Delhi District Court
State vs . on 18 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.R. SETHI: ASJ-03: NORTH-WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNW01-010306-2016
SC No. 53725/16
FIR No. 569/16
U/s 304/34 IPC
PS Begumpur
State
Vs.
Kamal,
S/o Shri Lakhan Singh,
R/o H. No.3728, Jain Nagar,
Karala
Delhi
Date of institution of the case : 22.12.2016
Date when final arguments concluded : 18.01.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.01.2018
JUDGMENT
1 Succinctly stated, allegation against accused was to the effect that on 13.8.16 at some unknown time at Munak Nehar, Wazirabad Water turning point near Hyderpur Plant he, in furtherance of his common intention with co-accused Sanjay (since declared PO) had committed culpable homicide by killing State vs. Kamal & Anr.
(FIR no.596/16 PS Begumpur) 1 of 7 Ravi @ Yatinder, but the same was not amounting to murder. On basis of the said allegations, charge was framed against accused on 14.9.17 for having committed an offence punishable U/s 304/34 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2 During course of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 Suresh Chand who was the complainant and father of deceased. Witness claimed that on 13.8.16 while he was present at his house, his son Ravi left home at about 11.00 AM claiming that he was going to drive vehicle as he was driver by profession. Witness claimed that Ravi did not return back till night. He further claimed that he kept ringing on mobile phone of Ravi but he did not pick it up. Witness claimed that at about 10.00 PM he received a telephone call from one Ranjit who claimed that his son had left mobile phone and driving license with him (Ranjit) at his Panwari shop. It was claimed that his wife and a neighbour went to shop of Ranjit and brought back the mobile and license. He further claimed that on his asking Ranjit told him that his son had gone with Sanjay and Kamal on a bike to take bath at Nehar. Witness further claimed that as Ravi did not return back home during night, a call was made at No.100 by one of his neighbours. He claimed that PCR officials came and took Ranjit with them and thereafter they went to the PS where his statement Ex. PW-1/1 was recorded. Witness identified his signature on the same. He further claimed that he had seen Kamal for the first time in the PS when he went there. He further stated that on the next day i.e. on 15.8.16 he identified dead body of his son in Mortuary BJRM Hospital. His statement recorded in that regard was proved as State vs. Kamal & Anr.
(FIR no.596/16 PS Begumpur) 2 of 7 Ex. PW-1/2. Witness further claimed that he could identify Sanjay if shown to him and had earlier made a complaint against Sanjay to SHO, PS Sultanpuri. Mobile phone and DL were claimed to have been seized by police vide memo Ex. PW-1/3.
During course of cross examination witness denied the suggestion that on the night of 13.8.16, Panwari Ranjit had not told him that Ravi had gone with Sanjay and Kamal on bike towards Nehar. He categorically claimed that he did not know Kamal from before. Witness claimed that as it was late in night, he did not go to PS to lodge any complaint after receiving telephone call from Ranjit. He claimed having gone to the PS on 14.8.16 at about 8.30 AM. He claimed having called up No.100 on 14.8.16 at 8.00 AM and having reached PS shortly after 8.30 AM. He reaffirmed having seen the accused in the PS upon reaching there. Witness claimed that he had seen Ranjit and Kamal in the PS for three days continuously after 14.8.16 and had come to know name and other particulars of Kamal on reaching the PS on 14.8.16. He denied the suggestion that he had wrongly named accused as the culprit at instance of police officials or that he had been falsely implicated. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
3 PW-2 Mukesh claimed having identified dead body of his cousin Ravi in Mortuary, BJRM Hospital on 15.8.16 vide statement Ex. PW-2/1. He claimed that subsequently dead body was received vide receipt Ex. PW-2/2.
4 PW-3 HC Parminder proved copy of FIR Ex. PW-3/1 and his endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-3/2. He claimed that rukka State vs. Kamal & Anr.
(FIR no.596/16 PS Begumpur) 3 of 7 and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct. Surinder who had brought the rukka to him.
During course of cross examination witness claimed that it took about 35 - 40 minutes in registration of FIR. He claimed that Ct. Surender left the PS at 4.45 PM. He denied the suggestion that he had not received any rukka or that FIR was ante-dated and ante-timed.
5 PW-4 ASI Laxman proved copy of DD 17A dated 14.8.16, PS Begumpur. Copy of DD entry was proved as Ex. PW-4/1. 6 PW-5 Ranjit was the Panwari. He claimed that on 13.8.16 one Ravi came to his shop and left at around 1.00-2.00 PM with Sanjay. He claimed that before leaving his shop, Ravi had a telephonic talk with someone and while leaving had kept with him (Ranjit) his mobile phone and license. He further stated that while leaving, Ravi had instructed him not to pick up the mobile phone in case anyone made a call. Witness further stated that during night time a call had been received on the mobile phone of Ravi and he picked it up as long time had lapsed since Ravi had gone away from his shop. Witness claimed that he told the caller that Ravi had kept his phone with him and had not returned back. Witness claimed that he had asked the caller to look out for Ravi. He further claimed that that around 13/14.8.16 police took him to PS Begumpur and detained him there for 1 - 2 days. He further claimed that whatever was stated by him in court had been so stated by him before the police. He claimed that he had nothing more to say.
(FIR no.596/16 PS Begumpur) 4 of 7 After seeking permission from the court, witness was cross examined by ld. PP for State and during course of such cross examination he denied the suggestion that Sanjay often used to come to his shop alongwith Ravi. He claimed that he had not so stated to police in his statement. His attention was duly drawn towards his statement Mark P-5/A portion X - X1 where it was so recorded. Witness claimed that as he did not remember, he could not say if Ravi had come to his shop on 13.8.16 at 11.00-11.15 AM. He denied the suggestion that when Ravi came to his shop, Sanjay was already standing there with his motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that Ravi and Sanjay left his shop on motorcycle. He claimed that he had not stated said facts to police. His attention was duly drawn towards his statement Mark P-5/A portion Y - Y1, Y2 - Y3 & Y4 - Y5 where it was so recorded. Infact he claimed that Sanjay had not come on his motorcycle and that Sanjay and Ravi had gone on foot. He denied the suggestion that he had called up father of Ravi from his mobile phone and informed him about Ravi having left his mobile phone and license with him. His attention was duly drawn towards his statement Mark P-5/A portion Y6 - Y7 where it was so recorded. Witness admitted that the mobile and license of Ravi had been handed over by him to Ravi's father. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not disclosing complete and true facts.
7 PW-6 HC Gulzar proved copy of DD 15A dated 15.8.16 PS S.P. Badli as Ex. PW-6/1.
(FIR no.596/16 PS Begumpur) 5 of 7 8 As per FIR and claim of father of deceased who was the
complainant, it was Ranjit who had told him about Ravi having gone with Sanjay and Kamal. The said Ranjit during course of his statement recorded U/ 161 Cr. P.C and even during course of his deposition in court never claimed having told the complainant about his son Ravi having gone with Sanjay and Kamal. Infact, he had only named Sanjay in that regard. There admittedly was no eye witness to the incident. Prosecution had sought to relate accused Kamal with murder of Ravi only on basis of complaint lodged by Ravi's father. What was stated by Ravi's father (PW-1) during course of his testimony in court was apparently inadmissible in evidence being hearsay. On asking of this court it was submitted by ld. PP for State that there was no other incriminating evidence on record against the accused. 9 This court had toyed with idea of closing prosecution evidence. ld. PP for State however prayed that other witnesses be also examined. However, as none of the remaining witnesses sought to be examined by prosecution had anything to say about the actual incident and as none of them was even a witness of the accused having been last seen together with the deceased, recording of their testimonies would have been an exercise in futility. Prosecution evidence was accordingly closed by order of court.
10 As nothing incriminating had appeared on record against the accused, there was no material to be put to him during course of his examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Recording of statement of accused was accordingly dispensed with.
(FIR no.596/16 PS Begumpur) 6 of 7 11 Apparently, as already observed herein above, there was
no incriminating material on record against accused in as much as only allegation against him consisted of statement of the complainant who had claimed that it was Panwari Ranjeet who told him about his son Ravi (deceased) having gone towards Nehar alongwith Sanjay and Kamal. The said Ranjit during course of investigation and also during course of his testimony in court had not supported the said claim of the complainant. Infact his testimony was contrary to testimony of the complainant in as much as complainant had claimed that Ranjit called him up at about 10.00 PM while Ranjit claimed that a call had been received on mobile phone of Ravi and he told the caller that Ravi had kept his mobile with him and he should look out for Ravi. Not only the statement of complainant becomes inadmissible being hearsay, the same also runs contrary to claim of PW-5 Ranjit. 12 In that view of matter, it is apparent that no reliance whatsoever can be placed on testimony of the complainant PW-1 as the incriminating material stated by him is inadmissible in evidence.
13 That being the position, in absence of even an iota of incriminating evidence on record against the accused, this court has no option but to order his acquittal in this case. 14 The accused is accordingly ordered to be acquitted.
Announced in open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 18.1.2018 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE - 03,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
State vs. Kamal & Anr.
(FIR no.596/16 PS Begumpur) 7 of 7