of 3 cm x 1.2 cavity deep wedged shaped situated 3.5cm infero lateral to injury No.1 and also an abrasion of reddish colour 4cm x 3 cm over left knee. This abrasion of reddish colour showing that this injury was recent/ fresh confirms the oral testimonies of Vinod and Sagar that there was a physical altercation between Govind and Ramesh @ Lamboo at the park in the morning.
(100) It is also evident that partially masticated food particles were found in the stomach of both the deceased confirming that the incident had taken place within three to four hours of their having taken their meals. The medical evidence is hence compatible to the prosecution case St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 112 confirming the homicidal killings of both the deceased i.e. Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo. The nature of fatal injuries inflicted upon both the deceased are similar in nature i.e. they have been inflicted at virtually the same part of the body i.e. Peritoneum region, upto Pancreas and Aorta (also seen in photographs Ex.PW8/A1 and Ex.PW8/A2 and also of same size (i.e. 4 cm x 1.3 cm) confirming that the force used on both the deceased to cause the injury was same. It is this which establishes Firstly that the weapon of offence used was same and Secondly that the force used on both the deceased was the same and hence the possibility of the person who had inflicted the fatal injuries upon both the deceased being the same.
Forensic Evidence/ Scene of Crime:
(101) The case of the prosecution is that the murder of both the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo had taken place in the room of Babloo where he was staying on rent under Neeraj. Both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo were chronic alcoholics and were diehard drunkards and even as per the prosecution version they were in an inebriated state and had been killed while in this state and it is for this reason that they had not tried to raise any alarm or offered any resistance when fatally assaulted because they were physically not in a fit state to do so.St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 113
(102) I have considered the forensic evidence which has come on record and at the very outset I may observe that in so far as the Crime Team Report is concerned, the Crime Team Incharge ASI Ram Kumar (PW7) has proved having visited the spot of incident and after inspection having prepared the report which is Ex.PW7/A. Further, the Crime Team Photographer i.e. Ct. Rajbir (PW8) has proved having taken the photographs of the spot of incident which photographs are Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A7 and negatives of the same are collectively Ex.PW8/B. Three such photographs i.e. Ex.PW8/A1, Ex.PW8/A2 and Ex.PW8/A3 are as under:
Photograph Ex.PW8/A1 showing the position of deceased Babloo St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 114 Photograph Ex.PW8/A2 showing the position of deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo Photograph Ex.PW8/A3 showing the presence of liquor bottles at the spot St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 115 (103) The above photographs reflect the position of the dead bodies of both the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo and also reflect the presence of liquor bottles under the folding bed of Babloo. Further, the above photographs establish that there were no signs of scuffle or resistance at the spot of incident so much so that even the bedding i.e. mattress under the deceased Babloo, utensils and other articles lying in the room around the bodies had not been disturbed. It is evident from the above photographs of the scene of crime that there was no resistance or scuffle offered by the deceased when the incident had taken place as nothing has been disturbed in the room and not even the bedding under the body of Babloo appear disturb. Had there been even a slightest of resistance, then the bedding under the body would have been disarrayed which is not the case. Further, the position of both the dead bodies as seen in these photographs Ex.PW8/A1, Ex.PW8/A2 and Ex.PW8/A3 show that at the time of the incident the deceased were lying in their room (i.e. room in which deceased Babloo was staying on rent) in fully inebriated state. There is no expression of any kind of fear on the faces of the deceased confirming that they were not conscious of any impending danger or threat to them. Rather the position of the dead bodies and their facial expression confirms their state of unconsciousness either being asleep or being in an inebriated state.
(104) Further, this fact that the deceased were in inebriated state and also been proved by Sh. Santosh Tripathi (PW15) Senior Scientific St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 116 Officer (Chemistry) who has proved the Viscera Report of both the deceased prepared by Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo which report is Ex.PW15/A and otherwise admissible perse under Section 293 Cr.P.C. It has been established that on Chemical, Microscopic, TLC & CGHS examination Ex.1A (stomach pieces of small intestine with contents), Ex.1B (pieces of liver, spleen and kidney) Ex.1C (blood sample volume 200 ml) relating to the deceased Babloo and Ex.2A (stomach pieces of small intestine with contents), Ex.2B (pieces of liver, spleen and kidney) Ex.2C (blood sample volume 200 ml) relating to the deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo were found to contain ethyl alcohol. The report also establishes that no common poisons were detected in the blood samples. However, Ex.1C i.e. blood sample of deceased Babloo was found to contain ethyl alcohol 82.4 mg per 100 ml of blood whereas Ex.2C i.e. blood sample of deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo) was found to contain ethyl alcohol 47.4 mg per 100 ml of blood. In his crossexamination the witness Sh. Santosh Tripathi (PW15) has explained that as per the available literature any person having 82% ethyl alcohol present in the blood stream would lead to an inebriated state. In the present case the ethyl alcohol has been found in the blood of both the deceased in an extremely large quantity and I hereby hold that the Chemical Analysis Report as aforesaid confirms the highly inebriated state of both the deceased thereby explaining and establishing the prosecution version of lack of any resistance and scuffle. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 117 (105) Further, Sh Indresh Kumar Mishra (PW14) Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) has proved the Biological Report which is Ex.PW14/A and the Serological Report which is Ex.PW14/B. According to the Biological Report Ex.PW14/A Blood was detected on exhibits 1 (dirty gauze cloth piece described as blood of deceased), exhibit 2 (piece of cloth having brown stains), exhibit 4 (cemented material having light brown stains described as blooded earth), exhibit 5a (one jacket having brown stains belonging to the deceased Babloo), exhibit 5b (one shirt having brown stains belonging to the deceased Babloo), exhibit 5c (one banian having brown stains belonging to the deceased Babloo), 5d (pants with belt having brown stains belonging to the deceased Babloo), 5e (underwear having dark brown stains belonging to the deceased Babloo), exhibit 6a (one banian having brown stains belonging to the deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo), exhibit 6b (one underwear having dark brown stains belonging to the deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo), exhibit 7 (gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood gauze piece of the deceased Babloo), 8 (gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as blood gauze piece of the deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo) and exhibit 9a (one Tshirt having light brown stains belonging to the accused Govind). However, blood could not be detected on exhibit 3 (cemented material described as earth control), exhibit 9b (one half pant), exhibit 9c (one underwear) and exhibit 10 (one knife having rusty stains). The Serological Report Ex.PW14/B establishes St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 118 that Human Blood of AB Group was detected on exhibit 1 (gauze cloth piece), exhibit 5a (jacket belonging to deceased Babloo), exhibit 5b (shirt belonging to deceased Babloo), exhibit 5c (banian belonging to deceased Babloo), exhibit 7 (gauze cloth piece belonging to deceased Babloo) and exhibit 8 (gauze cloth piece belonging to the deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo).
(106) The above Biological & Serological Reports establish that both the deceased i.e. Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo had a common Blood Group of AB Group and also confirms that Ex.9a i.e. Tshirt of the accused Govind was having Human Blood. However, the weapon of offence Ex.P1 did not exhibit any blood stains but this will not be fatal to the prosecution case since it was allegedly got recovered by the accused Govind after two days of the incident from an open drain which explains the absence of blood stains on the same.
(107) The above forensic evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution version and connects the accused Govind with the alleged offence.
Electronic Evidence:
(108) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Govind was having a mobile no. 9266495006 which according to him was being used by his mother. On the date of incident i.e. 6.4.2013 after committing the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo at P1/970, Sultan Puri the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 119 accused Govind jumped from the roof as a result of which he received fracture of heel bones. Thereafter the accused sat on the Chabutra outside the house of Gaurav Kumar i.e. P1/84, Sultan Puri and asked the passers bye for a mobile phone so that he could call his family members. On hearing the cries of Govind, the child Master Gaurav Kumar (PW24) gave the mobile phone bearing No. 8743977286 which was in the name of his mother Smt. Babli to the accused Govind. Thereafter the accused Govind made calls from this mobile phone to his mobile phone pursuant to which his family members had come and took him to Jeevan Hospital where he was treated. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of the Nodal Officers i.e. Sh. M.N. Vijayan (PW10) and Sh.
Pawan Singh (PW11) and the Call Detail Records proved by them. (109) I have gone through the testimonies of Nodal Officers. Sh. M.N. Vijayan (PW10) Nodal Officer from Tata Teleservices Ltd. has proved that the mobile No. 9266495006 has been issued in the name of accused Govind S/o Rajender Parkash, R/o House No. 104, Block C9, Sultanpuri, New Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW10/A, copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW10/B; Call Details Record from 05.04.2013 to 07.04.2013 which are Ex.PW10/C (running into two pages); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW10/D (running into one page) and Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW10/E. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 120 (110) Sh. Pawan Singh (PW11) Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd. has proved that mobile No. 8743977286 has been issued in the name of Smt. Babli W/o Bhup Singh, R/o House No. 84, Block P1, Sultanpuri, New Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW11/A, copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW11/B; Call Details from the period 05.04.2013 to 07.04.2013 which are Ex.PW11/C (running into one page); Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW11/D (running into 49 pages) and Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW11/E. (111) I have considered the above record proved by the Nodal Officers. I may observe that the child witness Gaurav Kumar (PW24) has specifically stated in the Court that the mobile No. 8743977286 belongs to his mother who used to keep the said mobile phone at home for emergency purposes which fact has been duly proved by his mother Smt. Babli (PW25).
(112) A careful analysis of the Call Detail Records of the above mobile phones establishes the various calls between the two mobile phones at the relevant point of time, details of which calls are reflected as under:
Sr. Calling No. Called No. Date Time Duration
No.
1 8743977286 9266495006 6.4.2013 17:23:21 41
2 9266495006 8743977286 6.4.2013 17:29:32 29
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 121
3 9266495006 8743977286 6.4.2013 17:31:49 44
4 9266495006 8743977286 6.4.2013 17:50:52 40
(113) The above Call Details Record confirms the testimony of the
child witness Gaurav Kumar (PW14) to the extent that on 6.4.2013 he had given the mobile phone of his mother Smt. Babli to the accused Govind who then made a call to his family members who came and took Govind to the hospital. It has been established from the analysis of the above Call Details Record that at 17:23:21 hours (5:23 PM) a call was made from the mobile No. 8743977286 (mobile given to accused Govind by child Gaurav) to the mobile No. 9266495006 (mobile of Govind which his family was using) and thereafter three calls were made from Mobile No. 9266495006 to the mobile No. 8743977286. This establishes the prosecution version that initially the accused Govind took the mobile phone from Gaurav Kumar and then made a call on his mobile phone being used by his mother since he had received fracture on both his heel bones and was unable to move. It is this call which establishes and confirms the presence of Govind around the house of the deceased at 5:23 PM (i.e. after the incident). Here, I may also note that the dead bodies were discovered thereafter and for the first time a PCR call was made at 6:18 PM. The Call Details Record further establishes that thereafter three calls were made from the mobile phone of accused to the mobile No. 8743977286 thereby proving that the family members of the accused Govind were trying to St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 122 search him. The accused Govind has not been able to controvert the above Call Details Record, Rather he admits his presence in the area but has raised a plea that he had met with an accident due to which reason he received the injuries, which plea, as already discussed separately, does not inspire confidence of the Court and is not convincing. (114) This being the background, I hereby hold that the above electronic record not only lends corroboration to the prosecution version but also confirms the testimony of Gaurav Kumar to the extent that he had given the mobile phone of his mother to accused Govind who then made a call to his family members who after sometime came and took the accused Govind away.
Motive of the offence/ Common Intention:
(115) The case of the prosecution is that the motive for the Crime was Revenge. It is alleged that the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Soda on the one side and both the deceased i.e. Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo who were good friends on the other side belonged to two different groups who were into addiction. While the deceased was highly addicted to alcohol the accused Govind was addicted to drugs. On the date of the incident i.e. 6.4.2013 in the morning there was a verbal altercation between the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Soda on one side and the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo on the other side which got aggravated leading to a physical St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 123 altercation between the accused Govind and Ramesh @ Lamboo on which Govind was slapped by Ramesh @ Lamboo which Govind pulled out a knife and threatened Ramesh @ Lamboo and Babloo with the same but he (Ramesh @ Lamboo) snatched the said knife from the hands of Govind and went away from the park. Thereafter, the accused Govind ran behind Ramesh @ Lamboo and got his knife back and publicly within the sight and hearing of persons present in the park threatened to kill both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo on the same day while saying "...Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga....". It is further alleged that thereafter the accused Govind along with his coaccused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda planned to seek revenge from Ramesh @ Lamboo and his friend Babloo after which they all went to the room of Babloo knowingly well that Ramesh @ Lamboo used to remain together. As per the allegations while the accused Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda remained outside the room and kept a watch, the accused Govind and Anoop @ Lakhan went inside the room and while Anoop caught hold of the deceased one by one the accused Govind killed both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo by stabbing them one by one with a knife which he was possessing. In order to prove the Motive and the incident which took place in the morning the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of Vinod (PW9) and Sagar (PW12).
(116) However, before coming to the merits of the case, I may observe that the Motive has to be gathered from the surrounding St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 124 circumstances and such evidence should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
(117) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
(118) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 125 analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.:
IV (2012) SLT 257].
(119) Moreover, in a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of a crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused is guilty of the offence charged with. However, at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime [Ref.: State of U.P. Vs. Bahu Ram reported in 2000 (4) SCC 515 and Ujjagal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (14) SCALE 428].
(120) In so far as the Common Intention is concerned, I may observe that Section 34 Indian Penal Code has been enacted on the principal of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action.
The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 126 inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be if prearranged or on the spur of the moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1997 (1) SCC 746 the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential elements for application of this section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. The Section does not say "the common intentions of all" nor does it say "an intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in section 34, when an accused is convicted under section 302 read with section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 127 which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Chinta Pulla Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 134. Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying section 34, it is not necessary to show some over act on the part of the accused. The above position was highlighted in Girija Shankar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004(3) SCC 793 and reference in this regard is also being made to the case of decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Saleem Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 484/2011 decided on 31.5.2013 by the Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
(121) Applying these settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the incident which took place in the morning relating to a verbal and physical altercation between the accused and deceased acted as a precursor to later incident of killing by stabbing. I have gone through the testimonies of both Vinod (PW9) and Sagar (PW12) who admittedly are addicted to Ganja and are residents of the same area. They have both in their testimonies confirmed that they are addicted to Ganja and on the date of incident were present in the park St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 128 where they were smoking whey they saw the quarrel between the two groups i.e. accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda on the one side.
(122) It further stands established from the testimonies of both these witnesses i.e. Vinod (PW9) and Sagar (PW12) that they were previously known to both the accused being residents of the same area and their presence in the park is natural as they are admittedly addicted to Ganja and have confirmed that most of the time they consume Ganja while sitting in the park. Both these witnesses have established that it was the accused Govind who was having a knife in his hand and they have also given the description of the knife by gesturing with their hand which description/ size matches with the sketch of the knife Ex.P1 which I may observe is a butcher's knife/ chopper. In fact Sagar has stated that Govind was using abusive language and threatened to see them and had uttered "....Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga...." and has also stated that Govind was under the influence of intoxicating pills. Therefore, in so far as the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda are concerned, their presence at the park at the time of quarrel has been established but their presence in the house of the deceased with Govind at the time of the incident of killing or of having entertained the common intention to kill the deceased does not stand established. Rather, the evidence on record particularly the testimony of child witness Gaurav Kumar (PW24) who is an independent witness only confirms the presence St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 129 of Govind but not of both the accused. I am sure than in case if both the accused i.e. Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda had been present there in the house of Babloo (Scene of Crime) along with the accused Govind, there was no reason why they would leave their friend Govind alone in the street while escaping. Also, they would have been noticed by the residents of the area and would have also removed the injured Govind who was immobile due to injuries, from the spot or shifted him to the hospital which is not the case. The evidence which has come on record (as discussed separately) does not confirm the presence of the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda at the spot at the time of double murder nor it establishes that the killing was the work of more than one person. Rather the medical and forensic evidence confirms that both the deceased who were lying in the rented room of Babloo were in an inebriated state and were kill in such a state with no resistance offered. Further, it is borne out from the testimonies of Vinod and Sagar that it was the accused Govind who was the actual person who had entertained the sole Motive to commit the offence which was to take Revenge from Ramesh @ Babloo since the accused Govind who at the time of the incident was under the influence of drugs after having consumed the pills and had become highly aggressive and was feeling humiliated on being slapped by Ramesh @ Lamboo and had even threatened to kill both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo on the same day itself (Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga). Hence, the Motive so attributed to St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 130 the accused Govind stands established but not the Common Intention. Ocular Evidence/ Last Seen:
(123) Ocular evidence/eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. The eye witness account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, it should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of other evidence. The ocular evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of the story, consistency of the account given by one witness with that given by the other witness held to be creditworthy, consistency with the undisputed facts, the 'credit' of the witnesses who performed in the witnessbox, their power of observation and it is only then that the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.
(124) However, in the present case there is no direct eye witness count and the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the Last Seen Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence. The case of the prosecution is that on 6.4.2013 there was a quarrel/ verbal altercation between the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Soda on the one side and the deceased i.e. Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo who were good friends on the other side which got aggravated leading to a physical altercation St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 131 between the accused Govind and Ramesh @ Lamboo in which Govind had pulled out a knife in order to threat Ramesh @ Lamboo but he (Ramesh @ Lamboo) snatched the said knife from the hands of Govind and ran away.
Thereafter the accused Govind ran behind Ramesh @ Lamboo and got retrieved his knife after which the accused Govind along with his co accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda entered into a criminal conspiracy and in order to seek revenge from Ramesh @ Lamboo they all went to the room of Babloo knowing well that Ramesh @ Lamboo and Babloo used to remain together. As per the allegations while the accused Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda remained outside the room and kept a watch, the accused Govind and Anoop @ Lakhan went inside the room and killed both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo with a knife which was in possession of Govind. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Govind along with accused Anoop @ Lakhan were seen near the tenanted room of Babloo. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of Vinod (PW9), Sagar (PW12) who are the drug addicts, as discussed herein above, confirming the earlier incident and the fact that the accused Govind had entertained a feeling of insult and had openly declared that he would kill Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo. The prosecution is also placing its reliance on the testimony of landlord Neeraj (PW16) who had seen all the accused looking for the deceased in the area around 11:00 AM and also upon the testimony of child witness Gaurav Kumar (PW24).
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 132 (125) Before coming to the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses, I may observe that the 'Last Seen' theory 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. It is a settled law that even in such cases the courts should look for such corroboration. (Sanjay Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No. 1699/2005 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on India on 5.5.2006).
(126) It is settled law that where there is no direct evidence against the accused and the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be in compatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of other person. [Ref: Ved Prakash @ Bhagwan Dia Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 992]. (127) Further, in the case of Mohibur Rahman Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 2002 SC 3064 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that : "....... The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. There may be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 133 event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own he liability for the homicide....."
(128) A similar view was taken by Supreme Court in the decision reported as Amit @ Ammu Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2003 SC 3131. Further, in the decision reported as State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram reported in AIR 2007 SC 144 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "....... 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 prosecution. It lays down the rule that St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 134 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 Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras, 218. ..."
(129) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in the case of Sharda Jain Vs. State in Crl. Appeal No. 51/2007 decided on 27.8.2009 has on the basis of the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, succinctly laid down the factors on which the effect of last seen on the guilt of accused depends, which are as under:
(i) Proximity between the time of last seen and time of death of the deceased.
(ii) Proximity between the place where the deceased was last seen with the deceased and place of murder of the deceased.
(iii) Nature of place of murder of the deceased.
(iv) Attending circumstances enwombing the time and place of last seen.
(v) Reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused.
(130) Now applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, coming first to the testimony of the landlord of deceased Babloo namely Neeraj (PW16) who in his testimony has confirmed that in the morning at about 11:00 AM while he was leaving his house, he had seen the accused Govind and Anoop @ Lakhan (later he stated that the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 135 accused Sonu also joined them) near his house in the street. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"...... On 06.04.2013 in the noon time when I was about to go to my inlaws house, I saw that two boys Govind and Lakhan reached outside my house and at that time I was in the balcony. Those boys were calling Lamboo. I uttered that no person in the name of Lamboo is residing there. Thereafter they had left. Thereafter I had left my house and went to my inlaws house at Uttam Nagar. Lamboo was the friend of Babloo and Lamboo used to visit the house of Babloo. Babloo was living in our house on rent. My house no. is P1/970. Babloo was residing at the third floor. Govind and Lakhan are present in the court today (witness correctly identified the accused persons). I had gone to my inlaws house on my motorcycle. Those two boys were also calling Babloo. I cannot tell the exact time but it was noon time around between 1112 or thereafter. Again said I had left at about 11.00 am. Govind and Lakhan remained in the gali but I had left for my inlaws house.
At about 67 pm, my grandmother telephoned me about the murder of Lamboo and Babloo. Then I reached back there. The police had verified about the incident from me, that might be 8.4.2013. Again said that on 08.04.2013 the police officials reached my above stated house in a police gypsy. At that time Govind and Lakhan were in the police vehicle. They were shown to me. I identified them and stated before the police that those were the same boys who were calling Lamboo and Babloo on 06.04.2013.
Thereafter Govind led the police party at a nala nala St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 136 where he had thrown the knife used in the commission of offence and Govind recovered a knife from the dried nala. The knife was blood stained when it was recovered. Govind also disclosed about the involvement of Sonu in this crime. Sonu disclosed in my presence that Govind and Lakhan went upstairs in the house no. P1/970, Sultan Puri and he remained outside the house. Sonu also disclosed that after committing the incident, Lakhan & Govind came down and informed him how they had committed the murder. Police had prepared the sketch of knife. I had also put my signatures on some document. I cannot tell kinds of document being 6th pass. The police had prepared cloth pulinda of knife and thereafter the pulinda was put in polythene.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced Parcel no. 10 sealed with the seal of FSL. Same is opened out of which a rusted knife is taken out and is observed to be having some brown stains on the blades. After seeing the said knife, witness has identified the same to be the same knife which was recovered at the instance of accused Govind from the dried nala. Same is Ex.P1.
When I was going to my inlaws house, I had seen Govind, Lakhan and Sonu @ Soda talking to each other at the corner of the gali. Sonu is also present in the court (witness correctly identified the accused Sonu). At that time I advised them not to call anyone like this. The accused persons were taken to the spot. They also identified the place where they had committed the offence and they had also pointed out their positions. Police had prepared the memos in this regard and same are signed by me. Sonu disclosed that after committing the incident, St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 137 Govind jumped the house and he has sustained injuries in his leg. When I had seen Govind in the police vehicle he was having injuries in both the legs (iske dono paon toote hue the and chot thi). Seizure memo of knife is Ex.PW16/A bears my signature at point A, the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of Satish @ Sonu @ Soda is Ex.PW16/B which bears my signature at point A, pointing out memo prepared at the instance of Lakhan is Ex.PW16/C which bears my signature at point A, the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Govind is Ex.PW16/D which bears my signature at point A. Police had recorded my statement on 07.04.13 and asked me about who used to visit the premises of Babloo and also other persons. I narrated this fact to the police ....."
(131) Neeraj has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels wherein he has stated that only Lamboo used to visit the room of Babloo and mostly Babloo used to remain with Lamboo. According to him, he also came to know that Babloo was involved in stealing/ theft. He has admitted that he was knowing that Babloo was not a man of good character and his grandmother had asked Babloo to vacate the room but Babloo had requested to his grandmother to permit him to stay on the ground that his daughter was studying and his education was continuing in a local school due to which reason he was not vacating their premises/ rented room. He has explained that on the day of incident the said minor girl of Babloo was not present in the room and he had seen Govind and Lakhan outside his St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 138 house when they were calling Lamboo and Babloo. According to Neeraj, he told Lakhan and Govind not to call so loudly since his 1½ year son was sleeping on which they left. He has further explained that the accused had visited his house at about 11:00 AM whereas he had left his house at about 12:12:30 PM. Further, as regards the aspect of recovery of knife though the witness Neeraj has admitted that the Nala is situated in the open space and is not covered but has explained that the knife was not easily visible in the dried Nala and it was in the side which was identified by the accused Govind.
(132) It is writ large from the above that Neeraj (PW16) had last seen the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu @ Soda standing at the corner of the street at around 11:00 AM while searching for the deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo. Thereafter they went to the park situated in C6, Sultan Puri where they found both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo sitting and a quarrel took place between the two groups. The members of both the groups i.e. the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo on the one side and accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu @ Soda on the other side, are addicts a fact which has come on record and has not been disputed by the accused. While the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo were addicted to alcohol as well as drugs as evident from the oral testimony of the landlord Neeraj and the members of the Investigating Team who have confirmed that on local inquiry they came to know that both the deceased were good friends and often used to St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 139 consume alcohol and drugs together and also confirmed from the Postmortem and Viscera Reports, whereas the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu @ Soda are addicted to drugs and at the time of the incident the accused Govind had consumed the intoxicating pills and was under its influence thereby exhibiting extremely aggressive behaviour. The witnesses Vinod (PW9) and Sagar (PW12) have both confirmed that both of them are Ganja addicts and normally went to CBlock Park Sultan Puri for the said purpose as Ganja is easily available on cheap rates. On the date of incident also they had gone there for the purpose of smoking the same and while they were present at the park they noticed a quarrel and physical altercation taking place between the two groups on which they had intervened and pacified the matter. As already discussed separately, both these witnesses i.e. Vinod (PW9) and Sagar (PW12) have confirmed that they were present in C6 Park, Sultan Puri for purposes of smoking Ganja when they saw the accused persons i.e. Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu @ Soda on the one side quarreling with the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo on the other side which incident had taken place at around 12:30 PM (afternoon). They have confirmed that around the same time when they intervened and pacified the altercation in which Govind had taken out a big knife and threatened Ramesh @ Lamboo with the same who had snatched the knife and then walked away but later Govind followed and retrieved the knife which he retained that threaten to kill both the deceased on the same day saying Aaj hi Aaj me inhe St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 140 maroonga.
(133) Coming now to the specific testimony of Vinod (PW9) and Sagar (PW12) and coming first to the testimony of Vinod (PW9) the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:
"....... On 06.04.13, I was smoking in the park along with Sagar at about 12.30 in the noon. The park is situated in the C6, Sultan Puri area. I saw that a quarrel was going on between Lamboo and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan and Soda in other group. Lamboo slapped Govind. I and Sagar passified the matter. Govind was having a knife. Same was snatched by the Lamboo. Lamboo and Babloo thereafter left the park. Govind was using abusing language against Lamboo and Babloo. Govind followed Lamboo and returned back with his knife. Govind was uttering to see them. Thereafter we left the spot. My statement was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate which is already Ex.PX4 bearing my signature at point A. At this stage, witness correctly identified accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan & Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda, present in the court today......"
(134) In his crossexamination the witness Vinod has explained that he is addicted to Ganja and on the date of incident he was smoking Ganja along with Sagar in the park. He has also explained that the knife was made of iron and was rusted and he had explained the length of the knife with his hand. He has further explained that initially there was a verbal St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 141 altercation (Gali Galoch) during which Lamboo slapped Satish Kumar @ Soda and snatched the knife of Govind after which Govind followed Lamboo and took his knife back.
(135) Coming next to the testimony of witness Sagar (PW12), the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:
"........ On 06.04.13, I was smoking in the park along with Vinod at about 12.30 in the noon. The park is situated in the C6, Sultan Puri area. I saw that a quarrel was going on between Lamboo and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan and Soda in other group. Lamboo slapped Govind. I and Sagar passified the matter. Govind was having a knife. Same was snatched by the Lamboo. Lamboo and Babloo thereafter left the park along with knife. Govind was using abusing language against Lamboo and Babloo. Govind followed Lamboo and returned back with his knife. Govind was using abusing language and threatened to see them and he was also uttering "Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga" Thereafter we left the spot. My statement was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate which is already Ex.PX6 bearing my thumb impression at point A. Govind was under the influence of intoxicating pills and was giving threats.
At this stage, witness correctly identified accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan & Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda, present in the court today...."
(136) He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel during which the witness Sagar has admitted that he is also addicted to St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 142 Ganja which is available at a very cheap rate in the market but he does not consume intoxicating pills. He has further explained that he is familiar with Govind, Lakhan and Soda who are residents of the same locality. According to the witness, he has not friendship with the accused nor any enmity with them and only knew then being the residents of the same locality. He has admitted that police were inquiring from the public persons what had happened but he did not tell the police that he had seen Lamboo and Babloo in the park with the accused and has explained that his mother had called him back from the spot being apprehensive and nervous.
(137) It is writ large that in their testimonies both the witnesses namely Vinod (PW9) and Sagar (PW12) have supported each other on material aspects particularly on the fact that on 06.04.2013 at about 12:30 Noon, both of them were together in the park situated in C6, Sultan Puri area smoking Ganja when they saw a quarrel (verbal altercation) going on between Lamboo (i.e. deceased Ramesh) and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan (i.e. accused Anoop) and Soda (i.e. accused Satish) in other group and soon this altercation turned ugly resulting into a scuffling and physical altercation in which Ramesh @ Lamboo slapped the accused Govind after which they i.e. Vinod and Sagar intervened, pacified the matter and separated them. They have also corroborated each other on the aspect that it was the accused Govind who was carrying a knife which was then snatched by Ramesh @ Lamboo (deceased) after which both Lamboo St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 143 and Babloo left the park along with knife but Govind followed them and used abusive language against Ramesh @ Lamboo and Babloo and then soon returned back with the knife which Ramesh @ Lamboo had taken with him. They have also confirmed that at that time Govind was threatening to kill both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo on the same day and uttering "Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga". They have also confirmed that at the relevant time the accused Govind was under the influence of intoxicating pills which he had consumed.
(138) I may further observe that the medical evidence in the form of Postmortem Report of the deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo establishes the presence of fresh abrasion on his knee thereby confirming that during the day there was some scuffle in which he had received this injury. It is further evident that both these witnesses i.e. Vinod (PW9) and Sagar (PW12) have only confirmed the presence of accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda along with the accused Govind but have made no allegations of their having issued any kind of threats to both the deceased.
(139) It is evident that the incident of killing of both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo was in the evening and the accused Govind was found in an injured condition by the witness Gaurav Kumar (PW24) when Govind was sitting in front of his house and crying in pain. Gaurav Kumar (PW24) aged 14 years is the one who had seen the accused Govind in the street after the incident when he had sustained injuries on both the ankles St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 144 was sitting on the Chabutra outside the house of Gaurav and wanted to make a telephone call at his residence to call somebody on which the child Gaurav Kumar in order to help him had given his mother's mobile phone which was kept in the house to the accused Govind who had then made calls on the phone number being used by this mother after which Govind was shifted to the hospital. I may observe that the child Gaurav Kumar is aged about 14 years and before recording his statement, this Court had interacted with the child and found him intelligent and understanding the nature of questions put to him and the sanctity of oath. Thereafter the statement of child witness Gaurav Kumar (PW24) was recorded, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:
"........ I am residing at the aforementioned address along with my family and I am studying in class 10th of Swatantar Bharat Inter college, Salarpur, Hapur, UP. My mother, sister Pooja and brother Rajeev @ Raju stay in Delhi whereas I reside in the village along with my father. On 08.04.2013 the police had come to me and made inquiries. I informed the police that on 06.04.2013 one person, who is present in the court today, at this stage the child has identified the accused Govind as the said person, was sitting in front of our house on chabutra and both his legs were injured. I saw him rubbing his feet and crying in pain(pehle hath mal rahe thai aur phir dard se karrarahe thai). The said person (i.e. Govind as pointed out by the witness) was asking everybody if any body was having a phone as he wanted to make a call to his house so that some could come and pick St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 145 him up. My mother Smt. Babli Devi used to leave her mobile phone at home for emergency purposes and I gave her mobile phone to the said person Govind for making a call on which he made a call to somebody and after some time two persons came and lifted him and took him away. I do not recollect mobile phone of my mother.
At this stage, Ld. APP for the state seeks permission to put leading question to the witness on the aspect of mobile phone number.
Heard, Permission granted.
It is correct that the mobile number of my mother is 8743977286. Vol. I recollect the initially numbers but I am slightly confuse about the last two digits......"
(140) It is evident from the above that the child Gaurav Kumar (PW24) does not identify the accused Govind in the Court by his name but by pointing towards him as the person who was repeatedly saying that he had met with an accident with a motorcycle and wanted to call somebody, thereby confirming that the accused was not known to the child previously and there is no reason why the child would falsely implicate him by identifying him. In fact there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Gaurav Kumar (PW24) since even the accused Govind does not deny his presence in the area particularly in front of the house of Master Gaurav Kumar from where he had made a call after borrowing the mobile phone of Smt. Babli from her child Gaurav but has failed to explain as to How and Why he reached the area i.e. in front of House No. P1/84, Sultan Puri, St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 146 Delhi which is situated on the same street i.e. a little ahead of the spot where Babloo was residing on rent i.e. House No. P1/970, Sultan Puri, Delhi on the second floor. I may note that the accused Govind himself is a resident of C9/104, Sultan Puri which is away from the house of Babloo where the incident had taken place i.e. the scene of crime. (141) I may further observe that even the electronic evidence on record as discussed separately confirms the telephonic calls made by Govind from the mobile number of Smt. Babli the mother of the child witness Gaurav Kumar at 5:23 PM and even the accused Govind does not deny the same. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Govind has admitted his presence in the area and has also confirmed having made these calls but states that he had met with an accident on account of which he had made these calls so that his family could shift him to the hospital. The killings of the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo were discovered and came to light soon thereafter around 6:006:15 PM when a call was made to the PCR at 6:18 PM from the mobile No. 8130317255. It is writ large that this story of accident has now been introduced by the accused Govind as an after thought in order to cover up of his illegal acts. Earlier in the hospital he had himself confirmed to Dr. Ashutosh Gupta (PW13) vide Ex.PW13/A that the injuries sustained by him were on account of a fall from height. Had it been on account of accident, he himself would have been disclosed so to the doctor and not St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 147 told him that it was due to fall from height I may observe that the incident in question had taken place at House No. P1/970, Sultan Puri where Babloo was residing on the second floor and after committing the murder he jumped from the roof thereby injuring both his ankles and thereafter managed to drag himself till a little distance and sat on the Chabutra outside the house of Gaurav Kumar i.e. P1/84, Sultan Puri situated on the same street in which the house of Babloo i.e. P1/970 is situated. (142) The accused Govind is the best person who could have offered an explanation with regard to the same without any difficulty and the onus under these circumstances would not shift upon the prosecution. Since the facts relating to the same being especially within the exclusive knowledge of the accused, the legislature engrafted a special rule in Section 106 of the Evidence Act to meet exceptional cases in which not only it would be impossible to disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts which are specially and exceptionally within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The only explanation offered by the accused Govind is that he had met with an accident with a motorcycle and hence had received injuries stands demolished from his medical record which is Ex.PW13/A which confirms that as per his own claims the accused Govind had received fractures on both the heel bones (ankles) which medical evidence established that these injuries could only be caused on account of fall from the height and not from a Road Traffic St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 148 Accident more so when the accused Govind and his family members had given the history to Dr. Ashutosh Gupta as that of fall from height. This being the background, I hold that what the accused has now stated before the Court is an after thought and on legal advise and the explanation so given by the accused Govind is not probable and plausible and there exists a close proximity between the time when the accused Govind had come to the house of Babloo looking for him and Ramesh @ Lamboo (at 11:00 AM when he was seen by Neeraj) and thereafter when he had quarreled with the deceased at C6, Park at 12:30 PM (confirmed by Vinod and Sagar) and when he was seen in the vicinity of the house of deceased Babloo at 5:23 PM by child Gaurav when he himself was injured. It is this evidence which turns on against the accused Govind. (143) I may observe that a combined reading of the oral testimonies of Vinod (PW9), Sagar (PW12), Neeraj (PW16) and Master Gaurav Kumar (PW24) establish the following aspects:
➢ That both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo were drug addicts and used to remain together.
➢ That on 6.4.2013 at around 11:00 AM the accused Govind along with Anoop @ Lakhan reached outside the house of Neeraj where Babloo was residing as a tenant, looking for Ramesh @ Lamboo.
➢ That the accused Govind and Anoop @ Lakhan called out to Lamboo loudly on which Neeraj scolded them for calling out to people so loudly and also told them that there was no such person by St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 149 this name since Neeraj was aware that the accused persons did not enjoy good reputation and also because his 1½ year old son was sleeping in the house.
➢ That thereafter Neeraj left his house as he had to go to his inlaw's house but he had seen Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda talking to each other at the corner of the street.
➢ That at about 12:30 Noon, both Vinod and Sagar were smoking Ganja in the park situated in C6, Sultan Puri area.
➢ That in the said park at that time i.e. at around 12:30 PM (noon) they saw a quarrel going on between Lamboo and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan and Soda in other group .
➢ That Ramesh @ Lamboo slapped the accused Govind after which they (Vinod and Sagar) intervened between them and pacified the matter.
➢ That the accused Govind was having a knife which was snatched by Ramesh @ Lamboo after which both Lamboo and Babloo left the park along with this knife of Govind which Lamboo had snatched.
➢ That Govind was using abusive language against Ramesh @ Lamboo and Babloo and then Govind followed Lamboo and after some time returned back with his knife.
➢ That Govind was using abusing language and threatened to see them by uttering "Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga" i.e. today itself he will finish both of them.St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 150
➢ That accused Govind was highly aggressive and was under the influence of intoxicating pills/ drugs at that time.
➢ That at around 5:30 PM the accused Govind was sitting outside the house of Gaurav Kumar i.e. P1/84, Sultan Puri, Delhi on the Chabutra and both his legs were injured.
➢ That Master Gaurav Kumar saw that the accused Govind was rubbing his feet with his hands and was also crying in pain and was asking persons in the area if anybody was having a mobile phone as he wanted to call to his house.
➢ That Master Gaurav Kumar gave the mobile phone bearing No. 8743977286 issued in the name of his mother Smt. Babli which was kept in the house, to Govind who then made calls (as confirmed from the electronic evidence and from the testimony of Gaurav Kumar and Smt. Babli and also admitted by the accused Govind).
➢ That after sometime two persons came and lifted Govind and took him away.
(144) I may observe that the Medical Evidence i.e. MLC of accused Govind confirms that he was shifted to Jeevan Charitable Hospital, Mangol Puri at 7:30 PM by his mother and brothers with an alleged history of fall from height. It is evident from the aforesaid that in so far as the accused Govind is concerned, his presence at the spot is not only admitted by him but also stands confirmed from the electronic evidence on record St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 151 and from the oral testimony of Master Gaurav Kumar (PW24). I may observe that it was the accused Govind who had a Motive and wanted to take a revenge from the deceased with whom he had picked up a quarrel with Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo in the afternoon at 12:30 PM in which he was slapped. At that time the accused Govind was under the influence of drugs/ pills and was highly aggressive. Later, he is the one who during investigations and pursuant to his disclosure got the weapon of offence i.e. knife recovered (as discussed separately). This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Govind of having committed the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo while they were lying in the tenanted room of Babloo in totally inebriated condition and thereafter in order to escape he jumped from the roof as a result of which he sustained injuries as confirmed from the medical record. The circumstantial evidence confirms the involvement of only one person.
Hence, in so far as the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda are concerned, except for their own disclosure statements as well as the disclosure statement of accused Govind, the prosecution has failed to produce before this court any other admissible evidence which could conclusively connect them to the alleged offence. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda beyond reasonable doubt for which reason benefit of doubt St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 152 is being given to them.
(145) However, is so far as the accused Govind is concerned, the charges against him of having committed the murder of both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo with the knife Ex.P1 stands conclusively established and proved beyond doubt.
Arrest of the accused/ Recovery pursuant to Disclosure Statement:
(146) The case of the prosecution is that after registration of the FIR and after the postmortem on the dead bodies were conducted on 7.6.2013 the statements of the witnesses Sagar @ Katla and Vinod were recorded. It was then that the Investigating Agency came to know about the names of the assailants/ accused. On 08.04.13, the Investigating Officer Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi (PW32), SI Mahender Partap (PW26), Ct. Bajrang (PW31) and Ct. Baldev and his driver and operator went in search of accused at C block, Sultanpuri and when they went to P1 Block where they received an information that two accused namely Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu wanted in this case were sitting in C6 Block Park. Thereafter the Investigating Officer constituted a raiding party and on the way some public persons were asked to join the raiding team but none agreed and left without telling their names and addresses and thereafter all the members of raiding party reached at C6 Block Park, where both the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish @ Sonu were found present standing at the corner of the park. On the pointing of the secret informer, both of them were St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 153 apprehended and they were interrogated during which they admitted their involvement. The accused Satish Kumar was then arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/C and the accused Anoop @ Lakhan was arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/D, personal search of accused Satish was conducted vide Ex.PW26/E and personal search of accused Anoop @ Lakhan was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/F. The disclosure statements of both the accused were then recorded, disclosure statement of accused Satish is Ex.PW26/G and disclosure statement of accused Lakhan @ Anoop is Ex.PW26/H. It is the case of the prosecution that it was during the interrogation both the accused Lakhan and Satish, that they disclosed the name of their third associate as Govind R/o House No. 104, C9 Block who was injured in the incident after he jumped from the roof. Thereafter all the members of raiding party and the accused persons reached at the house of C9/104, from where accused Govind was apprehended who had disclosed that he had received injuries when he jumped from the roof after committing the incident and was medically examined and treated in Jeevan Hospital. The accused Govind then produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/I. The accused Govind was then arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW26/J, personal search of accused Govind was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/K and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW26/L. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Govind got recovered his Tshirt, St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 154 Capri & underwear which he was wearing at the time of the incident, from the room and the said clothes were then taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/M. Thereafter the accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala. The said knife was then measured, its sketch was prepared vide Ex.PW26/N and then it was seized vide memo Ex.PW/16A and the site plan of spot of recovery was also prepared which is Ex.PW26/P. (147) In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of the various police officials i.e. Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi (PW32), SI Mahender Partap (PW26), Ct. Bajrang (PW31) and also on the testimony of Neeraj (PW16).
(148) Before analyzing the evidence on merits, it is necessary to observe that as per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 155 custody of a police officer.
1. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
2. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
3. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious. (149) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
1. That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
2. That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
3. That a man said certain words, is a fact.
4. That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
5. That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
(150) A cojoint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 156 will show you the place where I have kept the articles". (151) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)" and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. KingEmperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under: "...... Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 157 custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S.
27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information. . . .. ...... as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 158 informant......"
(152) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 159 where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence.....".
(153) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 160 applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
"....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.
The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence.
(154) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that "..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned.
However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 161 of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"
(155) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of fact" should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes the recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 162 admissible.
(156) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the place where the dead body was recovered was already within the knowledge of the police. It was also within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency that a sharp edged weapon was used in the offence but it was not within their knowledge as to what exactly was the weapon of offence and where it was hidden unless the accused Govind disclosed that it was a knife which he had thrown in a ganda nala at P1 Block, Sultan Puri and then pursuant to his disclosure led the police party to Ganda Nala, P1 Block Sultan Puri and got recovered the said knife Ex.P1. This is a disclosure of relevant fact and is admissible in evidence as contemplated under Section 27 of Evidence Act more so when it has been opined by the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Manoj Dhingra that the injuries on the bodies of the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo could be possible by this knife or similar kind of weapon. Further, when the accused Govind was arrested he was having injuries/ fracture on both his legs. How and when the accused Govind had sustained these injuries and from where he had obtained the treatment was not within the knowledge of the police unless it was so disclosed by the accused Govind in his disclosure made to the police wherein he panicked after committing murder and went out from the window of the bathroom and fell on the roof of the bathroom constructed on the lower floor and then on the road as a result of which he sustained injuries on both his legs and then staggered St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 163 and somehow tried to move towards the side of nala but after moving for some distance he could not move on account of sever pain and was immobilized and therefore he sat on a Chabutra on one of the house and cried for help, when the child Gaurav helped him by giving his mother's mobile to him for making a call. The accused Govind further disclosed that after he was helped and he reached back home, his mother and brothers first took him to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where he was asked large number of questions and therefore in order to avoid answering the same they went to Jeevan Charitable Hospital, Mangol Puri from where he received the treatment. This fact was that the accused Govind had obtained the treatment from Jeevan Charitable Hospital was also not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency, unless it was so disclosed to them by the accused Govind during his interrogation. It is these portions of the disclosure statement of the accused Govind disclosing the manner how he sustained injuries after jumping from the window of the bathroom attached to the room of the deceased, when he landed on the roof of the bathroom of the lower floor and then on the road, and also thereafter of having received treatment from Jeevan Charitable Hospital, Mangol Puri, which are disclosure of facts and admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Further, it was also not within the knowledge of Investigating Agency as to what clothes were worn by the accused Govind at the time of the incident unless and until the accused Govind got recovered his Tshirt, Capri & underwear which he was worn at St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 164 the time of the incident. This is a disclosure of relevant fact and is admissible in evidence as contemplated under Section 27 of Evidence Act more so when the forensic evidence on record establishes the presence of Human Blood on the Tshirt of the accused Govind. What turns on the fact that accused Govind first got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of the incident and then got recovered the knife used in committing the murder of the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo. This being the background I hereby hold that the recovery of the knife and clothes of the accused Govind pursuant to his disclosure statement, is highly incriminating qua the accused Govind and is a strong pointer towards his guilt.
Voluntary Intoxication - No Defence:
(157) An argument has been raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel that as per the evidence which has come on record the deceased were alcoholics and drug addicts and as borne out from the testimonies of Vinod and Sagar even the accused Govind was under the influence of drugs having consumed intoxicating pills and was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. I have considered the argument raised before me and I may observe that the argument so advanced deserves outright rejection. The answer to the argument can be found in the provisions of Sections 85 Indian Penal Code which provides that Nothing is an offence which is done by a person St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 165 who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. Further, the provisions of Section 86 of Indian Penal Code provide that in cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. It is clear from the above that the statutory law of this land protects only such offenders who have been intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will. Impliedly the sections do not come to the aid of such an offender who voluntary consumes alcohol or other intoxicating substances like drugs etc. and then commits the offence.
These provisions are based upon the sound principle of Justice for a person cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and hence the accused Govind cannot turn around to claim that his acts were outcome of whatever he was consuming being freely available in the market. Even otherwise the evidence on record establishes that the accused Govind was fully conscious and aware of the consequences of his acts. It is for this reason that after committing the Double Murder he panicked and then in order to save himself and avoid detection, he jumped over from the window St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 166 of the bathroom attached to the room of the deceased on the roof of the lower floor when he sustained injuries over his ankles (fracture). Legal Insanity is treated differently from Medical Insanity. The accused Govind at no point of time has taken this as his defence, even though as discussed herein above the said defence is not available to him being in a state of Voluntary Intoxication on account of drug consumption. No person can be permitted to voluntarily consume drugs/ intoxicants and then create havoc by going on a killing spree and claim the same as a defence. I find no merit in the said submission.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(158) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. 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;
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 conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 167
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.
(159) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the identity of all the accused i.e. Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda stands established. On the basis of the oral testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses the following sequence of events stand established:
➢ That both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo were drug addicts and used to remain together (proved by VinodPW9, SagarPW12 and Neeraj PW16).
➢ That on 6.4.2013 at around 11:00 AM the accused Govind along with Anoop @ Lakhan reached outside the house of Neeraj where Babloo was residing as a tenant at House No. P1/970, Sultan Puri on the second floor, looking for Ramesh @ Lamboo (proved by Neeraj PW16).
➢ That the accused Govind and Anoop @ Lakhan called out to Lamboo loudly on which Neeraj scolded them for calling out to people so loudly and also told them that there was no such person by this name since Neeraj was aware that the accused persons did not enjoy good reputation and also because his 1½ year old son was St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 168 sleeping in the house (proved by Neeraj PW16).
➢ That thereafter Neeraj left his house as he had to go to his inlaw's house but he had seen Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda talking to each other at the corner of the street (proved by Neeraj PW16).
➢ That at about 12:30 Noon, both Vinod and Sagar were smoking Ganja in the park situated in C6, Sultan Puri area (proved by Vinod
- PW9 and Sagar PW12).
➢ That in the said park at that time i.e. at around 12:30 PM (noon) they saw a quarrel going on between Lamboo and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan and Soda in other group (proved by Vinod -
PW9 and Sagar PW12).
➢ That Ramesh @ Lamboo slapped the accused Govind after which they (Vinod and Sagar) intervened between them and pacified the matter (proved by Vinod - PW9 and Sagar PW12).
➢ That the accused Govind was having a knife which he was showing to Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo and was snatched by Ramesh @ Lamboo after which both Lamboo and Babloo left the park along with this knife of Govind which Lamboo had snatched (proved by Vinod - PW9 and Sagar PW12).
➢ That Govind was using abusive language against Ramesh @ Lamboo and Babloo and then Govind followed Lamboo and after some time returned back with his knife (proved by Vinod - PW9 and St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 169 Sagar PW12).
➢ That Govind was using abusing language and threatened to see them by uttering "Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga" i.e. today itself he will finish both of them (proved by Vinod - PW9 and Sagar PW12).
➢ That accused Govind was highly aggressive and was under the influence of intoxicating pills/ drugs at that time (proved by Sagar PW12).
➢ That at around 5:30 PM the accused Govind was sitting outside the house of Gaurav Kumar i.e. P1/84, Sultan Puri, Delhi on the Chabutra and both his legs were injured (proved by Gaurav Kumar PW24).
➢ That Master Gaurav Kumar saw that the accused Govind was rubbing his feet with his hands and was also crying in pain and was asking persons in the area if anybody was having a mobile phone as he wanted to call to his house (proved by Gaurav Kumar PW24). ➢ That Master Gaurav Kumar gave the mobile phone bearing No. 8743977286 issued in the name of his mother Smt. Babli which was kept in the house, to Govind who then made calls, as confirmed from the electronic evidence (proved by Gaurav Kumar PW24 and Smt. Babli PW25 and also admitted by the accused Govind). ➢ That after sometime two persons came and lifted Govind and took him away (proved by Gaurav Kumar - PW24).
➢ That at 6:18 PM dead bodies of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 170 were discovered and PCR Call was made from mobile No. 8130317255 belonging to Vijay(proved by Vijay - PW23). ➢ That at about 7:30 PM the family of Govind took him to Jeevan Charitable Hospital, Mangol Puri with a history of fall from a height with fractures on both his heels for which plaster was put on both legs till ankles (proved by Dr. Ashuthosh Gupta - PW13). ➢ That the present FIR was registered on 6.4.2013 at 7:15 PM and on 8.4.2013 first of all the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda were apprehended and arrested from C6 Block Park, Sultan Puri at about 3:00 PM after which they disclosed the involvement of Govind (proved by SI Mahender PartapPW26, Ct. BajrangPW31 and Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi PW32). ➢ That after both the accused disclosed the involvement of their associate Govind, they led the police team to the house of accused Govind from where the accused Govind was apprehended, who also disclosed his involvement in the Crime and also disclosed that he had received injuries when he jumped from the room and was medically examined and treated in the Jeevan Hospital (proved by SI Mahender PartapPW26, Ct. BajrangPW31 and Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi PW32).
➢ That accused Govind produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which were taken into possession (proved by SI Mahender PartapPW26, Ct. BajrangPW31 and Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 171 PW32).
➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Govind got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident i.e. TShirt, Capri & Underwear which were taken into possession (proved by SI Mahender PartapPW26, Ct. BajrangPW31 and Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi PW32).
➢ That thereafter the accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala which Knife was measured, its sketch was prepared and thereafter it was seized (proved by SI Mahender PartapPW26, Ct. BajrangPW31 and Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi PW32).
(160) The Medical Record of the accused Govind lends credence to the prosecution version that after committing the double murder the accused had tried to escape from the spot which is a room on the second floor of property No. P1/970, Sultan Puri, Delhi by jumping from the roof in which process he received fracture of heel bones of both his feet, a fact which also find independent confirmation from the testimony of child witness Gaurav Kumar. The Medical Evidence is also compatible to the prosecution case confirming the homicidal killings of both the deceased i.e. Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo. The nature of fatal injuries inflicted upon both the deceased are similar in nature i.e. they have been inflicted at virtually the same part of the body i.e. peritoneum region, upto Pancreas St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 172 and Aorta (also seen in photographs Ex.PW8/A1 and Ex.PW8/A2 and also of same size (i.e. 4 cm x 1.3 cm) confirming that the force used on both the deceased to cause the injury was same. This establishes Firstly that the weapon of offence used was same and Secondly that the force used on both the deceased was the same and hence the possibility of the same person having inflicted the fatal injuries upon both the deceased. Also, the forensic evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution version and connects the accused Govind with the alleged offence. The recovery of the knife and clothes of the accused Govind particularly his TShirt with Human Blood pursuant to his disclosure statement incriminates the accused Govind.
(161) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (162) In so far as the accused Govind is concerned the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 173 falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(163) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the intent and knowledge of the accused Govind (as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code to commit the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo pursuant to which on 6.4.2013 he committed the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo by inflicting knife blows to them while they were lying in the tenanted room of Babloo in totally inebriated condition and thereafter in order to escape he jumped from the roof as a result of which he sustained injuries as confirmed from the medical record. Therefore, I hold the accused Govind guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (for killing of Babloo) and again Section 302 Indian Penal Code (for killing of Ramesh@ Lamboo).
(164) However, the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the existence of criminal conspiracy or the common intention between the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda and hence all the accused are acquitted of the charge under St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 174 Section 120B Indian Penal Code.
(165) Further, in so far as the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda are concerned, except for their own disclosure statements as well as the disclosure statement of accused Govind, the prosecution has failed to produce before this court any other admissible evidence which could conclusively connect them to the alleged offence. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda beyond reasonable doubt for which reason benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 r/w 120B Indian Penal Code.
(166) Be listed for arguments on sentence qua the convict Govind for 11.12.2014.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 8.12.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 175
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 147/2013 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0188952013 State Vs. (1) Govind S/o Rajender Prasad R/o C9/104, Sultan Puri, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Anoop @ Lakhan S/o Sh. Laxmi Prashad R/o Jhuggi No. 253A, C6 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi (Acquitted) (3) Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda S/o Sh. Harphool Singh R/o C6/237, Near Sunder Dairy, Sultan Puri, Delhi (Acquitted) FIR No.: 244/13 Police Station: Sultan Puri Under Section: 302/120B/34 Indian Penal Code Date of Conviction: 8.12.2014 Arguments concluded on: 13.12.2014 Date of sentence: 15.12.2014 St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 176 APPEARANCE:
Present: Ms. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Govind in Judicial Custody with Ms. Shivali Gautam Advocate along with Sh. Rajbir Malik Proxy Advocate for the Bar.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per the allegations on or before 6.4.2013 all the accused i.e. Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo and in pursuance to the same, on 6.4.2013 at about 5:00 PM at Second Floor of House No. P1/970, Sultan Puri, Delhi they all committed the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo by giving knife blows to them on their abdomen.
However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the testimonies of Vinod, Sagar, Neeraj and child witness Gaurav Kumar and also on the basis of the medical, forensic, electronic and other circumstantial evidence on record, this Court has acquitted the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda for the charges under Sections 120B and 302 r/w 302 IPC. However, the accused Govind has been held guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC (for killing the deceased Babloo) and again Section 302 St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 177 IPC (for killing of deceased Ramesh @ Lamboo) but acquitted of the charge under Section 120B Indian Penal Code.
I may observe that vide a detail judgment dated 8.12.2014 this Court has held that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove and substantiate that both Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo were drug addicts and used to remain together; that on 6.4.2013 at around 11:00 AM the accused Govind along with Anoop @ Lakhan reached outside the house of Neeraj where Babloo was residing as a tenant at House No. P1/970, Sultan Puri on the second floor, looking for Ramesh @ Lamboo; that the accused Govind and Anoop @ Lakhan called out to Lamboo loudly on which Neeraj scolded them for calling out to people so loudly and also told them that there was no such person by this name since Neeraj was aware that the accused persons did not enjoy good reputation and also because his 1½ year old son was sleeping in the house; that thereafter Neeraj left his house as he had to go to his inlaw's house but he had seen Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda talking to each other at the corner of the street.
The prosecution has also been able to successfully establish that at about 12:30 Noon, both Vinod and Sagar were smoking Ganja in the park situated in C6, Sultan Puri area; that in the said park at that time i.e. at around 12:30 PM (noon) they saw a quarrel going on between Lamboo and Babloo in one group and Govind, Lakhan and Soda in other group; that Ramesh @ Lamboo slapped the accused Govind after which St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 178 they (Vinod and Sagar) intervened between them and pacified the matter; that the accused Govind was having a knife which he was showing to Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo and was snatched by Ramesh @ Lamboo after which both Lamboo and Babloo left the park along with this knife of Govind which Lamboo had snatched; that Govind was using abusive language against Ramesh @ Lamboo and Babloo and then Govind followed Lamboo and after some time returned back with his knife; that Govind was using abusing language and threatened to see them by uttering "Aaj hi Aaj me inhe maroonga" i.e. today itself he will finish both of them; that accused Govind was highly aggressive and was under the influence of intoxicating pills/ drugs at that time.
This Court has also observed that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that at around 5:30 PM the accused Govind was sitting outside the house of Gaurav Kumar i.e. P1/84, Sultan Puri, Delhi on the Chabutra and both his legs were injured; that Master Gaurav Kumar saw that the accused Govind was rubbing his feet with his hands and was also crying in pain and was asking persons in the area if anybody was having a mobile phone as he wanted to make a call to his house; that Master Gaurav Kumar gave the mobile phone bearing No. 8743977286 issued in the name of his mother Smt. Babli which was kept in the house, to Govind who then made calls, as confirmed from the electronic evidence; that after sometime two persons came and lifted Govind and took him away; that at 6:18 PM dead bodies of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo were St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 179 discovered and PCR Call was made from mobile No.8130317255 belong to Vijay.
It has also been established that at about 7:30 PM the family of Govind took him to Jeevan Charitable Hospital, Mangol Puri with a history of fall from a height with fractures on both his heels for which plaster was put on both legs till ankles; that the present FIR was registered on 6.4.2013 at 7:15 PM and on 8.4.2013 first of all the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda were apprehended and arrested from C6 Block Park, Sultan Puri at about 3:00 PM after which they disclosed the involvement of Govind; that after both the accused disclosed the involvement of their associate Govind, they led the police team to the house of accused Govind from where the accused Govind was apprehended, who also disclosed his involvement in the Crime and further disclosed that he had received injuries when he jumped from the room and was medically examined and treated in the Jeevan Hospital; that accused Govind produced the treatment papers of Jeevan hospital which were taken into possession; that pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Govind got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident i.e. TShirt, Capri & Underwear which were taken into possession; that thereafter the accused Govind led the police party towards the Ganda Nala, P1 Block Sultan Puri from where he got recovered a knife which was on the dried side of nala which Knife was measured, its sketch was prepared and thereafter it was seized.
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 180
It has been observed by this Court that the Medical Record of the accused Govind lends credence to the prosecution version that after committing the double murder the accused had tried to escape from the spot which is a room on the second floor of property No. P1/970, Sultan Puri, Delhi by jumping from the roof in which process he received fracture of heel bones of both his feet, a fact which also find independent confirmation from the testimony of child witness Gaurav Kumar. The Medical Evidence is also compatible to the prosecution case confirming the homicidal killings of both the deceased i.e. Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo. The nature of fatal injuries inflicted upon both the deceased are similar in nature i.e. they have been inflicted at virtually the same part of the body i.e. peritoneum region, upto Pancreas and Aorta (also seen in photographs Ex.PW8/A1 and Ex.PW8/A2 and also of same size (i.e. 4 cm x 1.3 cm) confirming that the force used on both the deceased to cause the injury was same. This establishes Firstly that the weapon of offence used was same and Secondly that the force used on both the deceased was the same and hence the possibility of the same person having inflicted the fatal injuries upon both the deceased. Also, the forensic evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution version and connects the accused Govind with the alleged offence. The recovery of the knife and clothes of the accused Govind particularly his TShirt with Human Blood pursuant to his disclosure statement incriminates the accused Govind. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 181
This being the background, it has been held that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the intent and knowledge of the accused Govind (as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code to commit the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo pursuant to which on 6.4.2013 he committed the murder of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo by inflicting knife blows to them while they were lying in the tenanted room of Babloo in totally inebriated condition and thereafter in order to escape he jumped from the roof as a result of which he sustained injuries as confirmed from the medical record. Therefore, this Court has held the accused Govind guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (for killing of Babloo) and again Section 302 Indian Penal Code (for killing of Ramesh@ Lamboo).
The prosecution, however, was not been able to prove and establish the existence of criminal conspiracy or the common intention between the accused Govind, Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda and hence all the accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 120B Indian Penal Code.
Further, in so far as the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda are concerned, it has been observed by this Court that except for their own disclosure statements as well as the disclosure statement of accused Govind, the prosecution has failed to produce before this court any other admissible evidence which could conclusively connect them to the alleged offence. Therefore, it has been held that the St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 182 prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Anoop @ Lakhan and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda beyond reasonable doubt for which reason benefit of doubt has been given to them who have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 r/w 120B Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence qua the convict Govind. The convict Govind is stated to be a young boy of 25 years having a family comprising of aged widow mother, one elder brother, two younger brothers and two younger sisters. He is 9th class pass and is a carpenter by profession. Ld. Counsel for the convict has prayed for mercy and has argued that the convict is not having any previous criminal record and is the only earning member of his family since his elder brother is residing separately. It is argued that any stern view would cause mental, financial and social trauma to the family of the convict who are dependent upon him.
The Ld. Public Prosecutor has on the other hand, placed her reliance on the judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose Death Sentence upon the convict. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has also placed her reliance on the judgment of Shivaji St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 183 Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2008 (4) AD (CR.) SC 665 and has argued that death penalty could be awarded in cases even where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. She has also prayed for compensation to the families of the victims and has placed her reliance in the case of Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1995) 1 SCC 14 wherein it has been observed that:
"......... Compensation payable by the offender was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1972 which gave the Courts powers to make an ancillary order for compensation in addition to the main penalty in cases where 'injury, loss, or damage' had resulted. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 made it possible for the first time to make a compensation order as the sole penalty. It also required that in cases where fines and compensation orders were given together, the payment of compensation should take priority over the fine. These developments signified a major shift in penology thinking, reflecting the growing importance attached to restitution and reparation over the more narrowly retributive aims of conventional punishment. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 furthered this shift. It required courts to consider the making of a compensation order in every case of death, injury, loss or damage and, where such an order was not given, imposed a duty on the court to give reasons for not doing so. It also extended the range of injuries eligible for compensation. These new requirements mean that if the court fails to make a compensation order, it must furnish reasons. Where reasons are given, the victim may apply for these to be subject to judicial review. The 1991 Criminal Justice Act contains a St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 184 number of provisions which directly or indirectly encourage an even greater role for compensation......" Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has prayed that the compensation amount may not be very high as the convict belongs to a poor family and has prayed I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset, I may state that there can be no dispute as to the applicability of the various principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid two cases viz Machhi Singh (Supra) and Bachan Singh (Supra) which are required to be keep in mind before awarding a death sentence in any given case.
The law is well settled in the decision in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], wherein it was held that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. Again it was cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:
(a) Where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 185 brutality; or
(b) Where the murder involves exceptional depravity.
The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned in that judgment were:
(a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;
(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;
(c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;
(d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;
(e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;
(f) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and
(g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances being balanced St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 186 against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:
(a) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(b) When the murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is committed.
(c) When the murder of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.
It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for crimes.
In the case of Shivaji Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court considered as to whether or not circumstantial based conviction should be taken to be the mitigating factor and had observed that the plea that in case of a circumstantial evidence, death should not be awarded, is without any logic. It was also observed that if the circumstantial evidence is found to be of unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of the accused, which forms the foundation for St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 187 conviction, that have nothing to do with the question of sentence as has been observed in various cases while awarding death sentence. The Hon'ble Court was of the view that to treat circumstantial evidence as mitigating circumstances would amount to consideration of an irrelevant aspect and in a case which falls in the Rarest of Rare category death sentence should be awarded. I may however observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swami Shradhanand Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2008 (13) SCC 767 considered an alternative option and substituted the death penalty with life imprisonment with the directions that the convict must not be released for the Rest of his Life.
The question now before me is whether a punishment lesser than death would be wholly inadequate or whether the alternative option as proposed in the case of Swami Shradhanand Vs. State of Karnatka reported in 2008 (13) SCC 767 and Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 528/09 decided on 31.8.2009 would be adequate. In this regard reliance has also been placed on the cases of State Vs. Surender @ Kalwa & Ors. decided on 23.7.2014 in Death Reference No. 4/2013 & Crl. Appeal Nos. 1269/2013 & 12445/2013 in which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had placed its reliance on the recent observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shankar Kisanrao Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 5 SCC 546; Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2014 (3) SCALE 9; Gurvail Singh Vs. St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 188 State of Punjab reported in (2013) 10 SCALE 671; Sahib Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 778. In the said cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian has upheld the power of the High Court in directing the convict to 20 years of actual imprisonment without remissions. The Hon'ble Court also took a judicial notice of the fact that remissions were beinhg allowed to life convicts in the most mechanical manner without any sociological or psychiatric appraisal of the convict and without any proper assessment as to the effect of the earlier release of a particular convict on the society and these observations are quoted as under:
".......92. The matter may be looked at from a slightly different angle. The issue of sentencing has two aspects. A sentence may be excessive and unduly harsh or it may be highly disproportionately inadequate. When an appellant comes to this Court carrying a death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, this Court may find, as in the present appeal that the case just falls short of the rarest of the rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence. But at the same time, having regard to the nature of the crime, the Court may strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. What then should the Court do? If the Court's option is limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death, the Court may feel tempted and find itself nudged into endorsing the death penalty. Such a course would indeed be disastrous. A far St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 189 more just, reasonable and proper course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the Court i.e. the vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and death. It needs to be emphasised that the Court would take recourse to the expanded option primarily because in the facts of the case, the sentence of 14 years' imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all.
93. Further, the formalisation of a special category of sentence, though for an extremely few number of cases, shall have the great advantage of having the death penalty on the statute book but to actually use it as little as possible, really in the rarest of rare cases. This would only be a reassertion of the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684: 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] besides being in accord with the modern trends in penology.
94. In the light of the discussions made above we are clearly of the view that there is a good and strong basis for the Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment or by a term in excess of fourteen years and further to direct that the convict must not be released from the prison for the rest of his life or for the actual term as specified in the order, as the case may be......."
In the case of State Vs. Surender @ Kalwa Etc. (Supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court further took a note of the later decision in the case of Birju Vs. State of M.P reported in 2014 (2) SCALE 301 and in the case of Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura reported in 2014 (3) SCALE 344 while reiterating the triple test i.e. Crime St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 190 Test, Criminal Test, and RR Test the Supreme Court following the principle laid down in Swamy Shraddananda in which it awarded a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 20 years and thereafter applied this logic to the case of State Vs. Surender @ Kalwa Etc.(Supra) awarded sentence of imprisonment for Life wherein the convicts would spend at least 25 years of actual custody.
I may note that the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of crime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the crime and sometime it is desirability to keep the offender out of circulation.
The case in hand relates to double murder of two friends i.e. Babloo aged 32 years and Ramesh @ Lamboo aged 35 years both partners in addiction, who when alive remained together being chronic alcoholics and drug addicts and ironically died together when killed by another addict i.e. convict Govind while they were lying in their house in a totally inebriated state unable to offer any resistance or to defend themselves. The senseless act of killings of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo has destroyed two families, one of Babloo aged about 32 years who had left behind wife, St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 191 a minor daughter, aged widow mother, two younger sisters and one brother and another of Ramesh @ Lamboo aged about 35 years who had left behind aged widow mother, three sisters and two brothers. These are the Aggravating Factors before me. On the other hand the only Mitigating Factor is that the convict Govind a young boy of 25 years has no criminal record and there are strong chances of his reformation. The argument put forth before me that the convict Govind had killed the deceased while in a state of addiction after he had consumed some intoxicating pill does not hold any good since Voluntary Intoxication on account of drug consumption can neither be a defence not a mitigating factor. Even otherwise, the evidence on record confirms that Govind was fully aware of the nature of the consequences of his act and it is for this reason that after executing the killings in order to avoid detection and to save himself Govind jumped from the second floor room of the deceased, but unfortunately in the process fractured both his heels and became immobilized when he was seen by the child Gaurav who was residing in the same street.
According to a popular saying the real cause for Crime lies in the three 'Z' i.e. Zar, Zoru and Zameen (Money, Woman and Land) and I now proceed to add another 'Z' to the same i.e. Zahar or Poison in the form of drugs and intoxicants easily available all over. The Prime Minister of our Country has expressed his serious concerns over the menace of drug St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 192 addiction by describing it as a 'National Pain' - a Malaise filled with three 'D's i.e. Darkness, Destruction and Devastation. With all humility to what the Hon'ble Prime Minister has said with which none can disagree, I wish to add two more 'D's to it i.e. Demonizing and Devouring. An Addiction to drugs is a Dangerous Habit which Demonizes a person who Devours himself, by Destroying his own life and that of others around him and causes Darkness and Devastating consequences to himself, his own Family, the Society and to the Nation to which he belongs. Govind has brought Total Darkness not only in the lives of those whom the deceased have left behind i.e. aged parents and small children but also in the lives of those who were his own i.e. his own family. The present case relating to Double Murder cannot be put on the same pedestal as other ordinary murder case but at the same time it also does not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare Case. The case in my view falls within the category of a Rare Case calling for consideration of alternative options and in this background, I award the following punishment to the convict Govind for the killings of Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo:
1. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the killings of Babbloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life wherein the convict Govind would spend atleast 25 years in actual custody and shall not be considered for grant of remission till he undergoes an actual St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 193 sentence of 25 years and also a fine for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rs.
Two Lacs). In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months. Out of the total fine of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rs. Two Lacs), if recovered, the same shall be equally disbursed to the families/ LRs of the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
Matter be also referred to Delhi Legal Service Authority for further compensation to the families/ LRs of the deceased Babloo and Ramesh @ Lamboo under Victim Compensation Scheme.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 15.12.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Govind Etc., FIR No. 244/13, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 194