Delhi District Court
State vs . Harish on 10 February, 2015
FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 195/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0336692011 State Vs. Harish S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass R/o K283, Mangolpuri, Delhi. FIR No. : 295/11 Police Station : Sultanpuri Under Sections : 302/392/394/397/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court: 21.10.2011 Date on which judgment was reserved: 30.01.2015 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 10.02.2015 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The case of prosecution as per the charge sheet is as under:
(i) On 06.07.2011, at about 9.45 P.M, information was received in PS Sultan Puri which was recorded vide DD no. 53A regarding admission of one Bhupender Pandey in injured condition in SGM Hospital. The copy of said DD no. 53A was entrusted to ASI Manmohan Singh for appropriate action;
(ii) On receipt of copy of DD no. 53A (Ex. PW14/A), ASI Manmohan Singh(PW28) alongwith PSI Sandeep Maan(PW26) rushed to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri where injured Bhupender Pandey was found admitted vide MLC no. 10980/11. He was declared unfit for statement by the State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 1 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 concerned doctor. No eye witness met them in the hospital at that time;
(iii) Accordingly, ASI Manmohan Singh and PSI Sandeep Maan went to the place of incident as disclosed in DD no. 53A i.e Block AB Park, Main Road, Sultan Puri, Delhi where one truck no. DL1M4435 was found parked on side of the road but no eye witness was met even at the said place. On the basis of MLC no. 10480/11 Ex(PW9/A) and the inspection of place of occurrence, ASI Manmohan Singh prepared rukka and got the FIR no. 295/11 U/s 307 IPC registered through PSI Sandeep Maan;
(iv) Crime team was also called at the spot which carried out inspection of the place of incident. ASI Manmohan Singh seized the relevant exhibits i.e blood stained earth, blood stained earth control, bottles of liquor, glasses and Eicher Truck bearing no. DL1M4435 and also prepared site plan of the place of occurrence;
(v) During the intervening night of 06/07072011 at about 12.40 A.M, intimation was received in PS Sultan Puri that injured Bhupender Pandey had been declared dead by the concerned doctor. Said information was recorded vide DD no. 4A(Ex PW17/A). Accordingly, Inspector Arun Kumar rushed to SGM Hospital and collected the relevant documents including death summary of deceased Bhupender Pandey and added Section 302 IPC in the case. The investigation was also taken up by Inspector Arun Kumar himself;
(vi) It is mentioned in the charge sheet that IO Inspector Arun Kumar recorded statements of witnesses including public witnesses namely Sh. State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 2 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 Ganshyam (PW3), Chamru Lal (PW4) and Shambhu (PW24) during the course of investigation. From the statements of said public witnesses, it was revealed that Ganshyam was owner of Eicher Truck No. DL1M4435 and deceased Bhupender Pandey was employed as driver on the said truck. It was further revealed that on 06.07.11 at about 9.00 A.M, deceased alongwith two helpers namely Shambhu and Chamru Lal had loaded sugar from the godown of FCI and had supplied some of the goods at different places till night. Thereafter, they had stationed the said truck at the place of incident. It was further revealed that two boys had entered into quarrel with deceased Bhupender Pandey and had inflicted knife injuries to him and had fled away from there;
(vii) It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that postmortem on the dead body of deceased Bhupender Pandey was got conducted on next day i.e 07.07.2011 and his dead body was handed over to his relatives;
(viii) It is further case of prosecution that on 08.07.2011, IO Inspector Arun Kumar collected call details record of mobile number 8860763268 belonging to deceased Bhupender Pandey. It was revealed that said mobile phone was having IMEI no.354273043116180. It was also revealed that SMSs were sent from one mobile phone having IMEI no.352542049371060 to mobile phone having IMEI no.354273043116180 belonging to deceased Bhupender Pandey. Accordingly, Call Details Record of said other mobile set having SIM number 8527667132 standing in the name of one Gopal, R/o 61/2, Phirni Road, Mundka, Delhi, were collected. On further enquiry, it was State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 3 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 revealed that mobile phone having SIM number 8527667132 was being used by one Vijender (PW5) S/o Sh. Zille R/o A1/369, Sultan Puri, Delhi. On enquiry made from said Vijender, he disclosed that SIM no. 8860763268 alongwith mobile hand set having IMEI No. 354273043116180 were handed over to him by his nephew namely Sushil @ Tinka(PW1) S/o Sh. Satya Singh R/o A1/370, Sultan Puri Delhi and also that he had inserted mobile phone bearing SIM number 8860763268 in his own mobile hand set having IMEI no. 352542049371060 on 07.07.2011 at about 10.30 for the purpose of checking it. He also produced the said mobile phone which was seized by the IO;
(ix) It is further claimed that on enquiry made from Sushil @ Tinka, he disclosed that mobile hand set having IMEI no. 354273043116180 were handed over to him by Harish S/o Bhagwan Dass R/o A2/156, Sultan Puri, Delhi who had borrowed a sum of Rs. 300/ from him with understanding that said mobile would be returned back to Harish on repayment of Rs. 300/;
(x) It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that on 09.07.2011, at about 11.30 P.M, accused Harish alongwith his surety namely Nitin @ Rahul @ Gollu(JCL) were apprehended from Ambedkar Park, Sultan Puri, Delhi. During his interrogation, they confessed their involvement in the present case and also made disclosure statements before IO. Accused Harish also got recovered weapon of offence i.e. knife used in the commission of offence, from drain of Ambedkar Park. They also got recovered their respective clothes which were worn by them at the time of commission of offence; State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 4 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015
(xi) It is further mentioned that on 20.07.11, accused Harish refused to participate in judicial TIP. He was declared adult by concerned JJB;
(xii) On 25.07.2011, the blood sample of accused Harish was got collected with the permission of the Court. Both the alleged eye witnesses namely Shambhu and Chamru Lal also identified accused Harish to be one of the assailants who had committed murder of deceased Bhupender Pandey on 25.07.2011 when they had gone to Rohini Courts; and
(xiii) It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that IO got the exhibits deposited in FSL Rohini, collected subsequent opinion from concerned doctor, got the scaled site plan prepared and recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of various witnesses. After completion of investigation, chargesheet had been filed before the Court.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the charges u/s 302/392/397/34 IPC against accused vide order dated 21.01.2012 and the said charge was amended vide order dt. 05.03.12 by Ld predecessor of this Court. Accused Harish pleaded not guilty to the amended charge and claimed trial.
4. It may be noted here that final report was to be filed against JCL Rohit @ Golu before concerned JJB as per the averments made in the charge State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 5 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 sheet filed against accused Harish.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses namely PW1 Sushil, PW2 Naveen, PW3 Ghanshyam, PW4 Chamru Lal, PW5 Vijender, PW6 SI (Retd.) Prem Singh, PW7 Israr Babu, PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, PW9 Dr. Mahipal Singh, PW10 Dr. Suryotam Kumar, PW11 Sh. Shiv Kumar, PW12 Ct. Manish, PW13 Sh. R.K. Singh, PW14 HC Yashvir Rathi, PW15 Ct. Narayan Dass, PW16 SI Dhirender Singh, PW17 HC Sridhar, PW18 Ct. Joginder Singh, PW19 Ct. Ashok Kumar, PW20 SI Amrit Lal, PW21 HC Gobind Singh, PW22 Sh. Dharmender Singh, PW23 W/Ct. Kiran, PW24 Shambhu, PW25 Ct. Chhotey Khan, PW26 SI Sandeep Maan, PW27 Ct. Ravinder Kumar, PW28 ASI Manmohan Singh, PW29 Sh. Gopal, PW30 Ct. Munawar Khan and PW31 Inspector Arun Sharma.
6. It may be mentioned here that accused Harsih made statement during trial on 19.01.2015 that he was not disputing the contents of both the FSL reports dt 12.03.12 and the subsequent FSL report dt. 08.01.13 on which all the said three FSL reports were given exhibit marks as Ex. PX, PY and PZ respectively.
7. Thereafter, statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused was recorded during which all the incriminating evidence were put to him. However, he denied the same and claimed that is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. His defence is of general denial. He claimed that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1000/ from PW Sushil @ Tinka in March 2011 and had already returned a sum of Rs. 5000/ to him including interest within 15 State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 6 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 days thereof. Still after few days when he was passing through A2 Block Sultan Puri, said Sushil @ Tinka met him and asked to indulge in some crime which he refused. He had narrated the said facts to his family members and his parents had advised him not to meet said Sushil @ Tinka in future. He further stated that after few days thereof, when he was again passing through A2 Block Sultan Puri, said Sushil @ Tinka met him and took his mobile phone make Classic containing SIM number 9899055563 issued in the name of his mother Smt. Shanti Devi and since thereafter, neither he met Sushil @ Tinka nor the said mobile phone was returned back to him. He also stated that on 08.07.11, he was attending marriage of daughter of his neighbourer at A2 Park, Sultan Puri, at about 8.30 P.M when said Sushil @ Tinka came alongwith some police officials who took him from the said marriage venue to police station where he was illegally detained for about 23 days and subsequently, he was falsely shown to be arrested in the present case at the instance of said Sushil @ Tinka who was informer of the police. Accused also opted to lead evidence towards his defence but did not examine any witness towards DE and ultimately, he closed his defence evidence on 30.01.2015.
8. I have already heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Ld. Amicus Curiae Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Adv. on behalf of accused. I have also gone through the material available on record.
9. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 7 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES
10. PW1 Sh. Sushil: This witness deposed that he had taken loan of Rs. 300/ from one Golu. Said Golu (JCL) had handed over one mobile phone made in China to him with understanding that he would take said mobile phone back after repaying loan of Rs. 300/ to him. SIM was also available in the said mobile handset. His uncle namely Vijender used the said mobile phone after putting his SIM in it. After 34 days, police had made enquiry from him about the said mobile phone on which he had handed over the said mobile phone to the police. Police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW1/A. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP on certain facts. During said cross examination, he denied that accused Harish was known to him and had taken Rs. 300/ from him. He also denied that when he demanded back Rs. 300/ from Harish on 01.07.2011, he had handed over to him one mobile handset bearing IMEI No. 354273043116180 with one SIM on the assurance that same would be returned back to him after repayment of Rs. 300/. However, he admitted that his uncle Vijender had used SIM in the said mobile phone on 07.07.2011. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused Harish being won over by him.
In the cross examination on behalf of accused, this witness reiterated that he was not knowing accused Harish.
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 8 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015
11. PW2 Naveen: He is a formal witness. He was the owner of tempo no. DL1M4435. He deposed that driver Bhupender Pandey was employed on the said tempo. The business of said tempo was being looked after by his brother Ghanshyam. He proved copy of RC of said tempo as Ex.PW2/A, superdginama as Ex.PW2/B and the tempo as Ex.P3.
During cross examination, he deposed that when he got the tempo on superdari, its back portion was covered with tirpal.
12. PW3 Ghanshyam: He is also a formal witness. He deposed that Eicher truck no. DL1M4435 is registered in the name of his brother Naveen and he used to look after the said vehicle. Deceased Bhupinder was employed as a driver on the said vehicle about 1520 days prior to the incident of the present case. He further deposed that Shambhu and Chamru were also employed as labourers on said vehicle. On that day, the said vehicle had gone for supply of sugar to Mangolpuri and Sultanpuri area. Driver Bhupender, Shambhu and Chamru were on said vehicle. On the same day in the evening, Bhupender Singh informed him on telephone that vehicle could not be unloaded fully on which as he asked aforesaid persons to park the vehicle outside the police station.
He further deposed that on the next day in the morning, he came to know that a quarrel had taken place between driver and some persons and he had been stabbed and said persons had run away from the spot. Thereafter, he went to the police station. PW3 further deposed that he had also visited the hospital where Bhupender was found dead.
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 9 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 After seeking permission from the Court, Ld. Additional PP had put leading question about the date of incident to the said witness after which witness deposed that the date of incident was 06.07.2011.
During cross examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that back portion of the vehicle was covered with the tirpal and was tied with the rope. Driver could not have seen the persons sitting on the back portion of the vehicle.
13. PW4 Chamru Lal: As per the case of prosecution, this witness had witnessed the incident in question. He deposed that on 06.07.2011, he alongwith one Shambhu (PW24) were on duty on truck being driven by driver namely Bhupender Pandey (since expired). After delivering sugar at various ration shops situated at different places, when they had reached at Jalebi Chowk, near park, Sultanpuri at about 9/10 pm, driver Bhupender Pandey stopped the truck. In the meantime, two boys came there. Accused Harish was one of them. On enquiry made by driver Bhupender Pandey, accused Harish told him about the liquor shop. Accordingly, Bhupender Pandey gave money to Shambhu (PW24) and asked him to bring liquor. Accused Harish also gave money to Shambhu to bring liquor and eggs. Accordingly, Shambhu brought the liquor and snacks. He alongwith driver Bhupender Pandey, Shambhu and accused and his associate (JCL) started consuming liquor while sitting on back portion of the said truck. They consumed one peg each. At that time, accused Harish asked Shambhu to bring eggs on which Shambhu had gone to purchase eggs. At that time, State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 10 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 accused Harish took mobile phone of driver Bhupender Pandey. When Bhupender Pandey demanded back his mobile phone, accused Harish did not give back the same to him. He (PW4) also requested accused Harish to return back the mobile but he refused. The smaller boy (JCL) gave fist blows on his nose whereas accused Harish took out a knife from his dub and gave knife blows to driver Bhupender Pandey, on which he (PW4) came down from the truck and ran away from there. On the way, Shambhu met him and narrated the entire incident to him. They also informed their contractor namely Ghanshyam about the incident and went to FCI Godown at Siraspur. Thereafter, they went to PS Sultanpuri where they came to know that driver Bhupender Pandey had expired.
In cross examination, he deposed that IO had read over his statement to him during investigation. The truck was half empty when he had reached at Sultanpuri and they had loaded more than 300 bags of sugar in the said truck. He admitted that said truck was covered with tirpal and clarified that they were sitting on the back portion of the truck when accused Harish and his associate had come there. Accused was wearing black colour Tshirt and half jeans pant at that time. Blood had oozed out from his nose when smaller boy (JCL) gave fist blow to him. He was not medically examined. He denied the relevant suggestions given to him during cross examination.
14. PW5 Vijender: He deposed that his nephew namely Sushil had given him a SIM. Said SIM was put by him in a mobile phone made in China and he used the said SIM in his mobile phone. After about 23 days, State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 11 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 police came to his house and made enquiries from his son Mohan about the SIM card. He further deposed that he had handed over the mobile set to the police in which said SIM was used. Same was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW5/A. The number of the SIM was mentioned in the seizure memo by the IO, in his presence. He identified the said mobile phone in the Court as Ex.P4.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
15. PW11 Sh. Shiv Kumar Pandey: He is the formal witness. He had identified the dead body of deceased being his father vide statement Ex.PW11/A. He deposed that after postmortem, they had received the dead body vide receipt Ex.PW11/B. The said witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
16. PW24 Shambhu: According to case of prosecution, he is also one of the material witnesses of this case who had lastly seen the deceased in the company of accused Harish as all of them were consuming liquor and taking snacks while sitting on back portion of the truck on the date of incident. This witness also deposed on the lines of testimony made by PW4 Chamru Lal as discussed in the preceding paras.
He further deposed that driver Bhupender Pandey had given him Rs. 50/ whereas accused and his associate had given him Rs. 100/ for bringing liquor. He had brought three quarters of liquor, five glasses and State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 12 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 namkeen packet. He was asked by the accused for bringing eggs but since eggs were not available, he brought samosas. While he was returning back to the truck, he saw Chamru running from truck towards him and driver Bhupender Pandey was also running in order to save himself. Chamru had narrated the entire incident to him by disclosing that accused had given knife injury to driver Bhupender Pandey who was smeared in pool of blood. After informing their contractor, he alongwith Chamru went to FCI Godown and thereafter, they had also gone to PS Sultanpuri.
He further deposed that Chamru had also told him that accused and his associate had robbed purse and mobile phone of driver and gave knife injury on the neck and stomach of the driver and escaped from the spot. He correctly identified accused Harish during trial.
He further deposed that on 25.07.2011, when he alongwith Ghanshyam and Chamru visited Rohini Court in connection with release of said truck, he had identified accused Harish to be one of the assailant who had given him Rs. 100/ for bringing liquor and had also given knife injury to driver Bhupender Pandey.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he was working on the said truck 1015 days prior to the date of incident. After supplying almost half of the bags of sugar at different places till evening, they had parked their vehicle at about 9/10 pm near one park at Sultanpuri. The liquor shop was visible from the spot where truck was parked. They had consumed liquor on the back side of the truck where goods were loaded. He was sitting with the State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 13 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 driver when accused and his associates had come there. He had come back within 10 minutes after purchasing samosa and Chamru met him at a distance of 10 mtrs. from the truck. He admitted that he himself did not see accused stabbing the driver. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him during his cross examination.
17. PW29 Sh. Gopal: The said witness was residing in factory premises of Indo Paint & Chemical Pvt. Ltd. situated at Phirni Road, near Kansal Dharam Kanta, Mundka, Delhi, where he was working as a labourer. He deposed that one Sunil S/o Sh. Attrey was also working in the same factory with him and on the request of said Sunil, he had given copy of his Voter ICard to him for obtaining mobile phone connection. Said Sunil obtained SIM number on the basis of copy of his said Voter Icard and gave it to his brotherinlaw namely Vijender (PW5) S/o Sh. Zile Singh for its use. He identified the photocopy of his Voter Icard exhibited as Ex.PW3/B to be the same which he had given to Sunil.
After seeking permission from the Court, Ld. Additional PP also put leading question to the said witness after which he deposed that SIM number obtained by Sunil on the basis of his Voter ICard, was 8527667132.
During cross examination, he deposed that he did not remember the exact date or month when he had handed over photocopy of his Voter I Card to Sunil.
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 14 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 POLICE WITNESSES
18. PW6 SI (Retd.) Prem Singh: This witness was posted as In charge Mobile Crime Team, Outer District in the intervening night of 06/07.07.2011. He deposed that on receipt of information, he alongwith other staff reached at the spot i.e. Opposite Indra Park, Om Road from Jalebi Chowk to SGM Hospital where they met IO ASI Manmohan and other staff. One Eicher truck no. DL1M4435 was found there. He further deposed that he had inspected the spot and photographer took the photographs. Chance prints were also lifted by Finger Print Proficient Ct. Chotte Khan. He proved his report as Ex.PW6/A. This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
19. PW12 Ct. Manish: This witness was posted as photographer, Mobile Crime Team, Outer District in the intervening night of 06/07.07.2011. He deposed that on receipt of information, he alongwith other staff reached at the spot i.e. Near AB Block Park, Main Road, Sultanpuri where they met IO and other staff. There at the instance of IO and Mobile Crime Team In charge, he took 13 photographs of the spot. He proved the negatives as Ex.PW12/A1 to A13 and the photographs as Ex.PW12/B1 to B12.
During cross examination, he deposed that they had finally left the spot at about 2 am. The local police officials were at the spot when they left the spot. They reached at the spot at about 1 am. They were four persons State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 15 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 including the driver of the mobile crime team. IO had recorded statements of three persons including him, finger print proficient namely Ct. Chotte Khan and Incharge Crime Team namely SI Prem Singh. There was street light at the spot and they were also having light arrangement. He further deposed that there were gunny bags in the truck. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot or that photographs were manipulated.
20. PW14 HC Yashvir Rathi: This said witness was working as Duty Officer at PS Sultanpuri on 06.07.2011. He deposed that on that day at about 9.45 pm, Ct. Narayan had informed on phone from SGM Hospital regarding admission of one Bhupender Pandey in the hospital due to injury in a quarrel, which was recorded by him vide DD no. 53A. He proved copy of DD no. 53A as Ex.PW14/A. He also proved factum about recording of FIR in question on the basis of rukka sent by ASI Manmohan through PSI Sandeep Maan on 06.07.2011 at 10.55 P.M. He proved copy of said FIR as Ex.PW14/C and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW14/B. During cross examination, he deposed that PSI Sandeep Maan remained with him for about 40 minutes.
21. PW15 Ct. Narayan Dass: This witness deposed that on 06.07.2011, he was on duty as Duty Constable at SGM Hospital. On that day at about 9.40 pm, one person namely Bhupender Pandey in injured condition, was brought to the hospital by Ct. Ashok with the history of quarrel and was admitted there. He gave the said information in PS Sultanpuri. After State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 16 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 sometime, IO ASI Manmohan Singh came at the hospital and he handed over the personal belongings of the injured to him, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that on 07.07.2011 at about 12.40 am, doctor had declared that injured Bhupender Pandey had expired and he gave the said information in the PS. During cross examination, he deposed that ASI Manmohan came at the hospital at about 10 pm alongwith PSI Sandeep. He remained in the hospital for about 2025 minutes.
22. PW16 SI Dhirender Singh: This witness joined investigation of this case on 09.07.2011 alongwith IO Inspector Arun Kumar Sharma, Ct. Vijender and Ct. Munawar Khan and left the police station vide DD no. 30A. He deposed that they had visited H. No. A1370, Sultanpuri where they met Vijender and Sushil @ Tinka (PW1). On enquiry regarding mobile phone no. 8860763268 of deceased Bhupender Pandey, it was revealed that said mobile phone was in possession of Sushil @ Tinka. On further enquiry, Sushil @ Tinka disclosed that said mobile phone was handed over to him by accused Harish for Rs. 300/ on 06.07.2011 and his associate Golu (JCL) was also with him at that time. He further deposed that SIM of said mobile phone was handed over by Sushil @ Tinka to his uncle Vijender who had been using the same from 07.07.2011. The said mobile phone was seized in this case vide memo Ex.PW1/A. State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 17 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 He further deposed that on the basis of secret information, accused Harish and his associate Golu (JCL) were also apprehended on same day from AB Extn. Park at about 11.10 pm. Both of them were apprehended vide memos Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B respectively and they made their disclosure statements thereby confessing their involvement in the murder of deceased Bhupender Pandey. They took them in the gali near AB Extn. Park, where dirty water was logged. Accused Harish produced one knife from the dirty water and after carrying out relevant proceedings in respect of said knife including preparation of its sketch Ex.PW16/D and preparing its sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of AK, said pullanda was seized vide memo Ex.PW16/E. He further deposed that accused Harish also took them to his house bearing no. K283, Mangolpuri and produced one black colour pant and white colour Tshirt and claimed that he was wearing them at the time of incident. The said clothes were seized after preparing their pullanda vide memo Ex.PW16/E. He further deposed that JCL Golu also took them to his house no. B443444, Aman Vihar and produced one black colour jeans pant and one red colour shirt with prints which he was wearing at the time of incident. After preparing their sealed pullanda, same were seized vide memo Ex.PW16/G. He further deposed that on 12.07.2011, Vijender Singh S/o Zile Singh had produced mobile phone which was used by him by putting SIM of deceased Bhupender Pandey. After checking IMEI number of said mobile State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 18 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 phone, it was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that accused Harish refused to participate in judicial TIP on 20.07.2011 vide TIP proceedings Ex.PW16/L (also exhibited as Ex. PW22/B). He further deposed that accused Harish was declared adult by concerned JJB on 22.07.2011. Said accused was identified by Shambhu and Chamru Lal when they had visited Rohini Court on 25.07.2011. After taking permission from Ld. MM, blood sample of accused Harish was taken.
He further deposed that on 09.09.2011, he had obtained opinion Ex.PW8/D with regard to weapon of offence. He identified mobile phone of black and silver colour Ex.P1 having IMEI no. 354273043116180 containing SIM of Vodafone Ex.P2. He also identified another mobile phone make G5 Ex.P4 having IMEI no. 352542049371060 to be the same mobile phone which was handed over by witness Vijender. He also identified the clothes Ex.P8 of accused Harish and clothes Ex.P9 of JCL Golu and knife Ex.P5 got recovered by accused Harish during trial.
He has been cross examined at length on behalf of accused. However, he denied all the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused. He claimed that no public person was called from nearby residential houses at the time of arrest of accused Harish as also at the time of recovery of knife. He claimed that some of the relevant memos were prepared by him and some were prepared by the IO. There was no specific mark of identification of the place wherefrom knife was recovered. He explained that house of accused Harish was double storied and his room was on first floor. State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 19 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 No site plan of the place of recovery of clothes of accused, was prepared by the IO.
23. PW17 HC Sridhar: The said witness is the DD Writer who deposed that on 07.07.2011, DD No. 4 was registered by him at about 12.40 midnight in PS Sultanpuri regarding death of Bhupender Pandey. The said information was sent to ASI Manmohan Singh for necessary action. He proved copy of said DD entry as Ex.PW17/A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
24. PW18 Ct. Joginder Singh: The said witness is the DD writer who proved factum of recording of DD no. 21B on 06.07.2011 at about 9.35 am by him in PS Sultanpuri. He proved copy of said DD entry as Ex.PW18/A. The said DD entry is in respect of departure of several police officials including Ct. Ashok No. 1278/OD (PW19) to various places on aforesaid dates and time. It is recorded in the said DD entry that Ct. Ashok had left for patrolling at Shani Bazar road, near Bank of Baroda on that day.
He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
25. PW19 Ct. Ashok Kumar: He deposed that on 06.07.2011, he was on patrolling duty in the area of PS Sultanpuri. At about 9.30 pm, he reached at AB Extension Park, Sultanpuri while patrolling in the area and saw one person stained with blood, coming towards Jalebi Chowk. On enquiry, said injured told him to have been stabbed by two boys who fled away. He State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 20 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 removed said injured whose name was revealed as Bhupender S/o Shiv Kumar Pandey, in TSR to SGM Hospital and got him admitted there. He further deposed that he came back to PS and subsequently, accompanied ASI Manmohan to AB Extension Park where one tempo bearing no. DL1M4435 containing sugar bags was found stationed there. On inspection of said vehicle, it was found that there was blood on its back side and it was revealed that injured Bhupender Pandey was driver of the said vehicle. IO prepared site plan at his instance and also seized the said vehicle vide memo Ex.PW19/A. Crime team was also called at the spot.
He further deposed that on 07.07.2011, he was deputed at Mortuary, SGM Hospital for custody of deceased. At about 11 am, the dead body was identified by his relatives and after completing inquest proceedings, postmortem examination on dead body of deceased was conducted. Thereafter, dead body was handed over to relatives of deceased vide memo Ex.PW11/B. The concerned doctor had handed over sealed pullanda having clothes of deceased alongwith sample seal of ASI Manmohan who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/B. In his cross examination, he denied the relevant suggestions put to him from the side of accused.
26. PW20 SI Amrit Lal : This witness deposed that on 13.09.2011 on the direction of IO, he collected ten sealed pullandas vide R.C. No. 72/21/11 from MHC(M) and deposited them in FSL, Rohini. He further deposed that he collected receipt regarding deposit of exhibits from FSL and State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 21 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 handed over the same to MHC(M). He proved the said receipt as Ex.PW20/H and copy of R.C. No. 72/21/11 as Ex.PW20/B. He also deposed that the case property remained intact during his custody.
During cross examination, he deposed that his signatures were taken by IO on the R.C. but not in register no. 19. He could not tell the number of seals affixed on these pullandas.
27. PW21 HC Gobind Singh: This witness was working as MHC(M) in PS Sultanpuri during the relevant period. He deposed that on 06.07.2011, ASI Manmohan Singh had deposited 10 pullandas sealed with the seal of MNS and one pullanda sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital alongwith sample seal and one Truck bearing No. DL1LM4435 loaded with sugar bags and one purse containing cash of Rs. 2050/, one DL, nine bills etc. in malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 12933 of Register no. 19. He proved copy of said entry as Ex. PW21/A. He further deposed that on 07.07.2011, Inspector Arun Sharma had deposited three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital alongwith sample seal in malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 12935 of Register no. 19. He proved copy of said entry as Ex. PW21/B. He further deposed that on 09.07.2011, Inspector Arun Sharma had deposited one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of DS in malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 12938 of Register no. 19. He proved copy of said entry as Ex. PW21/C. He further deposed that on 10.07.2011, Inspector Arun Sharma State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 22 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 had deposited three sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of AK and personal search articles of accused Harish in malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 12939 of Register no. 19. He proved copy of said entry as Ex. PW21/D. He further deposed that on 12.07.2011, Inspector Arun Sharma had deposited one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of DS in malkhana, vide entry at serial no. 12941 of Register no. 19. He proved copy of said entry as Ex. PW21/E. He further deposed that on 09.09.2011, he had handed over two pullandas out of which one was sealed with the seal of AK and another was sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital, to SI Dhirender for obtaining subsequent opinion from SGM Hospital. Said two pullandas were redeposited in malkhana on the same date.
He further deposed that on 13.09.2011, he had handed over four pullandas sealed with the seal of MMS, another four pullandas sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital and two pullandas sealed with the seal of AK to SI Amrit Lal vide RC No. 72/21/11 for being deposited in FSL Rohini. He proved copy of said RC as Ex. PW20/B and copy of acknowledgment receipt issued by FSL as Ex. PW20/A. He further deposed that on 03.10.2011, he had handed over one pullanda sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital containing Viscera alongwith sample seal to SI Ct. Ravinder Kumar vide RC No. 92/21/11 for being deposited in FSL Rohini. He proved copy of said RC as Ex. PW21/F and copy of acknowledgment receipt issued by FSL as Ex. PW21/G. State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 23 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 In his crossexamination, he deposed that he did not obtain signatures of IO in register no. 19 at the time of depositing the aforesaid pullandas in the malkhana. He had obtained signatures of SI Amrit Lal and of Ct. Ravinder in the Road Certificate register while handing over the aforesaid pullandas to them on aforesaid dates.
28. PW22 Sh. Dharmender Singh: He deposed that on 16.07.2011, he was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate. He had conducted TIP of accused Harish. He proved application for conducting TIP as Ex.PW22/A, TIP proceedings as Ex.PW22/B and the application for obtaining copy of TIP proceedings as Ex.PW22/C. He testified that accused Harish had refused to participate in judicial TIP on the ground that his photographs were taken by the police and might have been shown to the witness. The accused preferred not to cross examine the said witness despite grant of opportunity.
29. PW23 Lady Ct. Kiran: She was working as Computer Operator in PS Sultanpuri on 06.07.2011. She deposed that Duty Officer HC Yashvir Rathi brought a tehrir and she recorded computerized FIR under the supervision of Duty Officer and nothing was tampered with as long as FIR was recorded in the computer. She proved the certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW23/A. During cross examination, she deposed that Duty Officer brought the rukka at about 11 pm on that day and it took about 20 minutes in recording the FIR in the computer. She further deposed that certificate Ex.PW23/A was given on the next day to the IO.
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 24 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015
30. PW25 Ct. Chhotey Khan: This witness was working as Finger Print Proficient in Mobile Crime Team, Outer District. He deposed that he had accompanied SI Prem, Crime Team Incharge, photographer Manish and other staff to the place of incident where one truck bearing no. DL1M4435 was found parked. Said truck was loaded with sugar bags on half of its portion on back side and there were 34 liquor bottles, water bottles and 34 plastic glass lying there. Blood was also lying there. He had lifted two chance prints from bottles of liquor and after developing the same, he had sent those developed chance prints to Finger Print Bureau alongwith the report. According to the said report Ex.PW25/A, no definite result could be given on account of insufficient ridge details. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
31. PW26 SI Sandeep Maan: This witness had accompanied ASI Manmohan(PW28) on 06.07.2011 to SGM Hospital on receipt of copy of DD No. 53A Ex.PW14/A. He deposed about the relevant proceedings carried out at SGM Hospital as also about the proceedings carried out at the place of occurrence. He further deposed that ASI Manmohan had prepared rukka Ex.PW14/A on the basis of which, he got the FIR registered at PS S.P. Badli. After registration of FIR, he had also accompanied ASI Manmohan to SGM Hospital where Duty Ct. Narayan handed over two pullandas sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital and personal belongings of injured Bhupender Pandey to ASI Manmohan who seized those pullandas vide memo Ex.PW26/A and personal belongings of injured vide memo Ex.PW15/A. He also deposed State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 25 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 about the factum of seizure of various exhibits including three quarter bottles of liquor, two pouches of water, one water bottle, one packet of snack, 56 plastic glasses, one iron hook as also the aforesaid truck vide memos Ex.PW26/B and Ex.PW19/A respectively. He also deposed that ASI Manmohan had also seized blood stained earth and earth control from the truck. He also identified those exhibits during trial.
In his cross examination, he deposed that no eye witness met them in the hospital on 06.07.2011. Residential houses were situated at distance of about 200250 mtrs. from the spot. He had taken rukka on his bike and had reached at PS Sultanpuri at about 10.55 pm. Some of the memos were prepared by him at the instance of ASI Manmohan while some of the memos were prepared by ASI Manmohan himself.
32. PW27 Ct. Ravinder: This witness had deposited one wooden box sealed with the seal of SGMH alongwith sample seal, in FSL Rohini on 03.10.2011 vide R.C. No. 92/21/11. He obtained receipt regarding deposit of said wooden box from FSL. He marked the copy of said RC as Mark PW27/A and copy of aforesaid receipt of FSL as Mark PW27/B. During cross examination, he deposed that he had collected the exhibit at 11.30 am / 12 pm and deposited the same at FSL at about 1 / 1.15 pm. He had returned back to PS at about 2 / 2.30 pm and immediately, gave the receipt to the MHC(M).
33. PW28 ASI Manmohan Singh: This witness has deposed on identical lines as deposed by PW26 PSI Sandeep Maan and therefore, his State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 26 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 testimony is not being discussed in detail herein. He proved rukka Ex.PW28/A and site plan as Ex.PW28/B. He also deposed that relevant pullandas were sealed by him with his seal of MMS.
In his cross examination, he deposed that DD No. 53A was received at about 9.45 pm and he alongwith ASI Manmohan had reached the hospital within 5 minutes on his motorcycle. He had sent rukka at about 10.45 pm for registration of FIR.
34. PW30 Ct. Munawar Khan and PW31 Inspector Anun Sharma: Out of these two witnesses, PW31 is the main IO of this case whereas PW30 had accompanied IO during the intervening night of 9/10.07.2011 when accused Harish and JCL Rohit @ Golu are claimed to have been apprehended and in pursuance to disclosure statement (Ex. PW31/F), weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex. P5 is claimed to have been recovered.
Both these witnesses have deposed on identical lines and have supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects. They deposed that on 09.07.2011, they had initially visited house no. A1/370, Sultan Puri, Delhi where they made enquiries from Vijender S/o Zile Singh (PW5) and Sushil @ Tinka S/o Sh. Satya Singh (PW1) and it was revealed that mobile phone no. 8860763268 of deceased was handed over by accused to Sushil @ Tinka who had further handed over the same to his uncle namely Vijender. The mobile handset of deceased containing SIM of Vodafone, was also produced by Sushil @ Tinka and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A. State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 27 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 They also deposed about the apprehension of accused Harish and of JCL Golu @ Rohit at about 11:10 pm on 09.07.2011 from Ambedkar Park on the basis of secret information as also about the disclosure statements Ex. PW31/F and 31/G made by accused Harish and JCL Golu @ Rohit respectively. They further deposed about the recovery of knife from inside drain of Gali situated at AB Extension Park at the instance of accused Harish as well as about the relevant proceedings concerning said knife, carried out at the spot.
They further deposed about the recovery of clothes of accused Harish and JCL Rohit @ Golu from their respective houses and the factum regarding their seizure on that day.
PW31 further deposed that on 12.07.2011, they had visited the house of Vijender Singh and he had produced one mobile phone having IMEI no. with last four digits as 1060, which was used by him by inserting SIM of deceased. Accordingly, he had seized the said mobile phone vide memo Ex. PW5/A. Both the aforesaid witnesses have been cross examined at length on behalf of accused.
MEDICAL WITNESSES:
35. PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra: This witness alongwith Dr. Deepak Sharma had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Bhupender Pandey on the request of ASI Manmohan Singh of PS Sultanpuri who was brought with alleged history of physical assault on 06.07.2011 at 10 State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 28 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 pm by a sharp weapon. He deposed that cause of death of said person was due to hemorrhage and due to shock consequent upon sharp injury and all the injuries were antemortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death. He proved PM report as Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that an application for providing subsequent opinion was received through SI Dhirender alongwith two sealed pullandas out of which one was containing knife with single edge and the second pullanda was containing white blood stained baniyan having cut on left back side and one white blood stained shirt having cut on left back side, shirt was also torn from other places. After examining the same, he alongwith Dr. Deepak Sharma had given subsequent opinion Ex. PW8/B. According to said opinion, the injuries mentioned in PM report Ex. PW8/A and cuts in the clothes examined by them, were possible by knife examined by them or by any other such knife. He also identified the knife Ex. P5, white shirt Ex. P6 and white baniyan Ex. P7 to be the same articles which were examined by them at the time of giving subsequent opinion Ex. PW8/B. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
36. PW9 Dr. Mahipal Singh: This witness deposed that patient Bhupinder Pandey was examined under his supervision on 06.07.2011 at SGM Hospital vide MLC no. 10980 Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that after giving first aid, the said patient was advised chest Xray and he was referred to Surgery Department for further investigation.
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 29 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
37. PW10 Dr. Suryotam Kumar: This witness was posted as SR (Surgery) in SGM Hospital. He had declared patient Bhupender Pandey clinically dead at 10.30 pm on 06.07.2011 vide his findings Ex.PW10/B on the MLC. He proved death summary prepared by him in this regard as Ex.PW10/A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
38. While opening the arguments, Ld. Additional PP for the State referred to ocular evidence in the form of testimonies of prosecution witnesses more particularly that of PW3 Ganshyam, PW4 Chamru Lal and PW24 Shambhu as well as to medical evidence in the form of testimonies of PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, PW9 Dr. Mahipal Singh and PW10 Dr. Suryotam Kumar and the documentary evidence proved during trial. He also referred to the testimonies of police witnesses examined during trial in support of his submission that all those witnesses have clearly deposed about the relevant investigation carried out by them. In view of the ocular testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence available on record, Ld Additional PP vehemently argued that prosecution has been able to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he should be convicted State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 30 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 accordingly.
39. On the other hand, Ld Amicus Curiae of accused vehemently argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. In this regard, Ld defence counsel referred to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. She contented that both the public witnesses i.e PW4 Chamru Lal and PW24 Shambhu are interested witnesses and their testimonies should be discarded.
40. Although, the accused has also been charged for offences U/s 392/34 and Section 397 IPC on the allegations that he in furtherance of his common intention with JCL Rahul @ Golu, had committed robbery of mobile phone of deceased and had used knife while committing the said robbery but relevant prosecution witnesses namely PW4 Chamru Lal and PW24 Shambhu failed to support the prosecution story to that extent as none of them testified on the said aspect during trial. Rather, PW4 Chamru Lal has deposed that accused had taken mobile phone of driver Bhupender Pandey(now deceased) and after sometime, when driver demanded back his mobile phone from the accused, accused refused to return back the mobile phone which led to altercation between them. There is no sufficient evidence available on record which may prove beyond doubt that accused in furtherance of his associate had committed robbery of mobile phone of deceased Bhupender Pandey. That being so, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to establish the charges in respect of offences U/s 392/34 IPC and Section 397 IPC against the present accused. Consequently, accused stands acquitted in respect of said State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 31 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 offences by giving him benefit of doubt.
41. This brings me down to the offence U/s 302/34 IPC charged against the accused. In order to appreciate the evidence available on record in the light of said offence charged against the accused, it would be appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 300 IPC which reads as under: Section 300 IPC Murder: Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly: If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly:If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly: If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
42. It is quite evident from the perusal of provision contained in Section 300 IPC that the essential ingredients of the said offence are as under:
1. Death of a human being was caused;
2. Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused;
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 32 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015
3. Such act was done
(a) with the intention of causing death, or
(b) that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death, or
(c) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
43. In the landmark judgment of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1958) 1 SCR 1495, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the following are the four steps of inquiry involved in the offence of Murder under section 300 IPC, clause thirdly:
"i. First, whether bodily injury is present;
ii. second,what is the nature of the injury;
iii. third, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended; and iv. fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature."
44. In Section 300 IPC, the definition of culpable homicide appears in an expanded form. Each of the four clauses requires that the act which causes death should be done intentionally, or with the knowledge or means of knowing that death is a natural consequence of the act. An offence cannot amount to murder unless it falls within the definition of culpable homicide; for this section merely points out the cases in which culpable homicide is murder. Putting it shortly, all acts of killing done: State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 33 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015
i) with the intention to kill, or
ii) to inflict bodily injury likely to cause death, or
iii) with the knowledge that death must be the most probable result, are prima facie murder, while those committed with the knowledge that death will be a likely result, are culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
45. In order to bring home the guilt of accused in respect of offence of murder, the prosecution was required to prove as under: i. That the death of Bhupender Pandey was homicidal in nature; ii. That it was the accused who had caused bodily injury to the deceased Bhupender Pandey;
iii That the accused had intention to cause the death of deceased Bhupender Pandey or that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death or that the accused was well aware that the injury caused to deceased, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
DEATH OF DECEASED WAS HOMICIDAL
46. In this regard, the testimony of PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra as also the findings contained in PM report no. 617/11 dt. 07.07.11 Ex. PW8/A are relevant. According to the said report, the following injuries were found on the body of deceased Bhupender Pandey during External examination:
(a) Surgical Stitches 3.5 cm long present over posterior axillary line, 20.5 cm below axillary fold, 13.5 cm lateral to middle of back. On opening it is 3.5 x 1.2 cm x abdominal cavity deep, cutting soft tissues, part of intestine and spleen in abdominal cavity. Wound is single edged.
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 34 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015
(b) Surgical Stitches 11 cm long over left side of neck from left mastoid process to mandible. On opening it is 10x0.5 cm x 0.5 cm deep and edges are sharp.
(c) Surgical Stitches 4 cm long present over front and 1.5 cm above and parallel to left clavicle. On opening it is 4 x 1 cm x 1 cm deep and edges are sharp.
(d) Surgical Stitches 3 cm long present over right forearm. On opening it is 3 x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm deep and edges are sharp.
47. The entire testimony of PW8 has gone unchallenged from the side of accused. The perusal of PM report Ex PW8/A leaves no scope of doubt that the death of deceased Bhupender Pandey was homicidal in nature as all the injuries sustained by deceased, are shown to be antemortem in nature and caused due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon sharp injuries which have also been opined to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Bhupender Pandey.
ACCUSED HAS CAUSED THE DEATH
48. As already discussed above, PW4 Chamru Lal and PW24 Shambhu are the star witnesses of prosecution examined during trial. Out of them, PW4 Chamru Lal is shown to be an eye witness to the whole incident whereas PW24 Shambhu is the witness of last seen evidence as he had seen deceased in the company of accused Harish and his associate Nitin @ Rahul @ Gollu(JCL) besides Chamru Lal when he had lastly left for bringing eggs as per the request made by the accused Harish.
49. PW4 Chamru Lal has been categorical in his deposition that accused Harish and his other associate (JCL Nitin @ Rahul @ Gollu) started State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 35 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 consuming liquor with them in the truck and also asked Shambhu to bring eggs. He also deposed that accused Harish had taken mobile phone of deceased and refused to return the mobile phone despite being requested to do so which led to an altercation between them. He also categorically deposed that accused Harish had taken out knife from his dub and gave knife blows to the deceased, after which he(PW4) came down from the truck and ran away from there in order to save himself. He has successfully with stood the test of cross examination and nothing could be elicited during his cross examination which may discredit his testimony. He reiterated the same facts even during his cross examination. He testified that they all had consumed liquor while sitting on back portion of the truck. Not only this, he also disclosed that accused Harish was wearing Tshirt and half jeans pant at the time of commission of offence. The said part of his testimony is duly corroborated by the subsequent investigation carried out in this case when pursuant to disclosure statement Ex . PW31/F made by accused Harish, he got recovered said white colour TShirt and white colour pant from inside his house bearing no. K283, Mangol Puri, Delhi, which were seized by IO i.e PW31 Inspector Arun Sharma.
50. Ld defence counsel assailed the testimony of PW4 Chamru Lal, who is an eye witness to the incident as per case of prosecution, on the ground that said witness was detained alongwith PW24 Shambhu in PS Sultan Puri for about 34 days as admitted by him in his cross examination, which clearly shows that this witness was also under suspicion of police. State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 36 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015
51. Ld defence counsel also argued that there is every reason for PW4 Chamru Lal to depose falsely at the instance of investigating agency in order to save his own skin as said witness was knowing deceased Bhupender Pandey and had an occasion to commit his murder. In this regard, she referred to the relevant portion of cross examination of PW4 wherein he admitted that IO had briefed him about the case.
52. However, the aforesaid contentions of Ld defence counsel are not tenable in the eyes of law. The testimony of PW4 cannot be rejected outrightly merely because he was detained in the PS concerning investigation of this case. It is pertinent to note that PW4 testified during cross examination that police had taken him and Shambhu(PW24) outside PS during the period of 34 days for identification of accused and police continued to interrogate him during said period. It nowhere leads to inference that PW4 or PW24 were under the suspicion of police. The accused has failed to bring on record any material to show that PW4 had any reason to commit murder of deceased Bhupender Pandey.
53. Moreover, it was the duty of accused to put relevant questions during cross examination of PW4 Chamru Lal, PW24 Shambhu and PW31 Inspector Arun Sharma (IO) as to why PW4 and PW24 remained in PS for about 34 days but no questions were put to them from the side of accused on the said aspect. Having not done so, the accused cannot be allowed to take any benefit to the extent of creating doubt in the prosecution story for securing his acquittal in this case.
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 37 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015
54. Ld defence counsel also made feeble attempt to create doubt in the testimony of PW4 on the ground that except mobile of deceased, no other article is claimed to be missing from the scene of crime as per the case of prosecution. She argued that had robbery been the motive of accused, he had every opportunity to rob every valuable articles including purse and other belongings of deceased as well as of PW4 Chamru Lal which is not the case herein. The said contentions are found to be impressive at the first instance but are liable to be rejected. It has been duly explained by PW4 Chamru Lal that accused had taken mobile phone of deceased. It was only when deceased demanded back his mobile phone from accused which he refused to return, altercation taken place during which he took out his knife and gave knife blows to deceased which ultimately resulted into his death. It has also come on record in the testimony of PW4 Chamru Lal that when injured Bhupender Pandey came down from the truck in order to save himself, the accused and his associate i.e JCL fled away from there in anticipation of being apprehended. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that accused had every opportunity to commit robbery of other belongings of deceased and also that of PW4 Chamru Lal and since, it was not shown to have been done, the entire case of prosecution should be disbelieved.
55. Likewise, PW24 Shambhu also corroborated the testimony of Chamru Lal(PW4) by deposing that all three of them including deceased had consumed liquor with accused Harish and his associate and he had left them for bringing eggs at the instance of accused Harish. Again, the accused failed State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 38 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 to elicit anything contrary to the case of prosecution during cross examination of this witness. Rather, the testimony of PW24 is found to be quite natural and free from doubt. He explained during chief examination itself that deceased had given him Rs. 50/ whereas accused and his associate had given him Rs. 100/ for bringing liquor. Accordingly, he had brought three quarters of liquor, five glasses and namkeen packet. Said part of his testimony is duly corroborated by the subsequent recovery of three quarter bottles [Ex. P13(colly.)], two pouches [Ex.P8(colly.)] of water on which word " Royal"
was written, one water bottle (Ex P9), one empty pouch of namkeen (Ex P10) and six plastic glasses [Ex P11(colly.)] recovered from truck no.DL1M 4435 during the course of investigation and seized vide seizure memo Ex PW26/B.
56. The presence of PW4 and PW24 at the scene of crime is duly established on record. PW3 Ghanshyam has also testified on this count. The accused could not impeach relevant portions of testimonies of said three witnesses on this aspect. Moreover, the recovery of three quarters of bottle, six glasses, etc. from the spot on 06.07.11 which is much prior to apprehension of accused in this case, demolishes the plea raised on behalf of accused that a false story was concocted by the police to falsely implicate him in this case.
57. The testimony of PW24 Shambhu affords one of the strongest circumstantial piece of evidence which clearly establish that deceased was in the company of accused Harish and his associate (JCL Nitin @ Rohit @ Gollu) besides Chamru Lal(PW4) somewhere around 9.30 P.M or so. In other State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 39 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 words, the testimony of PW24 Shambhu coupled with medical evidence in the form of testimony of PW10 Dr. Suryotam showing that deceased was declared clinically dead at 10.30 P.M on 06.07.11, leaves no scope of doubt that deceased was in the company of accused herein shortly before his death on 06.07.11. The time gap between the deceased having been in the company of accused Harish and the time of his death is so short and is connected so closely that same clearly rules out possibility of any other person having met with deceased during said period.
58. The next bone of contention raised by Ld defence counsel was that entire prosecution story is flimsy and same has been concocted in order to work out unsolved case by falsely implicating the accused Harish in this case. In order to buttress her said contention, Ld Amicus Curiae contended that it cannot be believed that deceased Bhupender Pandey would enter into any sort of conversation with accused Harish who was totally stranger to him or that Shambhu (PW24) obeyed the direction of accused for bringing liquor and eggs for them. She further argued that it is against natural conduct that all of them including accused Harish started consuming liquor together while sitting on back portion of the truck belonging to deceased, without any reason or that accused took mobile of deceased Bhupender Pandey without any resistance on his part. She, therefore, argued that false story has been propounded by the investigating agency and accused is entitled to be acquitted.
59. However, the said contentions do not carry any weight in the eyes of law. It cannot be over looked that deceased Bhupender Pandey, PW4 State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 40 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 Chamru Lal, PW24 Shambhu, accused Harish and his associate Nitin @ Rohit @ Gollu(JCL) are shown to be belonging to poor strata of society. It is not uncommon that people belonging to said class, easily mix up with each other even when they meet for the first time. Thus, there is nothing unnatural or unbelievable that deceased Bhupender Pandey and both the aforesaid public witnesses namely Chamru Lal and Shambhu agreed to consume liquor with the accused and his associate(JCL) on the said night.
60. At this juncture, it may be mentioned here that the prosecution story as unfolded by its public witnesses namely PW4 Chamru Lal and PW24 Shambhu is that deceased was driver of truck no. DL1M4435 while Chamru Lal and Shambhu were working as helpers on the said truck on that day. After unloading almost half of the goods at various destinations, all three of them had parked the said truck on the side of the road i.e at the place of occurrence as it was night time. The accused and his associate Nitin @ Rahul @ Gollu(JCL) had passed near their said truck when they were stopped by deceased to ask about the shop of liquor situated nearby the said place. At that point of time, they became familiar with each other and agreed to consume liquor together.
61. The testimony of PW19 namely Ct. Ashok Kumar also assumes importance as this witness was on patrolling duty in the area of PS Sultan Puri on 06.07.11vide DD No. 21B(Ex PW18/A). While patrolling, he had reached at AB Extension Park, Sultan Puri Delhi at about 9.30 P.M when he found deceased stained with blood, coming towards him. The said witness State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 41 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 has been categorical in his deposition that on enquiry made by him from said injured, he was told by injured that he was stabbed by two boys who ran away from there. Accordingly, he removed said injured to SGM Hospital and got him admitted there. Said part of testimony of this witness is very important as it corroborates the prosecution story to the extent that deceased had sustained knife blows injury during the incident on account of stabbing given by accused Harish alongwith his associate and deceased was immediately rushed to SGM Hospital by this witness. The MLC Ex PW9/A of deceased duly corroborates the version made by PW19 as it shows that deceased had been brought to SGM Hospital on 06.07.11 at about 10.00 P.M by Ct. Ashok Kumar(PW19) with alleged history of physical assault by sharp weapon. Not only this, said MLC further showed that deceased was found having following injuries at the time of his local examination:
1. Clear incised wound about and parallel to left clavicle 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.3 cm.
2. Clear incised wound from left mastoid bone to below left angle of mandible 11 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm.
3. Clear incised would over lateral left region of back around level of T 12 to Vertebra 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.
4. Clear incised wound over right forearm 3 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.1 cm.
5. Abrasion over right forearm.
62. The abovesaid injuries clearly show that deceased was given multiple knife blows on various parts of his body which led to his death. State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 42 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 Moreover, the aforesaid relevant portion of testimony of PW19 Ct. Ashok Kumar has gone unchallenged and the entire testimony of PW9 Dr. Mahipal Singh under whose supervision deceased was initially examined vide MLC Ex PW9/A, has also remained uncrossed from the side of accused.
63. Although, PW4 Chamru Lal has not specifically deposed about the robbery of mobile phone of deceased being committed by accused but PW24 Shambhu has deposed that he was told by Chamru Lal(PW4) that the offenders had robbed the purse and mobile phone of deceased and had escaped from the spot. The said statement was made by Chamru Lal(PW4) to Shambu(PW24) immediately after the occurrence. No suggestion whatsoever has been given from the side of accused to PW24 Shambhu on the said aspect. The conversation held between Chamru Lal and Shambhu was contemporaneous with the acts immediately after the incident and there was no possibility of any fabrication. Thus, the said part of his testimony becomes relevant fact within the meaning of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act. Illustration (a) appended to Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act also throw sufficient light on the said aspect. Thus, the aforesaid relevant part of the testimony of PW24 Shambhu is considered to be a relevant fact by the Court.
64. In addition to above, there has been recovery of weapon of offence i.e knife (Ex. P5) at the instance of accused pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex PW31/F and that too, immediately after his apprehension in this case. In other words, there is no time gap as such in the apprehension of accused during the intervening night of 09/10072011 and the recovery of the State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 43 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 weapon of offence as the knife is shown to have been recovered during the intervening night of 09/10072011 itself.
65. As per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, the portion of confessional statement of accused which leads to the discovery of any fact is admissible in evidence. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced as under: Section 27 How much of information received from accused may be proved: 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 confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
66. The scope of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act was explained by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya V Emperor reported at AIR 1947 PC 67. His Lordship has observed as under:
" Section 27 which is not artistically worded provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of police officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. Normally the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, such as, a dead body, a weapon or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused".
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 44 of 50
FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015
67. In view of the provision contained in Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and the ratio of law laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya's case (supra), there is no scope of doubt that relevant portion of disclosure statement (Ex PW31/F) made by accused Harish which led to discovery of weapon of offence i.e knife (Ex. P5) is an admissible piece of evidence.
68. Not only this, the wearing clothes of deceased i.e white shirt (Ex P6) and white baniyan (Ex P7) which were blood stained at the time of his admission in SGM hospital, were sealed by concerned doctor and same were seized vide memo Ex. PW26/A. The said clothes were subsequently examined by PW8 Dt. Manoj Dhingra alongwith Dr. Deepak Sharma and they had given their subsequent opinion Ex PW8/B to the effect that cuts appearing in said two clothes cold be possible by the knife Ex P5 or by any other similar knife. Same also corroborates the testimony of PW4 Chamru Lal and other relevant prosecution witnesses examined during trial and proves the case of prosecution as propounded in the charge sheet.
69. There is no merit in the argument of Ld defence counsel that no definite opinion has been given by concerned doctor that injuries sustained by deceased were caused by knife (Ex P5) only. There cannot be any definite opinion to that effect as the concerned doctor was not present at the time of incident in question. It was only after examination of the nature and type of injuries sustained by deceased as mentioned in his PM report visavis the weapon of offence produced before concerned doctors, they had given their State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 45 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 opinion that those type of injuries were possible by the said knife. The accused could not impeach testimony of PW8 Dr. Manoj Dhingra on the said aspect.
70. The medical evidence in the form of PM report Ex. PW8/A also corroborates the case of prosecution. According to the said report, the cause of death of deceased is due to hemorrhage shock consequent upon sharp injury. All the injuries were opined to be antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time since death as per PM report (Ex PW8/A) also corresponded with the death of deceased as per his death summery (Ex PW10/A). Same also corroborates the prosecution story.
71. Not only this, there has been recovery of mobile hand set (Ex P1) belonging to deceased, from the possession of Sushil @ Tinka(PW1) on 09.07.11. No doubt, PW1 Sushil @ Tinka has not supported the case of prosecution to the extent that said mobile hand set was given to him by accused herein as he testified that said mobile hand set was given to him by JCL Gollu but it has been duly established on record from the testimonies of PW31 Inspector Arun Sharma, PW30 Ct. Munawar and PW16 SI Dhirender Singh as also from CDRs Ex. PW7/D that mobile hand set (Ex P1) was belonging to deceased Bhupender Pandey and also that said mobile hand set was recovered from the possession of Sushil @ Tinka.
72. Now, the question arises as to whether reasonable doubt is created in the case of prosecution because PW1 did not support its case to the extent State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 46 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 that said mobile hand set was handed over to him by accused Harish. The answer, in my opinion, has to be negative. The relevant prosecution witnesses namely PW31 Inspector Arun Sharma, PW30 Ct. Munawar Khan and PW16 SI Dhirender Singh have categorically deposed that on enquiries made from PW1 Sushil @ Tinka, it was revealed that mobile hand set of deceased was handed over to him by accused Harish in lieu of Rs. 300/ which accused had borrowed from him with the understanding that said mobile hand set shall be returned back to accused on repayment of the said amount. JCL Gollu @ Nitin had also accompanied accused Harish at that time. The relevant portions of the testimonies of said police witnesses on that aspect, remained unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of accused as only suggestions were put to some of those witnesses who denied the same.
73. It is important to note that accused himself nowhere took the defence that he was knowing JCL Rohit @ Gollu or that said mobile hand set was given by JCL Gollu to Sushil @ Tinka. Rather, accused himself has raised the defence in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC that he had borrowed certain sum from Sushil @ Tinka in the month of March 2011 which corroborates the prosecution story that some loan transaction had taken place between accused Harish and Sushil @ Tinka(PW1). Although, accused further claimed in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC that Sushil @ Tinka had taken his mobile phone make Classic having SIM no. 9899055563 and did not return back the said mobile to him but no such suggestion was given by him to PW1 Sushil @ Tinka during his cross examination. Rather, he preferred not to State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 47 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 cross examine the said witness at all. Thus, the said part of defence raised by accused could not be substantiated during trial.
74. There is one more interesting fact that accused Harish claimed in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC that PW1 was informer of police and he was falsely implicated in this case at the instance of PW1. However, PW1 has become hostile to the case of prosecution on certain aspect. Had it been the case where PW1 would have been informer of police and would have falsely implicated the accused in connivance with the police, he would definitely supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects. Same clearly shows that a false defence has been raised by accused in order to save himself from the legal punishment. One thing which definitely comes out from the defence raised by accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC is that PW1 Sushil @ Tinka was well known to him. This is apparent from the fact that as per accused himself, he was asked by said Sushil @ Tinka to indulge in some crime. It is not understandable as to why Sushil @ Tinka asked accused to indulge into some crime when he was not having any sort of proximity with said witness prior to the date of occurrence. It is also quite unbelievable that accused had repaid a sum of Rs. 5000/ against borrowed amount of Rs. 1000/ within 15 days from the date of loan as claimed by him in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC. Same also lends credence to the prosecution story that accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 300/ from PW1 Sushil @ Tinka and he had handed over mobile hand set of deceased to PW1 as security.
75. The testimony of PW5 Vijender who is uncle of PW1 Sushil @ State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 48 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 Tinka, leaves no scope of doubt that said mobile hand set was given to him by Sushil @ Tinka and he had inserted his SIM no. 8527667132 in the mobile hand set of deceased. It is also clearly established from record that PW5 had inserted SIM no. 8860763268 belonging to deceased, in his own mobile hand set (Ex P4) on 07.07.11. The relevant CDRs Ex (PW13/D) in respect of mobile connection no. 8527667132 used by PW5 Vijender and call details record (Ex PW7/D) in respect of of mobile phone connection no. 8860763268 belonging to deceased Bhupender Pandey are relevant for the said purpose. The testimonies of relevant prosecution witnesses namely PW7 Israr Babu, Nodal Officer and PW13 Sh. R.K Singh, Nodal Officer have also gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of accused.
76. The perusal of call details record Ex PW7/D of mobile phone connection no. 8860763268 belonging to deceased would show that said SIM was lastly used in mobile hand set having IMEI no. 354273043116180 of deceased Bhupender Pandey up till 21:16:57 of 06.07.11. Thereafter, SIM having mobile phone no. 8860763268 of deceased was used in mobile hand set having IMEI no. 352542049371060 belonging to PW5 Vijender, on 07.07.11 at 10:26:54. Said piece of evidence also corroborates the case of prosecution that SIM of deceased was inserted by PW5 Vijender inside his mobile hand set having IMEI no. 352542049371060 in the morning of 07.07.11.
77. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the considered view that prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt of accused State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 49 of 50 FIR No. 295/11; U/s 302/392/394/397/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri DOD: 10.02.2015 Harish beyond reasonable doubt to the effect that on 06.07.11, accused Harish in furtherance of his common intention with his associate namely Rohit @ Golu(JCL) committed murder of Bhupender Pandey S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar by giving him knife blows on various parts of his body. Consequently, accused Harish S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass stands convicted in respect of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
Announced in open Court today
dt.10.02.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Harish("Convicted") Page 50 of 50