Delhi District Court
Complainant Have Relied Upon The ... vs . on 22 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE01: NORTH: ROHINI: DELHI
SC NO.140/11
FIR NO.54/11
PS: ALIPUR
U/S 302 IPC
STATE
VERUS
VIKAS @ VICKY S/O. LT. KULDEEP SINGH,
R/O VILLRAMZANPUR, DELHI.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
22.07.2013
Present: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Vikas @ Vicky produced from JC.
Shri Pradeep Rana, ld. Counsel for the convict.
1. Arguments heard on sentence. The convict has been
convicted under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his uncle vide
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 1 of 61
judgment dated 08.07.2013.
2. It is argued by Shri Pradeep Rana, ld. Counsel for the
convict that, convict is aged about 21 years and and he is the sole bread
earner of his family and he has widow mother to look after. He further
submits that convict is not previously involved in any crime. Therefore,
lenient view may be taken.
3. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that
convict has committed the murder of his uncle and thus he should be
given maximum sentence, as prescribed under the statute.
4. I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the
record.
5. The protection of society by stamping out criminal activity is
essential function of State. It can be achieved by imposing appropriate
sentence. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of
the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive
for commission of the crime, the conduct of the convict, the nature of
weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts for
imposing appropriate sentence. Any definite formula relating to imposition
of sentence cannot be laid down. The object of sentencing is that the
offenders does not go unpunished and the justice be done to the victim of
crime and the society. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 2 of 61
proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the
manner in which it was executed or committed etc. The measure
punishment in a given case must depend upon the gravity of the crime;
the conduct of the offender and the defence less and unprotected state of
the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the way adopted by
the courts for responding the society's desire for justice against the
criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment fitting
to the crime. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the
criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large
while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.
It was held in the case of Siddarama & Ors. V State of
Karnataka, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 72 :
the object should be to protect the society and to deter
the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by
imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the
courts would operate the sentencing system so as to
impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of
the society and the sentencing process has to be stern
where it should be. Imposition of sentence without
considering its effect on the social order in many cases
may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of
the crime e.g. where it relates to offences relating to
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances which have
great impact not only on the health fabric but also on the
social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of
and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 3 of 61
attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too
sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time or
personal inconveniences in respect of such offences will
be result wise counterproductive in the long run and
against societal interest which needs to be cared for and
strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt in the
sentencing system.
6. Section 302 IPC provides only two sentences i.e. Death
Sentences and imprisonment for life and fine.
7. It is now settled by the Higher Courts that Death penalty is to
be awarded in those cases, which falls within the category of "rarest of
rare cases".
8. In the case Bachan Singh V State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC
898 it was observed that a real and abiding concern for the dignity of
human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's
instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases
when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
9. In case Machhi Singh V State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957,
the guidelines are laid down which are to be kept in view, considering the
question whether the case belongs to the rarest of rare category. It was
observed that the following questions may be asked and answered as a
test to determine the 'rarest of the rare' case in which death sentence can
be inflicted:--
a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 4 of 61
renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a
death sentence?
b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no
alternative but to impose death sentence even after according
maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak
in favour of the offender?
10. In case Machhi Singh, the guidelines were culled out which
are to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of
imposition of death sentence arises. The following preposition emerges
from the Bachan Singh's case:
i. The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted
except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
ii. Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances
of the 'offender' also required to be taken into
consideration along with the circumstances of the
'crime'.
iii. Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an
exception. Death sentence must be imposed only
when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether
inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant
circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only
provided, the option to impose sentence of
imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously
exercised having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the crime and all the relevant
circumstances.
iv. A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the
mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full
weightage and a just balance has to be struck between
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 5 of 61
the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances
before the option is exercised.
11. In case Bablu @ Mubarak Hussain V State of Rajasthan,
AIR 2007 SC 697, the Supreme Court observed as under :-
In rarest of rare cases when collective conscience of the
community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of
the judicial power center to inflict death penalty
irrespective of their personal opinion as regards
desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death
sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain
such sentiment in the following circumstances:
i. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal,
grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so
as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the
community.
ii. When the murder is committed for a motive which
evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g murder by
hired assassin for money or reward or a coldblooded
murder for gains of a person visavis whom the
murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of
trust, or murder is committed in the course for betrayal
of the motherland.
iii. When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or
minority community etc., is committed not for personal
reasons but in circumstances which arouse social
wrath, or in cases of 'bride burning' or 'dowry deaths'
or when murder is committed in order to remarry for
the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry
another woman on account of infatuation.
iv. When the crime is enormous in proportion. For
instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 6 of 61
the members of a family or a large number of persons
of a particular caste, community, or locality, are
committed.
12. In this case, convict has murdered his uncle. However, I am of
the view this case does not fall in the category of "rarest of rare cases" to
impose death penalty.
13. Therefore, I sentence convict Vikas @ Vicky for Life
Imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and also fine
of Rs.10,000/, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for
six months. He is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/ as compensation to the
wife of the deceased Dharambir u/s. 357A Cr.P.C.
14. The case property is confiscated to the State. Benefit of
Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict. Committal warrants be issued
against the convict. A copy of the judgment and that of order on sentence
be supplied to the convict free of cost forthwith. File be consigned to the
record room.
Announced in open court (SANJEEV KUMAR)
Dt. 22.07.2013 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 (NORTH)
ROHINI: DELHI
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 7 of 61
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE01: NORTH: ROHINI: DELHI
SC NO.140/11
FIR NO.54/11
PS: ALIPUR
U/S 302 IPC
STATE
VERUS
VIKAS @ VICKY S/O. LT. KULDEEP SINGH,
R/O VILLRAMZANPUR, DELHI.
Date of Institution:10.06.11.
Date of Argument:03.06.13.
Date of Decision:08.07.13.
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.2.11, an information was received by PCR HQ from phone no.9250199501 that one person is lying dead near Ramzanpur, Alipur Main Road. On the said information DD No.34A was recorded in PS Alipur and said State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 8 of 61 DD was assigned to SI Mukesh Kumar for investigation. SI Mukesh Kumar along with Ct. Sant Ram reached at the aforesaid place and found one dead body which was identified as of one Dharambir. One cycle was also lying near the dead body. SI called the crime team. Crime team took the photographs. Thereafter he sent the dead body to the BJRM hospital for postmortem through Ct. Sant Ram. SI did not find any eye witness. From the scene of crime he assume it is case of road accident, hence he made endorsement on the DD no.34A itself and and prepared rukka and sent to PS for registration of FIR u/s 279/304A IPC through Ct. Sohanlal and accordingly the FIR no.54/11 was registered in PS Alipur. SI seized the cycle as well as shoes which were lying near the dead body of the deceased. Dr. Bhim Singh conducted the postmortem and orally told to SI that death was due to coma consequent upon head injury by hard blunt object and it is not a case of road accident. SI inform to SHO said fact and SHO directed to carry out further investigation.
2. On 23.2.2011, SI Mukesh recorded the statement of Smt. Sukan (PW3) mother of the deceased. She stated that his son Kuldeep had expired 1819 years ago and Kuldeep had one son Vikas @ Vicky i.e. accused who was having a dispute over the division of ancestral property with her sons Dharmbir and Raj Kumar. Vikas is demanding State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 9 of 61 1/3 share in the plot situated at Sarai Peepal Thala and also demanding agricultural land to be mutated in his name. She further stated on the day of incident, she had seen his son Dharambir and Vikas were arguing in loud voice and after half an hour she found her son Dharambir dead at the side of the road she has apprehension that Vikas @ Vicky had killed her son Dharambir and made the case looked like an accident. SI also recorded statement of Raj Kumar brother of the deceased. He after receiving the postmortem report converted the case from 279/304A IPC to 302 IPC and thereafter the investigation was marked to Inspector D.K. Sharma.
3. Inspector D.K. Sharma arrested the accused Vikas @ Vicky on 24.02.11and recorded his confessional statement and got recovered the danda by which he caused the death of Dharambir and his blood stained clothes. He got prepared the scaled site plan, collected the opinion regarding the weapon of offence from the doctor who conducted the postmortem, sent the exhibits to FSL for expert opinion and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused and accused was put to trial.
4. Vide order dt.16.7.11 charge u/s 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 28 State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 10 of 61 witnesses. Naveen Kumar is examined as PW1; Dinesh Kumar as PW2; Smt. Shukun as PW3; Rajbir as PW4; Dr.Bhim Singh as PW5; Ct. Deepak Kumar as PW6; Karan Singh as PW7; Raj Kumar as PW8; Santosh as PW9; Rajesh Kumar as PW10; HC Vinod Kumar as PW11; Ct. Sant Ram as PW12; Ct. Sohan Lal as PW13; HC Balraj Singh as PW14; Ct. Satender as PW15; Ct.Raj Kumar as PW16; Rt.ASI Devender Kumar as PW17; SI Ravinder as PW18; Ct. Devender Singh as PW19; HC Rajender Singh as PW20; Ct. Sandeep as PW21; HC Devender as PW22; Ct.Anil Bhor as PW23; HC Ram Niwas as PW24; SI Mahesh Kumar as PW25; Devender Kumar as PW26; SI Mukesh Kumar as PW27; and Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma as PW28.
6. The prosecution also proved postmortem report as ExPW5/A, opinion on danda ExPW5/B, computerized copy of PCR form1 ExPW6/A, document of Panchayat ExPW7/A, identification of dead body vide memo ExPW8/A, handing over memo of dead body ExPW8/B, arrest memo of accused Vikas @ Vicky ExPW8/C, personal search memo ExPW8/D, disclosure statement ExPW8/E, seizure memo of danda ExPW8/F, seizure memo of clothes ExPW8/G, seizure memo of certified copies of judgment and chargesheet in case FIR no. 144/99 ExPW8/H, the copy of charge sheet as ExPW8/J, copy of State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 11 of 61 judgment with order sheet as ExPW8/K, seizure memo of civil suits judgment as ExPW8/L, copies of civil suits as ExPW8/M, seizure memo of cycle and shoes as ExPW11/A and ExPW11/C respectively, DD no.35A as ExPW11/C, seizure memo of blood stained earth and rodi as ExPW15/A, photograph of accused as ExPW15/A1, mechanical inspection report as ExPW17/A, exhibits handed over by doctor as ExPW18/A, copy of DD no.34A as ExPW20/A, copy of FIR as ExPW20/B and endorsement on rukka as ExPW20/C, entry in register no.19 as ExPW22/A, copies of entry in register no.21 as ExPW22/B and ExPW22/C, copy of receipt as ExPW22/D, copy of FIR no.144/99 as ExPW24/A, scaled site plan as ExPW25/A, rukka as ExPW27/A, site plan ExPW27/B, request for autopsy as ExPW27/C, brief facts as ExPW27/D, form 25.35 as ExPW27/E, application for mechanical inspection as ExPW27/F, DD no.19A as ExPW27/G, information sent to senior officer as ExPW27/H, pointing out memo ExPW27/J, photographs of spot as ExPW27/K1 to K11, site plan of place of recovery as ExPW28/A, PCR form ExPW28/B, biological FSL report as ExPX and report as ExPY, danda as ExP1, jeans pant as ExP2, shirt as ExP3, one pair of shoes as ExPW11/1, and cycle as ExPW11/2.
7. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 12 of 61 and in his statements he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that his blood stained clothes were taken from his mother forcibly and danda was planted upon him. He also denied hat he wanted repartition of the joint family property and threatening and pressurizing for the same. He stated that property disputes were settled in year 2005 and thereafter there was no dispute. He stated that witnesses has grudges earlier they demanded their share in properties and that is why they implicated him and present case was accidental case but police did not investigated the said aspect.
8. In support of his defence accused examined his mother Geeta as DW1 and his neighbour Smt. Raj Kala as DW2.
9. I have heard argument were from Sh. A.K. Gupta, Ld. Addl.PP for State and Sh Pardeep Rana Ld. Counsel for accused and gone through the case file. The written arguments was also filed by ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as by ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. PW1 Naveen Kumar is not a material witness. He deposed that, on hearing noise he came out of house and saw Sukan (PW3) saying, 'Dharambir Hiranki Gaya tha jo maar diya'' and thereafter he went to some distance from the house of Dharambir and saw his dead body lying by the side of road. He made call to PCR at 100 number from his mobile phone no. 9250199501. In his cross State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 13 of 61 examination he admitted the suggestion that, there was minor discord in the family of accused, but as per his knowledge there was not a major dispute. He also admitted the suggestion that on the road truck, bus and tractor usually passed. But voluntarily stated that there were big pits on the road. He had also stated that the road where dead body was found was not an accident prone area.
11. PW2 Dinesh Kumar is a material witness to prove the motive of offence. He is the son of deceased. He had deposed that accused is his cousin and accused wanted to repartition of the joint property of their family and was threatening and pressurizing them for the same. Accused was demanding some extra share from him from the property. He further deposed that he advised his father and uncle to report the matter to the police but they did not pay any attention and stated that it was a family dispute and accused will realize within due course of time. He further deposed that his father Dharambir has been murdered by accused and he identified the dead body at BJRM Hospital mortuary. His statement ExPW2/A was recorded by IO and supplementary statement was also recorded by IO on 22.5.11. In his cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel he admitted that accused had not given threat to deceased in his presence and only his father told him about the threat. Hence, he is merely a hearsay witness to the extent that State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 14 of 61 accuse demanded repartition of joint family property or gave threat to deceased Dharambir.
12. PW3 Smt. Shakun is mother of deceased and is the most material witness relied upon by prosecution to prove motive of the murder as well as to prove accused used to quarrel with deceased and also is the witness of last seen. Her testimony will be discussed later on.
13. PW4 Rajbir is not a material witness. He had deposed that deceased was son of his Tau and on 22.2.11 at about 7 pm he saw the dead body of deceased lying on the road near the house of Dharambir. He saw many persons there and he came to know that deceased died due to accident. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the Ld. APP for State. In his cross examination he stated there was dispute of property between accused and deceased and Raj Kumar and there were altercation (gali glauch) between accused and deceased were going on over the property disputes. In his cross examination by Ld. Defense counsel he admitted that one compromise took place between mother of accused and father of deceased and other family member in the year 2005. He admit that mother of deceased and Raj Kumar was also there when he joined gathering to assemble to mourn the death in the house of deceased at night. Thus State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 15 of 61 from his testimonies it is proved that deceased and accused used to quarrel over joint family properties as no suggestion has been given to witness to deny the said fact.
14. PW5 Dr.Bhim Singh conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased and opined that death was due to coma consequent upon head injury. He prove PM report as EX PW5/A. He also gave opinion on danda as ExPW5/C and stated that injury to deceased could be caused by said Danda and injuries were Homicidal in nature. In his cross examination he denied that injuries on deceased could be caused by falling on the road.
15. PW6 Ct. Deepak Kumar is a formal witness. He deposed that on 22.02.11 at about 8.03pm, he received a telephone call from Dharambir from mobile no.9211326346 and he noted the information in PCR form1. His testimony remained undisputed as he was not cross examined.
16. PW7 Karan Singh is a material witness. He testified that, in the year 2005 Panchayat was held and disputed of property between Raj Kumar, Dharambir, their father Hoshiyar Singh and Geeta and same was settled in the Panchayat on document ExPW7/A. Said fact is not even denied by accused. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the Ld. APP for State. He denied the suggestion of Ld. State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 16 of 61 APP that accused pressurized the deceased and PW Raj Kumar to repartition the family properties as he was not satisfied with earlier partition. He also denied that accused said to deceased and Raj Kumar if properties were not distributed according to his wish he will see them. Hence this witness is not much helpful to prosecution. His testimony remained undisputed to the extent that, Panchayat was held in the year 2005 over the dispute of property between mother of the accused on the one side and deceased Dharambir, his brother Raj Kumar and Hoshiyar Singh on the other side.
17. PW8 Raj Kumar is the younger brother of deceased.
He has identified the dead body of deceased which is undisputed fact. He is also witness of arrest of accused and recovery of cloth of deceased and weapon of offence i.e. Danda at the instance of accused. His testimonies in detail will be discussed later on.
18. PW9 Santosh is a material witness of motive and last seen. She is the wife of deceased. She has also testified that, her devrani Geeta (i.e. mother of the accused) and her son Vikas @ Vicky used to quarrel with his father in law Hoshiyar Singh, her husband Dharambir and her devar Raj Kumar due to redistribution of the properties. Geeta and Vikas were saying that, plot of Adarsh Nagar, which was given to her husband and Devar and brother in law Raj State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 17 of 61 rd Kumar by her father in law be redistributed and 1/3 share be given to him in the said plot. He also used to threaten that, her husband, devar Raj Kumar, and her sons Dinesh and Devender to be killed, if the plot is not redistributed.
She further stated that on the day of incident at about 7/7.30pm, she alongwith her husband returned back from agricultural land and when they reached near their Gher, accused Vikas @ Vicky was present there and quarreling with her husband and he threatened her husband to kill, if property was not redistributed. Thereafter, she went to her house. At about 8pm, her mother in law Sukan Devi came at house and informed that, her husband Dharambir was killed by accused Vikas @ Vicky. In her cross examination, she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW2/DA, recorded by police, in which she had not deposed that, accused had threatened her husband to kill. She had only stated that, on the day of incident, her husband Dharambir was about to go somewhere on bicycle. From outside his house, she heard that, accused Vikas was talking in loud voice with her husband and said incident was seen by her mother in law, hence, she has improved from her earlier statement recorded by police. Further, her testimony has been recorded on 22.5.2011 i.e. after three months of the incident. Hence I reject her testimony to the extent that, on the day State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 18 of 61 of incident, she had seen accused and her husband Dharambir were quarreling.
19. PW10 Rajesh Kumar is not a material witness. He only testified that he saw the deceased lying on the road and then he inform to the PCR on 100 from his mobile phone 9211326346.
20. PW11 HC Vinod Kumar, PW12 Ct. Sant Ram, PW13 Ct. Sohan Lal and PW14 HC Balraj Singh are formal witness. They had participated in the investigation of the case carried out by PW27 SI Mukesh on 22.02.2011, when dead body of deceased Dharambir was found.
21. PW15 Ct Rajender is a material witness. He testified that on 23.2.11 he alongwith IO SI Mukesh came to the house of deceased where SI Mukesh recorded statement of Sukan and Raj Kumar. They handed over two photograph of accused Vikas. Thereafter he reached at road near the house of deceased. IO collected blood stained earth and blood stained rodi of the road and kept in a pullanda and seal with the seal of MR and seized vide memo Ex.PW15/A. In his cross examination he stated he received message from PS to reach at the house at 5pm and with in 1015 minutes reached there and left the house of deceased at 6/6.30 pm.
22. PW16 Ct.Raj Kumar is a formal witness and stated Raj State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 19 of 61 Kumar handed over judgment of case FIR no. 144/99 to IO which was seized vide memo EXPW8/H.
23. PW17 Retd. ASI Devender Kumar is a formal witness and only conducted the mechanical inspection of the cycle and prove report as Ex.PW17/A. In his cross examination , he denied the suggestion that he gave his report without examining the cycle.
24. PW18 SI Ravinder is a formal witness and testified that on 23.2.11 he alongwith SI Mukesh got conducted the postmortem on the dead body after same was identified by Dinesh Kumar and Raj Kumar. In his cross examination he stated dead body was identified at 11am and they left hospital at 3pm.
25. PW19 Ct. Devender Singh is a formal witness. He deposed he delivered copy of FIR to ACMM,DCP and Joint CP on 24.2.11. He was not cross examined.
26. PW20 HC Rajender Singh is a formal witness. He stated on 22.2.11 as duty officer he recorded DD no.34A EXPW20/A at 8.05pm , recorded DD No.35A EXPW11/C at 8.07pm and receive rukka from Ct Sohan Lal at 10pm and recorded FIR no.54/11 EXPW20/B.
27. PW21 Ct. Sandeep is a formal witness. He testified that he handed over Pullanda to Dr. Bhim Singh on 2.5.11 vide RC State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 20 of 61 56/21/11 and after examination he handed over the pullanda with seal of FMTBJRM which he gave to MHCM.
28. PW22 HC Devender is a formal witness as he was the MHC(M)and proved various entry of register no.19 regarding deposit of pullanda and sending to BSA hospital and FSL and he proved copy of register no.19 containing relevant entry as Ex.PW22/A and copy of RC as Ex.PW22/B and C and copy of receipt of depositing the pullanda in the FSL as Ex.PW22/D. He was not cross examined.
29. PW23 Ct. Anil Bhor is a formal witness. He testified that on 6.5.11 he deposited six pullanda in FSL vide RC 62/21/11.
30. PW24 HC Ram Niwas was the MHC(R). He prove the that FIR 144/99 PS Alipur as EXPW24/A.
31. PW25 SI Mahesh Kumar is a formal witness. He testified that he prepared the scaled site plan EXPW25/A.
32. PW26 Devender Kumar is the son of deceased. He is also witness of motive. He testified that accused used to threatened his father and uncle Raj Kumar for repartition otherwise he will him kill them. He also stated that accused and his father in his presence. But since PW 26 had not stated the date, month or year when accused threatened him. More ever his statement was recorded by police on 22.05.11 and no proper explanation was given by him for this delay of State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 21 of 61 more than three month. Hence, his testimony does not inspire much confidence and I reject the same.
33. PW27 SI Mukesh Kumar is the first IO of the case and also witness of arrest of accused and recovery of blood stained clothes and danda used in commission of offence. His testimony will be discussed in detail later on.
34. PW28 Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma is the subsequent IO and carried out the proceedings regarding arrest and recovery of the accused. His detailed testimony will be discussed later on.
35. DW1 Smt. Geeta is the mother of the accused Vikas @ Vicky. She has deposed that, on 22.2.2011 at about 7.30/8pm, when she came out, she saw lot of people were running. She asked as to what happened and they told an accident had occurred and she went towards the said side and found deceased was found lying on the road. Her mother in law came there and asked her to what had happened and thereafter her mother in law started crying, 'hamara naash ho gaya, koi accident kar gaya'. She called her son Vikas @ Vikcy and who asked her what has happened and she told about the accident, thereafter she came back to her house. On 23.2.2011 one police official came in the morning to our house and asked her to visit State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 22 of 61 PS. Thereafter, she and her son visited the PS, where police interrogated how deceased had died and who had killed him and thereafter, police asked her son to stay for a while and she and her mother Jalawati returned to house and after about 15 minutes SHO and SI Mukesh came to her house and they asked her for clothes and food for her son Vikas @ Vicky. In her cross examination, by ld. Addl. PP for the State, she had stated that on 23.2.11, when police called her and her son at PS, she had not asked police, why her son was detained. She voluntarily stated that at that time police official told her that accused Vikas @ Vicky will be freed soon.
36. DW2 Raj Kala is the resident of Village Ramzanpur and nd she had stated that, on 22 February, but she did not remember the year, when she was standing outside her house, she saw public persons were running and on inquiry they told that, some accident had happened and she came to know that one Dharambir was died and his mother was also present there, whom she called Tai. In their cross examination she stated that she does not know when accused Vikas @ Vicky was arrested by the police.
37. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP that case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and from the testimonies of PW3 and PW9, it is proved that accused used to threat the deceased over State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 23 of 61 repartition of ancestral properties and just prior to recovery of dead body also accused was quarreling with the deceased and thereafter he murdered the deceased Dharambir and tried to give colour of accident.
38. Ld. Addl.PP further argued that from the recoveries of clothes having blood stained of deceased it is proved that accused committed murder of deceased. Hence Prosecution is able to prove complete chain of incriminating circumstance which established accused and no other person committed the murder of Dharambir. In support of his ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as ld. Counsel for the complainant have relied upon the judgments Aftab Ahmed Ansari Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2010 (1) RCR CRIMINAL, Joseph vs State of Kerala 2010 (2) RCR Criminal, Anthony D'Souza and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka 2002 (4) RCR Criminal and Munna Kumar Upadhaya @ Munna Upadhaya Vs. State of U.P. 2012 (2) RCR Criminal and G.B. Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 135.
39. On the other hand Ld. Defense Counsel has argued that first of all it is not established that Dharambir has been murdered rather accidental death has been given colour of murder in connivance with deceased family member as they want to deprive the accused from the share in ancestral properties. He further argued that testimonies of witnesses are not reliable because same is belated and State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 24 of 61 full of contradiction.
40. Ld. Defense counsel further argued that recovery of cloth of deceased is planted even otherwise merely on the basis of recovery of clothes accused cannot be convicted as chain of incriminating circumstance is not complete. Ld. Defense counsel has relied upon judgments, Peddireddy Subba reddi and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1356, Tarseem Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administrator AIR 1994 SC 2585, Sohan and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 2001 SC 1380, Hanumant vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Raojibhai Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343.
41. From the discussion of aforementioned evidence certain undisputed facts emerged:
(i) That deceased and accused are relative and they had joint ancestral properties.
(ii) That there was dispute over partition of properties between accused mother and other family members and in the year 2005 partition of ancestral properties took place,
(iii) That deceased dead body alongwith his cycle was found on 22.02.11 at about 7.30/8.00 on the road near the gher of deceased.
(iv) Initially case was registered as of accident u/s. 279/304A IPC. State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 25 of 61
42. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased Dharambir was murdered by accused Vikas @ Vicky over the dispute of redistribution of ancestral property and the case was given the colour of accident by the accused.
43. There is no eye witness of the incident and the entire case of the prosecution based upon circumstantial evidence. The law on the circumstantial evidence is, by now, settled that conviction can be made on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [1984 (4) SCC 116], this Court drew out the following test for relying upon the circumstantial evidence: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully 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 a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 26 of 61 accused.
44. The principle of this judgment was thereafter followed in number of decisions, they being Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat [1997 (7) SCC 156], State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru [2005 (11) SCC 600], Vikram Singh & amp; Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [2010 (3) SCC 56], Tarseem Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1994 SC 2585, Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal [2010 (2) SCC 583] etc. It is to be noted that in the last mentioned decision of Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal (cited supra), the observation made is to the following effect: In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter the Court should consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt. If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself/themselves, is/are not decisive. The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 27 of 61 howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. Where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court...........'(Emphasis supplied).
The Court further went on to hold that in applying this principle, distinction must be made between the facts called primary or basic, on the one hand, and the inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other. The Court further mentioned that: in drawing these inferences or presumptions, the Court must have regard to the common course of natural events, and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case.
45. Now in the guidelines of the aforesaid judgments I shall examine the evidence to determine, whether prosecution has been able to establish the complete chain of circumstances, which lead to the conclusion whether accused had committed the murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubts or not.
46. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the following circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused.
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 28 of 61
(i) Homicidal death of the deceased.
(ii) The accused has motive of murder as accused was not satisfy with the partition of ancestral property and was insisting for repartition.
(iii) The accused was seen quarreling with deceased before his death and he was the last person who seen deceased alive.
(iv) The recovery of the clothes of the Accused having blood stain of the deceased at the instance of the accused.
(v) The recovery of weapon of offence i.e. danda by which injury was caused to deceased.
Now, I shall examine the how far prosecution has been able to prove the incriminating circumstances against the accused.
47. Initially the case was registered under Section 279/304A IPC as a case of accident because according to the PW27 SI Mukesh, on receiving the DD No.34A, he reached at the spot, he found that deceased was lying on the corner of the road and cycle was lying near his body of the deceased and some tyre marks on the Kacha path near the dead body. Therefore, prima facie it appeared to him that, it was a case of accident and he did not find any person who had seen the incident. Therefore, he prepared the rukka on the DD No.34A itself and recommended for registration of FIR u/s. 279/304A IPC. He has further stated that, doctor (PW5) who conducted the postmortem examination, orally told that it is not the case of the accident, it is a case of murder and this on the direction of the IO, he reached at the village Ramzanpur and State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 29 of 61 did not find any witness, but met with mother and brother of the deceased and on inquiry they told him that they suspect Vikas @ Vicky committed the murder of the deceased. Hence, in these circumstances, it is evident that case has been converted from accidental death to homicidal murder, on the basis of postmortem report. Hence, testimony of PW5 Dr. Bhim Singh, who conducted the postmortem examination became very material to establish whether, it was an accidental death or it was homicidal death.
48. PW5 Dr. Bhim Singh in his testimony had deposed that on 23.2.2011, he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Dharmender vide Postmortem Report No.202/11 Ex.PW5/A and on external examination, following injuries were found:
(i) Lacerated wound 3cmX1.5cmXbone deep right frontoparietal region.
(ii) Lacerated wound 3cmX1.5cmXbone deep over left frontoparietal region.
(iii) Lacerated wound 4cmX1.5cmXbone deep right parietooccipital region.
(iv) Reddish contusion 3cm X 2cm over right shoulder.
On internal examination following injuries were found:
Head Region: Extravasation of blood in scalp layer below injury no.1,2 & 3, depressed fracture of right parietooccipital, temporal bone up to base. Depressed fracture left frontoparietal bone present.
Brain shows contusion below injury No.1,2 & 3 with defuse subdural State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 30 of 61 haemorrhage, subarchnoid haemorrhage, ventricles full of blood. All other organs found congested and he opined that death was due to coma consequent upon head injury. All the injuries were ante mortem, fresh in duration and could be caused by hard blunt object. Injury No.1,2 & 3 sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death is about 16 to 17 hours.
In his cross examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, he stated that on 23.2.2011 itself he informed to the IO that this is not a case of road accident, but of murder. He was specially asked following questions: Q: When a vehicle comes at a high speed and struck against a pedestrian the body of the pedestrian is thrown upwards and when he fells down on the road, such type of injuries as mentioned in the PMM Report Ex.PW5/A can be caused?
Ans: In case of accident, vehicle hits the body of person there is primary impact injuries on the body of deceased and when he thrown out then there is secondary impact injuries on the body of the deceased but in this case there was no primary impact injuries on the body of the deceased. Therefore, I gave opinion that it is not a case of road accident.
Q: Is it possible that deceased hit the road with great force after accident which has caused the impact of hard blunt injury?
Ans: The type of injuries mentioned in the PM Report is not possible when the deceased fall on road.
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 31 of 61
49. He specifically denied that injury no.4 was possible by falling with a great force on the road and injury no.1 to 3 could be caused due to road accident. He also denied that the suggestion that, IO had asked him to give opinion while keeping in line with the two statements given by Smt. Sukan Devi and Raj Kumar. He had also stated that in the examination in chief that on 02.05.2011 on receiving application Ex.PW5/B and pullanda sealed with the seal of DKS from which one blood stained wooden danda were taken out after examination, he opined that the injuries on the body of Dharambir could be possible by the said danda Ex.P1. In my view, there is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 that death of deceased was not homicidal death.
50. As in a case of accidental death generally there are primary and secondary impact injury. If I consider it as an accident case, then, since there is no eyewitness to the incident, hence, it is very difficult to say whether deceased was on foot or he was riding a bicycle, when he was hit. In Modi's Jurisprudence & Toxicology 22nd Edition (Student Edition) in page no.393 to 296, in Chapter XIV Traffic Injuries, it is held that: .................(1) Pedestrian Injuries Pedestrian injuries depend on whether the person is crossing the road or walking in the direction of the moving vehicle.
It should be noted that the behaviour of the body and the and the nature of injuries are State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 32 of 61 modified by the following factors:
(a) point of impact of the vehicle in relation to the center of gravity of the body;
(b) whether at the time of impact of vehicle, both feet were on ground or one of them was raised, and also the firmness or otherwise of one or both feet on the ground; and
(c) the nature of road surface or ground smooth or rough.
The injuries sustained by pedestrians can be grouped as follows:
(i) primary impact injuries (indicating which part of the body was struck first);
(ii) secondary impact injuries (indicating whether further were caused by the vehicle); and
(iii) secondary injuries - due to fall on ground or any other subject.
(i) Primary Impact injuries Primary impact injuries are caused when the pedestrian is hit by projecting objects of the vehicle like bumper, mudguard, view mirror and handle of the door, or in case of lorries, the load material projecting out. The site of the primary impact would depend on the position of the pedestrian while being knocked down.
The bumper of a car may strike below the knee and that of a truck/lorry as high as the hip of an adult pedestrian. If both feet are well fixed on the ground at the time of impact of the bumper of a speeding car, bones of both the legs fracture (bumper fractures) immediately below the point of impact. Such bumper fracture are spiral in State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 33 of 61 character, due to rotational (or torsional) forces/ They occur at different levels in the tibia and fibula. According to Ashton and Mackay, the bumper is frequently responsible for femoral fractures in children. In apparently 'hitandrun case, where a body is found on the road, the presence of bumperfracture on the lower limb indicates that the pedestrian was erect at the time of incident on road and that he was not either run over or deposited on the road for the purpose of concealing a homicide.
(ii) Secondary Impact Injuries: Secondary impact injuries are due to a later (secondary) impact with the same vehicle, such as being lifted onto the vehicle after primary impact, or being run over. The head may be injured after striking against the windscreen or the bonnet. If the pedestrian is run over while lying down, he may be crushed against the road surface, resulting in fractures of bones and degloving of the skin over the limbs and trunk (run over or flaying injuries).
The severity of crush injuries will depend on the weight of the vehicle and its clearance from the ground. If 'jumping' of the wheels has occurred at the moment of being run over, the crush injuries will be minimum and involve only one side of the body.
Secondary injuries are due to being thrown to the ground or against some other object. They vary greatly in severity. The distribution and nature of these injuries will be governed by the State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 34 of 61 road surface, the speed of vehicle, the position of the victim, and the amount of clothes on him.
A visit to the scene of the incident is helpful in knowing the dynamics of the accident by noting:
(i) marks on the vehicle by contact with the victim;
(ii) injuries sustain by pedestrian;
(iii) position of pedestrian while struck;
(iv) final position and altitude of the vehicle;
(v) final position and altitude of the victim..........
(4) Injuries to pedalCyclists A cyclist running at high speed, on hitting against a stationary object, may be thrown off the cycle and sustain secondary injuries on hitting the ground, though, there may not be any primary impact injuries.
If the prima impact is against a speeding car, against the leg of the rider, the rider will overbalance and the secondary injuries will be relatively severe due to the unstable balance and free fall from a relatively high position.
The injuries to the cyclist are similar in distribution and severity to those sustained by a pedestrian, except that they have a few severe leg injuries. The fractures of the leg or arm of the rider may occur if it is trapped between the frames of the bicycle.
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 35 of 61
51. It is evident that from the testimony of PW5 Dr. Bhim Singh that, deceased only had one type of injury and he had no primary impact injuries. Further, deceased had depressed fracture on both right and left parietooccipital bone which is generally not happened in accidental case and more probable when blow is given by hard blunt object on both side therefore, in such circumstances, there is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 that death of the deceased was caused with hard blunt object like danda Ex.P1 and not in accident. Hence, in my view the deceased had died homicidal death caused by hard blunt object like danda Ex.P1.
52. In a case based upon circumstantial evidence, motive becomes quite important link in the chain of incriminating circumstances to establish whether accused had committed murder or not.
53. Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 says that facts which show a motive for any facts in issue or relevant facts, are relevant. In a case resting on circumstantial evidences, motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused. Motive is the inducement for doing an act. People do not act wholly without motive. The evidence of motive becomes important once a crime is committed. The evidence of the existence of a motive is admissible.
Motive is sometime difficult to unlock. The existence of motive assumes State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 36 of 61 significance but the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case. The proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. The absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case. It was observed in case State of U.P. V Babu Ram, 2000 (11) AD 285 as under : No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental imposition of an offender towards the person whom he offered.
54. Now reverting back to the present case, as per prosecution accused Vikas was not satisfied with the partition of the ancestral property carried out by his grand father in the year 2005 and was insisting that joint property be repartitioned and some more land be given to him, and since his uncle i.e. deceased Dharambir and Raj Kumar and other family agreed State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 37 of 61 to it, therefore, he had threatened to his uncle Dharambir and Raj Kumar that he will see them and due to said reason he has committed murder of his uncle Dharambir. In order to proved the motive of murder, prosecution has placed reliance upon testimony of PW2, PW3, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW26.
55. PW3 Shakun Devi is the most material witness in this regard, as she is the mother of the deceased and grand mother of the accused Vikas @ Vicky. She had testified that, accused Vikas was not happy with the partition made by her husband as her husband had transferred one plot of Sarai Peepal Thala to his son Dharambir and Raj Kumar and accused was happy with this settlement and used to quarrel daily on the said issue. In her cross examination, PW3 had admitted that the suggestion that, after the death of his son Kuldeep there used to be property dispute between the widow Geeta and rest of the family members and a criminal case was registered against her son Raj Kumar and Dharambir and their wives on the complaint of Geeta and a Civil suit was also filed by Geeta and Panchayat Faisla taken. She admitted the suggestion that Panchayat Faisla was for complete partition of land and property, her family and civil suit was withdrawn by Geeta (mother of the accused) in view of the said panchayati faisla. She admitted the suggestion that, the land possessed by accused Vikas @ Vicky was not State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 38 of 61 mutated in his name in the revenue record despite repeated requests by accused. She volunteered that, her son used to tell accused Vikas that, since he was not major at that time, therefore, his land will be mutated in his name when he will become major. She also denied the suggestion that other portion of the plot which fall to the share of village Ramzanpur, which was adjoining to the property of Goverdhan was not given to the accused despite the partition had taken place. He also denied that the suggestion that land i.e. the share of the accused adjoining to the property of Goverdhan was not given to him or that despite the panchayati faisla, the share of the property was not given to the accused. She further denied the suggestion that they wanted to dispossess the Geeta from the property owned by her husband, since she has filed criminal case as well as civil case.
56. PW8 Raj Kumar, who is brother of the deceased had also deposed that, accused used to quarrel with deceased over repartition of ancestral land and was demanding more share in land.
57. PW7 Karan Singh, who is a covillager of both accused and deceased is an independent witness. He had testified that in the year 2005 a Panchayat was held in their village as he was disputed other property between Raj Kumar, Dharambir and their father Hoshiyar Singh and Geeta. Thereafter, it was settled in the said Panchayat on the State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 39 of 61 documents Ex.PW7/A. No cross examination has been done by the accused, hence, said Panchayati faisla remained undisputed. Hence, from his testimony, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that, prima to the year 2005, there was dispute between accused's mother and deceased and other family members of the deceased over the partition of the ancestral property.
58. Ld. Counsel for the accused had also admitted that there was dispute between the mother of the accused and deceased Dharambir's other family member, but contended that dispute was settled in the year 2005 itself. Therefore, there was no ground remains on any enmity between the accused and deceased, hence, the motive of quarrel between the accused and deceased is no longer exist. However, I am not agree with the said contention that after year 2005, no dispute remained between accused and deceased, which is evident from the cross examination of PW2 Dinesh Kumar, PW3 Shakun Devi & PW9 Santosh. On perusal of the cross examination PW2 Dinesh Kumar, it is evident that, suggestion has been given to the PW2 that share of land, on the basis of family partition has not been mutated /transferred in his name despite his repeated requests. Similarly, suggestion has been given to the PW3 Smt. Shukan Devi and PW8 Raj Kumar PW9 Santosh Devi that despite compromise in Panchayat no share was given to accused or his mother State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 40 of 61 and land was came into share of accused not mutated in the name of accused. Hence, from this suggestion itself it become amply evident that even after the compromise in Panchayat made in the year 2005, accused was having reason to feel aggrieved because the agricultural land as per the said settlement was not mutated in his name, therefore, it is established that relation between accused and deceased were strained and it cannot be said that there was no dispute between them after 2005.
59. Besides this ld. Counsel has given suggestion to the PW3 that, Geeta, mother of the accused was turned out from the matrimonial house after the Terehvi of his father and that her husband (i.e. grand father of the accused) had never visited to take the accused from her maternal grand father's house or that they did not pay a single penny as expenses to study of the accused, it also indicated that even accused may have any grudge against his grand mother, uncle i.e. deceased Dharambir and another uncle for not taking his proper care after the death of his father. Hence, the fact that not taking proper care of his and his mother coupled with not mutating the land, as per the Panchayati Faisla in the name of accused could be motive of the murder of the deceased Dharambir, even if I accept the contention of the ld. Counsel for the accused is accepted that, accused was not demanding any further partition of the ancestral property or any additional share in the ancestral State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 41 of 61 land. But, definitely from the suggestion given by the Ld. counsel for the accused to the aforesaid witnesses, it is proved that accused had grudge against the deceased and other family members of deceased including his uncle Raj Kumar. Hence, in these circumstances, the testimony of PW3 and other witnesses cannot be disbelieved that accused used to quarrel with deceased. Hence, I held that prosecution has been able to prove that accused had motive to commit murder of Dharambir.
60. Last seen evidence come into picture when there is very small time gap when deceased was last seen in the company of deceased and the death of deceased. Supreme Court noted general principles with reference to the principles of last seen together in Bodhraj V State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45 as under:
"The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were together, it would be hazardous to come to a State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 42 of 61 conclusion of guilt in those cases."
61. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy (2006) 10 SCC 172 this Court further opined that even in the cases where time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead is too small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible, the courts should look for some corroboration. ..... Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case."
62. The observation of Supreme Court in 'Muhibur Rahman V State of Assam. (2002) 6 SCC 715 are also relevant on the circumstance of last seen: "The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 43 of 61 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 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 the liability for the homicide. In the present case there is no such proximity of time and place."
63. Now reverting back to the case PW3 Shakun Devi had testified that on the day of incident when it was dark, she was present at the gher of Dharambir and deceased was standing on the door of the gher, accused was also standing with Dharambir and was quarreling with Dharambir. She asked her son Dharambir to come to home but deceased told that he would come later on after sometime and after half an hour the mother of the accused knocked the door of her house "Kiwad Khol Kiwad Khol Bahar Dekh Naash Hua Pada Hai". Thereafter she came out and saw that Dharambir was lying on the kacha part of the road by the side of the road and his cycle was also lying by the side of the dead body of deceased Dharambir.
In her crossexamination She had stated that she had seen State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 44 of 61 Dharambir with accused on the day of incident in the evening when there was darkness and at that time no other family member or person of the neighbourhood had gathered there. She did not know notice of the case was done at that time.
64. The contention of ld. Counsel that testimony of PW3 Shakun Devi is afterthought because she had not stated on 22.2.2011 that, she saw accused was quarreling with deceased despite the fact that, witnesses have stated that, she was present on the spot. Ld. Counsel further contended that, explanation given by PW3 for delay in giving statement to the police, in her cross examination that, after seeing death of the accused, she had become unconscious and regain consciousness at night and then again said she regained consciousness in the morning of 23.2.2011 at about 8/9 am itself is self contradictory. Further, if she lost her consciousness from whole night why she was not taken to the hospital or any doctor was not called. Hence, her testimony that, she saw accused and deceased quarreling on the day of incident cannot be relied upon, as she is an interested witnesses and has grudge against the accused and his mother, because they had earlier demanded partition of the property and accused's mother i.e. DW1 had filed civil as well as criminal case against them. Hence, her testimony is to be rejected.
65. But in my view the loss of consciousness in such cases State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 45 of 61 is not complete loss of consciousness as in the case of accident etc. It is a situation of shock due to extreme sorrow generally in such type of cases, person is not taken to the Doctor. Moreover in my view there was no occasion for PW3 to give her statement on 22.3.2011 itself because from the circumstances, it was appearing to be a case of accident, hence, she had no reason to suspect that accused had committed the murder of her son, hence, only when she came to know that her son has been killed after Postmortem. Hence, in my view the delay of making statement by PW3 has been sufficiently explained.
66. PW27 SI Mukesh had also stated that, the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination orally told to him that, it is not a case of accident and it is a case of murder. He informed the said fact to the SHO and thereafter SHO directed him to investigate accordingly and then he went to the house of the deceased and inquired from PW3 and who suspected that, accused had committed murder of deceased and as accused was absent from his house and he had not attended the cremation ceremony of deceased Dharambir and thereafter he recorded the statement of PW3. Therefore, in these circumstances, when IO of the case himself was under the impression that, case was of accident on 22.2.11 and only after opinion from the Doctor that it is a murder case thereafter he inquired in this regard and reached to PW3 on 23.2.11, State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 46 of 61 therefore, the delay in recording statement of PW3 by him is properly explained. As far as contradiction in the testimony of PW3 that at one place, she had stated that, she regained her consciousness at night then said regained her consciousness in the morning. I do not find same is very material as held in judgment Joseph Vs. State of Kerala (Supra) relied upon by the prosecution. In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court in 13 held that, "it is not every discrepancy or contradictions that matter much in the matter of assessing the reliability and credibility of a witness or truthfulness of his version. Unless the discrepancies and contradictions are so material and substantiate and that two are in respect of vitally relevant aspects of the facts deposed, the witness cannot be straightway condemned and their evidence discarded in its entirety". Hence, in my view there is no reason to discard her testimony as stated above, she is the grand mother of the accused and mother of the deceased. She knew very well in case she will make false allegations against the accused then the real murderer of her son has not go scot free, which in my view no mother would like to do. As far as judgment relied upon by ld. Counsel for the accused i.e. Tarseem Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration (Supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the testimony of last seen witness on the ground that, he was related to the victim is not applicable in this case. First of all for the reasons as mentioned in the judgment itself that, trial State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 47 of 61 court had found him a stock witness as he has appeared in more than five cases, which is not the case here. Moreover, PW3 is not only the relative of the deceased, but she is relative of the accused being her grand mother. Therefore, I do not find any ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW3. Her presence at the place where she saw the deceased and accused is not unnatural, as she had seen the accused and her deceased son outside the house/Gher of her deceased son.
67. Hence, from the testimony of PW3, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused was not satisfied with the partition of the family property and also due to the reason that even after the partition which property will come into his share was not mutated in his name and due to said reasons he used to quarrel with deceased and on the day of incidentalso just prior his death accused had quarreled with the deceased.
68. Spot where dead body of deceased Dharambir was found is road just near the gher of deceased where accused and deceased were quarreling which is evident from site plan Ex.PW27/B. Time gap when PW3 saw the accused and deceased quarreling together and the recovery of dead body of the deceased Dharambir is not much. Accused had not explained in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. that deceased had gone somewhere from there or deceased was alive when he left from there. He has simply denied that question put to him that on the day of incident he State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 48 of 61 was quarreling with accused. Mere denial is not sufficient. He failed to lead any credible evidence where he was on that evening and why he did not reached at the spot though death has happened in the village hence news would have spread like wild fire. DW1 Geeta had stated that he called the accused but same does not inspire much confidence as no suggestion has been given to any witness that accused had arrived at the spot after news of death neither any suggestion has been given to any witness that he arrived at the house of deceased after his death. Deceased Dharambir was his uncle and if he has no enmity with him hence it look quite unnatural. He had not contradicted the evidence that, he came to the house of deceased after his death to mourn.
69. Hence, from the aforementioned discussion it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that prior to murder of Dharambir deceased had quarrel with him and he was the last person who seen deceased alive. Hence it is a strong incriminating circumstances against the accused that after the quarrel something happened between deceased and accused that he followed the deceased and gave him blows with the danda and killed him.
70. The another incriminating circumstances against the accused is that recovery of his cloths and danda which is having blood stained. To prove the recovery the prosecution has relied upon testimony State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 49 of 61 of PW8 Raj Kumar, PW27 SI Mukesh Kumar and PW28 Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma who are the recovery witnesses.
71. PW8 Raj Kumar had testified that on 24.2.2011 IO Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma alongwith two police officials reached at their house and he informed them that accused Vikas @ Vicky had committed murder of his brother and thereafter they reached at BakhtawarpurHIranki Road from where accused was arrested at his instance by the IO and accused confessed about the commission of murder of deceased Dharambir and police recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW8/E. Thereafter accused led them to the Thokar No.20 and after crossing the road which is known as Bandewala Road at his instance one danda and one polythene were recovered from the bushes near Thokar No.20, beyond Yamuna Pushta Road, one danda and a polythene was recovered and on checking it was found containing blood stained pant and shirt to be accused Vikas were recovered. Measurement of the danda was taken by the IO and thereafter, IO kept in a sealed pullanda and sealed with the seal of DKS and seized vide memo Ex.PW8/F. Further cloth were kept in a polythene and thereafter kept in a plastic container sealed with the seal of DKS and seized Ex.PW8/G. IO had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery. He further stated that he had signed all these memos.
In his cross examination, had deposed he denied the State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 50 of 61 suggestion that on 24.2.2011, accused and his mother was called at the PS Alipur or that accused was already arrested when he reached at the PS. He further stated that writing work done by the police on the road near Ramjanpur at the time of arrest and no person was called by the IO of the village to join the investigation. He stated that distance of place of arrest and village Ramjanpur is about 1½ km. The way from the place of arrest to Thokar No.20 does by the side of village Ramjanpur. He further stated that, no police personal with the IO, while going to the place of arrest. He volunteered that, it was not through the village. Hence, nothing has come out in the cross examination of PW8.
72. PW28 Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma had also testified that that on 24.2.2011 after converting the case into Section 302 IPC investigations of this case was taken over by him from previous IO SI Mukesh Rana. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Mukesh Rana, HC Anang Pal went to the house of deceased Dharambir at village Ramzanpur. They went to the house of deceased Dharambir where Smt. Sukan Devi and Raj Kumar met them and Raj Kumar told that he had received information that deceased has been found wondering near Bakhtawarpur village, and when they reached at village BakhtarwarpurHiranki Road and on the turn, accused Vikas @ Vicky was found coming from Bakhtawarpur side. At the instance of PW8 Raj Kumar, accused was apprehended by them and after State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 51 of 61 his interrogation, he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/C. Accused made confessional statement Ex.PW8/E, in which he told that, he had hide his clothes, which he was wearing at the time of incident at the time of incident and danda by which he had caused injuries to the deceased in the bushes near Thokar No.20, beyond Yamuna Pushta Road and he got recovered the same. Thereafter, they reached at Thokar No.20 in pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Vikas @ Vicky. Accused had taken out one yellow colour polythene and one blood stained danda from the bushes. The polythene was found containing blood stained pant and shirt to be of accused Vikas @ Vicky. The pant was of light blue jeans and the shirt was of black colour. The clothes were seized vide memo Ex.PW8/G after putting them into a plastic container and sealing them with the seal of DKS. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW28/A. Pullandas of danda was prepared and sealed with the seal of DKS and seized vide memo Ex.PW8/F said exhibits were correctly identified i.e. Danda as Ex.P1, Pant Ex.P2 and Shirt as Ex.P3. Thereafter accused Vikas had pointed out the place of occurrence, i.e. Road, near the house of deceased in village Ramzanpur vide pointing out memo Ex.PW27/J was prepared.
73. In his cross examination PW28 Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma had stated that Raj Kumar met him at about 3.30pm and at the State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 52 of 61 same time Sukan Devi met at her house at village Ramzanpur. He stated that they had not met the mother of the accused Vikas @ Vicky prior to his arrest. He stated that he asked the passersby to join the investigations, but they did not join the investigations and left away from the spot. He did not give notice to the said persons as they were not stopped there. He stated that the distance between place of arrest of the accused and place of recovery is about 34kms. There a building of Flood Department near the Pusta Road. The distance between said place of recovery and said building is about 300400 meters. The said building was locked at that time. He further stated that accused had taken out the polythene and danda from the bushes and gave to him. Thereafter, he took the bag and checked the same. He did not inquire from any official of DJB is the same office/room was locked. He denied the suggestion that on 23.2.2012 at about 2pm accused alongwith his mother and Nani were called to the PS and there accused was illegally detained illegally on the pretext of some inquiry and his mother and Naani were alleged to go from the PS PS on assurance that he will be freed after some inquiry and on the next day he alongwith SI Mukesh went to the house of accused Vikas @ Vicky and informed that her son is further required for inquiry and asked her to provide spare sets of his clothes i.e. pant and shirt of accused, so that, he can change the same in the PS. State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 53 of 61
74. PW27 SI Mukesh Kumar had also deposed the same fact as deposed by PW28 Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma with regard to the arrest and recovery from the accused blood stained clothes and danda and pointing out of the place of incident. Almost same questions were asked from the PW27 SI Mukesh Kumar, as asked from the PW28 Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma and he almost had given same reply.
75. Hence, from considering the testimony of PW8 Raj Kumar, PW27 SI Mukesh Kumar and PW28 Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma I find that there is not much contradictions with regard to the arrest of accused, making of disclosure statement of accused and recovery of danda and blood stained clothes at the instance of accused Vikas @ Vicky.
76. Undoubtedly, no independent public persons have been joined as witnesses either at the time of arrest or at the time of recovery as stated by the defence counsel. But in my view merely on this ground their testimony cannot be disbelieved. PW28 Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma had explained that he had asked to join some public persons and they did not stop and went away. It is known fact that public persons have tendency that not to join the investigation because either they are afraid of backlash or they did not simply want to waste their precious time for going to the PS or to the Court. Hence, from the testimony of PW28, PW27 and State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 54 of 61 PW28 it is established that the accused was arrested on 24.2.2011 and made disclosure statement Ex.PW8/E and in pursuance of said disclosure statement, accused got recovered his clothes i.e. Pant Ex.P2, Shirt Ex.P3 and weapon of offence i.e. danda as Ex.P1.
77. As far as the defence taken by the accused that the clothes were given by the mother of the accused on 24.02.2011 on the asking of the PW27 SI Mukesh Kumar and PW28 Inspector Dinesh Kumar, when they came to their house and stated that accused has to change his clothes. DW1 Smt. Geeta (Mother of the accused) has been examined in support of the said defence of the accused, who had stated that on 23.02.2011 one police official came in the morning at her house and asked her to visit the PS and thereafter she and her son went to the PS. Police interrogated how the deceased had died and who had killed him and she stated that she does not know anything except that deceased had died in an accident. Police asked her son to stay while, she and her mother Jagmati returned to the house and after 15 minutes SHO and IO came to her house and asked for the cloths and food for his son. Moreover, even if I presume that, on the demand of SHO, DW1 handed over the cloths of accused. Hence, she had given the clothes voluntarily, but in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. accused had stated that his clothes were taken forcibly from his mother. Hence, the testimony of mother of State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 55 of 61 accused and statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. are contradictory. Hence, I do not find the testimony of DW1 much inspiring. It appears that, she is trying to save her son. DW1 had stated that 15 minutes after her returning to the house with her mother Jalawati, SHO and SI Mukesh came there. Hence, her mother Jalawati would be present there, but defence had failed to explain why Jalawati was not examined in defence to corroborate the testimony of DW1. Hence, it is evident that, accused had taken false defence that, clothes were taken from her mother forcibly, which is also an another incriminating circumstances against the accused to prove that he was guilty of commission of the crime. In this regard, I rely upon the judgment Munna Kumar Upadhyaya (supra). In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "In case accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. the Court can draw an adverse inference against him".
78. From the FSL Report Ex.PY, it is proved that blood was detected on the cloth of accused and on danda (weapon of offence) and further from the FSL Report of Biological Division Ex.PX, it is proved the said blood was found on the Shirt and Pant of accused was of Group A, which matches with the blood group of deceased which was of Group A as in the Biological Report, it is mentioned that blood stained gauze cloth piece was also having Blood Group A. PW5 Dr. Bhim Singh had deposed State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 56 of 61 in his testimony and also in PM Report Ex.PW5/A as mentioned that he after conducting Postmortem Examination handed over clothes of the deceased and blood in gauze piece in sealed condition to the police of PS Alipur.
79. PW18 SI Ravinder had corroborated the testimony of PW5 Dr. Bhim Singh that as he has deposed that after Postmortem Examination doctor handed over two sealed pullandas containing exhibits of the deceased alongwith sample seal to him, which seized vide memo Ex.PW18/A. In Ex.PW18/A it is mentioned that doctor has handed over one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Delhi containing pant, shirt, sweater and vest (banyan) of the deceased and second pullanda containing blood sample in gauze piece sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Delhi alongwith sample seal. No suggestion has been given to the witness that all the FSL articles were not given to him by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination. Hence, it is established that doctor had handed over the clothes of the deceased and blood of deceased containing in gauze piece.
80. PW22 HC Devender MHC(M) had also stated that on 23.02.2011, IO had also handed over to him two sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of MR and he made relevant entry at serial number 89 in register no.19 and from the said entry in the register no.19, it is evident State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 57 of 61 that it was blood stained clothes of the deceased and blood of the deceased containing cloth gauze piece. PW22 has also stated on 24.2.2011 Inspector D.K. Sharma had handed over him one sealed pullanda, sealed with the seal of DKS and personal articles of the accused Vikas @ Vicky in another sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of DKS and he made relevant entry at serial no.92 in register no.19 Ex.PW22/A, it is evident that Inspector Dinesh Kumar Sharma had handed over to him cloth of the accused and danda. He had not been cross examined hence, it is proved that as deposed by him the aforementioned case property was deposited with him in the malkhana.
81. PW23 Ct. Anil Bhor had stated that on 06.05.2011 he took six pullandas and two sample seal to the FSL, vide RC No.62/21/11 to deposit the same in the FSL. The said No. 62/21/11 is proved by PW22 as Ex.PW22/C and from the said RC it is evident that, he had taken the blood stained danda and clothes of the deceased and accused and blood of the deceased to the FSL. PW22 had stated that he had given the same to the Ct. Anil Bhor on 06.05.2011 and he was not cross examined, therefore, said facts remained unchallenged.
82. Hence, from the overall testimony of aforesaid witness, it is established that the blood clothes and weapon of offence i.e. danda were recovered at the instance of accused Vikas @ Vicky and same were State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 58 of 61 having blood stains of human blood of blood group A, which is also the blood group of deceased. The explanation given by the accused that, his clothes were taken forcefully on 24.2.1011 from his mother as held above is apparently found false and accused had failed to put any dent to the testimony of witnesses i.e. PW8, PW27 and PW28 that weapon of offence i.e. danda was planted upon him. Hence, recovery of the aforesaid articles having blood stains of the deceased is of strong incriminating circumstances against the accused that the deceased had been hit by the said danda Ex.P1 and while doing so, accused got blood stained of deceased on his cloth.
83. As far as pointing out memo of the place of occurrence is concerned in my view, same is not material, because the said fact there in the knowledge of the police officials. Since accused had pointed out the said place in the custody of police, therefore, same is not admissible in evidence.
84. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion I held that prosecution has been able to prove the following chain of incriminating circumstance :
(i) That there was enmity between the accused and deceased over the joint family property.
(ii) The accused used to threaten the deceased Dharambir over the dispute of the joint family property.
(iii) On the day of incident he was quarreling with Dharambir and he State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 59 of 61 was the last person, who was with the deceased, when he was alive.
(iv) Post Mortem Report and subsequent opinion proved deceased died due to injuries over his head caused by blow given from Danda Ex.P1.
(v) Lots of blood flow from the injuries of Dharambir
(vi) The recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused on which blood of deceased were found.
(vii) Failure of the accused to give any explanation how the blood of deceased came on his cloths.
(viii) The recovery of the blood stained danda at the instance of the accused having blood stains of the deceased.
(ix) FSL report Ex.PX and Ex.PY proved that blood on the cloth of accused and Danda and blood of deceased was of same group a
(ix) The opinion of PW5 Dr. Bhim Singh that deceased died due homicidal death and the injuries to the deceased could be caused by the danda Ex.P1.
(xi) Taking of false defence by the accused that there was no dispute between accused and deceased family after the year 2005 and that his clothes were forcibly taken from his mother in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
85. Hence, in my view, prosecution has been able to prove complete chain of incriminating circumstances against the accused, which point out only hypothesis that accused had committed the murder of the deceased Dharambir and ruled out possibility of committing murder of deceased by anyone else. Hence, all the requirements as laid down in the judgment Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution, therefore, in the above said facts and State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 60 of 61 circumstances, I held that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed murder of Dharambir hence, I convict the accused Vikas @ Vicky for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Now to come up for order on sentence on 22.07.2013.
Announced in open court (SANJEEV KUMAR)
Dt. 08.07.2013 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 (NORTH)
ROHINI: DELHI.
State V VIKAS @ VICKY FIR No.54/11 PSAlipur SC No.140/11. Page No. 61 of 61