Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Mohan Lal S/O Goverdhan on 24 January, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF S.K. SARVARIA DISTRICT JUDGE & INCHARGE
(N/W), ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
ROHINI COURTS DELHI
S.C No. 66/2010
State VERSUS 1. Mohan Lal S/o Goverdhan
R/o D-714, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
2. Rakesh S/o Mohan Lal
R/o D-714, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
3. Vinod @ Goli
S/o Jagdish Parshad
R/o D-715, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
4. Chhote Lal
S/o Jagdish Parshad
R/o D-715, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
(died during pendency of trial)
5. Manoj S/o Jagdish Parshad
R/o D-715, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
FIR NO : 827/2005
P.S : Mangolpuri
U/s : 302/308/323/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 11/10/2010
Date when arguments
were heard : 12/12/2011 and 17/12/2011
Date of judgment : 23/12/2011
JUDGMENT
1. The SHO of police station Mangolpuri had challaned the accused to face trial for the offences under Sections 302/308/323/34 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate after supplying the copies of documents to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C has committed the case to the Court of Sessions as provided under section 209 Cr.P.C.
State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 2 BRIEF FACTS
2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the challan filed under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. is that on 22.11.2005 on receipt of DD No. 90-B through Ct. Kuldeep SI Amar Singh alongwith Ct. Anil Kumar went to the spot at D-713, Gali No. 12, Mangol Puri, Delhi and came to know that the injured had been taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. SI Amar Singh directed Ct. Kuldeep to remain at the spot for its safety, went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and collected the MLC of Lakhan Singh s/o Narain from the doctor in which the injured Lakhan Singh was declared dead. He also received MLC of injured Sumit Poddar, injured Rakesh and injured Chhotey Lal. The complainant Veena Devi, w/o deceased Lakhan Singh gave statement that her husband Lakhan Singh used to do the work of fixing marble stones in the houses. Accused Mohan Lal also lives in the same gali. About six months ago, Sangeeta the daughter of Mohan Lal eloped with one Bittoo, who is tenant of Sumit @ Bhola but Mohan Lal did not initiate any police proceedings and instead he became revengeful to Sumit and used to abuse him frequently. Her husband tried to persuade Mohan Lal that the tension in the neighbourhood is not good. On this, Mohan Lal threatened him since he used to side with Sumit, he would teach him a lesson which he would always remember. Mohan Lal also threatened Sumit for closing his welding shop.
On 22.11.2005 at about 09.30 pm, Mohan Lal after standing outside her house was abusing her husband and Sumit. Her husband tried to persuade Mohan Lal to desist from abusing. In the meantime, Vinod @ Goli with knife in his hand, Chhotey Lal with an iron pipe in his hand, Rakesh s/o Mohan Lal with danda (stick) in his hand came there. Mohan Lal exhorted them to kill and nobody should remain alive ("maro salon ko koi bhi jinda na bach paye"). Mohan Lal and Vinod caught hold of her husband and Vinod @ Goli, with the intention to kill her husband, stabbed her husband repeatedly, on his neck. Chhotey Lal also struck iron rod on the head of her husband. Her husband fell down on the land. The accused persons caused injuries on the other parts of the body of her husband also. Chhotey Lal State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 3 struck the head of Sumit with iron rod. She tried to rescue her husband and Rakesh hit her on her head with danda. Her son Prabhat tried to save her. Mohan Lal pushed her son so he fell down. The brother in law of Sumit namely Manoj came there to save him. Rakesh gave a danda blow on his head also. Sumit and his brother in law Manoj, in self defence, picked an iron pipe from the spot and caused injuries on the person of Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Chhotey Lal etc. Somebody made a telephone call at 100 number. She with the help of her son Prabhat @ Kale took her husband to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and got admitted her husband, who was declared dead. On this statement of the complainant, the SI Amar Singh made endorsement and sent the rukka through Ct. Anil Kumar for registration of the case on the basis of which FIR No. 827/2005 was recorded by the duty officer in the Police Station Mangol Puri under Secs. 302/308/323/34 IPC.
3. Request for crime team to inspect the site was made. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was handed over to Addl. SHO Insp. Azad Singh, who visited the hospital in question. The copies of the FIR were distributed to Senior Officers, area Magistrate through special messenger. The Investigating Officer, Addl. SHO during investigation inspected the site and prepared the site plan, collected blood samples from the spot, seized blood stained small pebbles, bloodstained road stones. He seized the bloodstained shirt of witness Prabhat, arrested accused Mohan Lal, conducted his personal search, recorded his disclosure statement and seized his bloodstained clothes. Accused Chhotey Lal was arrested who made disclosure statement. At his pointing out, the iron pipe was recovered from first floor of the house. The bloodstained clothes of accused Chhotey Lal were also taken into police possession. Accused Vinod @ Goli was also arrested, who made disclosure statement. From his pointing out, from the first floor in a blue coloured polythene under the bed in the room of his residential house, one scissors was recovered. The postmortem on the dead body of Lakhan Singh was got conducted and postmortem report was State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 4 obtained. The opinion regarding weapon of offence was also obtained from the doctor. The exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for expert opinion. The accused Rakesh and Manoj were arrested after obtaining NBWs against them. Their personal searches were conducted. Their disclosure statements were recorded. On completion of investigation, the accused persons were challened as referred before.
4. During the pendency of the trial, accused Chhotey Lal had expired, so the case against accused Chhotey Lal stood closed. Thereafter, the case continued against remaining four accused persons.
CHARGES AND PLEA OF ACCUSED
5. The prima facie case for the offences under sections 302/308/34 IPC was found to be made out against the accused persons so the charges were framed accordingly against them on 06.09.2006 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses in all. To have access to the prosecution evidence, it would be appropriate to give a short resume of the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded in the court.
7. PW-1 is Prabhat Singh. He deposed that his father was working as Mason who used to affix marble stones in Kothies. Accused Mohan Lal is resident of house in the same gali in which he lives. Accused had a dispute with tenant of neighbouring house owned by Sumit Poddar. He used to ask Sumit Poddar to get his house vacated from tenant failing which the consequences would not be good. Sangeeta daughter of accused Mohan Lal had run away with son of tenant of Sumit Poddar for which Mohan Lal had not lodged any report. Accused Mohan Lal used to abuse Sumit Poddar.
State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 5 PW-1 further stated that his father used to ask Mohan Lal not to do so upon which Mohan Lal told his father that he was taking side of Sumit Poddar which was not good. On 22.11.2005 at about 5/6 p.m, accused Vinod Kumar abused his fufa Ramkishan. His father advised him not to do so and the accused went to his house and told the incident to his brothers Chhotelal and Manoj. Accused also told the incident to his chacha Mohanlal and Rakesh son of his chacha. At about 9.30 p.m, he and his father were present in their house. Accused Mohan Lal started abusing them by standing outside their house. His (PW-1's) father went out of the house and asked him why he was abusing. Mohan Lal returned to his house and came back along with his nephew's accused Vinod Kumar, accused Chhote Lal, accused Manoj and his son Rakesh. Accused Chhote Lal was having iron rod in his hand. Accused Rakesh was having a danda, accused Vinod was having a scissors, accused Mohan Lal and Manoj caught hold of his father. Accused Chhote Lal attacked his (PW-1's) father with iron rod, accused Rakesh hit danda on the head of his (PW-1's) father and caused injuries on the leg of his father. Accused Vinod Kumar attacked on the neck of his father with scissors. His father fell down. He and his mother came to save him.
8. It is further deposed by PW-1 that accused Rakesh and Mohan Lal caused injuries to him and his mother with iron pipe and danda. Sumit Poddar and his sala Manoj Kumar came to save them who were also beaten by Rakesh, Mohan Lal and Chhote Llal. In self defence Sumit Poddar caused injuries to Mohan Lal, Rakesh Kumar and Chhote Lal. He and his mother took his father to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. The doctor declared him dead at about 10.15 p.m. SI Amar Singh came in the hospital and recorded statement of his mother and got the case registered. He accompanied police to the gali from where police lifted blood samples, earth control and blood stained concrete. The blood was seized vide memo Ex PW 1/A. Earth control was seized vide memo Ex PW 1/B, blood stained concrete was seized vide memo Ex PW 1/C. His shirt having stains of blood of his father was seized vide State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 6 memo Ex PW 1/D. He showed the place where his father fell down. The police prepared site plan at his instance. This witness has also identified shirt as Ex P-1 which belonged to him having stained with blood of his father. On the same night, he took police to Bapu park and got accused Vinod Kumar arrested. He identified the dead body of his father vide Ex PW 1/E and received the same vide memo Ex PW 1/F. This witness has also identified iron pipe as Ex P-2 and scissors as Ex P-3. Accused Manoj and Rakesh were arrested after two months at his instance vide memos Ex PW 1/G and Ex PW 1/H respectively. Their personal searches was conducted vide memos Ex PW 1/I and Ex PW 1/H respectively.
9. PW-2 is Smt. Beena Devi wife of deceased Lakhan Singh. She deposed that on 22.11.2005 in the evening, accused Mohan Lal was abusing her husband Lakhan Singh and neighbour Sumit Poddar. Her husband objected him. Accused Mohan Lal and Manoj caught hold of her husband.
This witness further stated that her husband Lakhan Singh used to do the work of fixing the marble stone in the buildings. Accused Mohan Lal is residing at H.No. D-714 Mangolpuri, Delhi in a gali. Her house is situated in the said gali. About six months prior to the incident the daughter of accused Mohan Lal had gone away with one Bittoo and Bittoo was a tenant of Sumit. However, accused Mohan Lal did not lodge any complaint with the police regarding his daughter. Accused Mohan Lal was having ill will against Sumit being the landlord of Bittoo and Mohan Lal used to abuse Sumit. His husband tried to persuade accused Mohan Lal not to abuse as it is not good to abuse in the same locality and it is also not good to quarrel in the locality. On this, the accused Mohan Lal extended a threat to her husband that her husband is taking the side of Sumit, therefore, accused Mohan Lal threatened her husband that accused will teach him a lesson and the lesson will be remembered by her husband forever. This witness has corroborated with the statement of PW-1 Prabhat Singh with the regard to the incident happened on 22.11.2005. She also lodged a complaint which is proved as Ex State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 7 PW 2/A.
10. PW-3 is Sh. Sumit Poddar. He deposed that accused Mohan Lal resides in the same gali in front of his house. One Bittoo was his tenant in the year 2003-2005 and during his tenancy in his accommodation, he noticed that his tenant Bittoo and one girl Sangeeta daughter of Mohan Lal were seeing each other. He told this fact to the parents of Bittoo and also instructed them that in case Bittoo continued to do these activities, they had to vacate the premises. When he pressurized Bittoo to abstain from these activities, he (Bittoo) showed him photographs and letters and also told him that Sangeeta herself used to write letters to him (Bittoo) and throw these letters in his house. He called the mother and chachi of Sangeeta and two other ladies of the gali and narrated them by showing the letters and photographs and also requested them to control Sangeeta. On one or two occasions Bittoo was apprehended at about 2 or 3 a.m, when he was going in the house of Sangeeta in the night by crossing the balcony. On those occasions, police was also called but Mohan Lal amicably settled the matter before the police. When this relation between Sangeeta and Bittoo continued, he got the premises vacated from Bittoo and his family. Within a week from the date when he got the premises vacated from Bittoo, Sangeeta daughter of Mohan Lal also went away from her house. Mohan Lal had not made any complaint to the police regarding missing of his daughter. But Mohan Lal used to abuse him and his neighbour Lakhan by standing in the gali. He gave a written complaint to the police about his abuses. On 22.11.2005, at about 9.30 p.m, accused Mohan Lal and Vinod @ Goli were abusing him and Lakhan in the gali while standing in front of their houses. Lakhan objected and tried to pacify Mohan Lal. Lakhan went about 10-15 steps towards Mohan Lal just to pacify him. Rakesh, Mohan Lal, Chhote Lal, Manoj and Goli were present in front of their houses armed with dandas. Rakesh hit the head of Lakhan with danda. He was seeing this while standing on the first floor of his house. Being the neighbour, he came down and while State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 8 he was taking Lakhan towards his house, Rakesh also hit him on his head with danda. He left Lakhan near his house and his family members caught hold of him. Meanwhile Mohan Lal and Manoj S/o Jagdish Prasad caught hold of Lakhan about 10-15 steps away from his house. Rakesh attacked Lakhan with danda and Chhote Lal attacked Lakhan with pipe. Vinod @ Goli armed with "Kainchi" came there and stabbed Lakhan on his neck. Lakhan fell down. When son and wife of Lakhan came to save him all the abovesaid accused persons also attacked them. Accused Rakesh attacked with danda and accused Chhote Lal attacked with iron pipe. Thereafter Mohan Lal exhorted at the top of his voice that no one could be spared and also exhorted that he may be killed (is Bihari ko bhi maar dalo). Then all the accused persons came towards him and he just saved himself. He snatched danda from Rakesh and saved himself from the accused persons with the help of the danda. Had he not used the danda, the accused persons might have killed him. Accused never threatened him. He was treated for the injuries received at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. His statement was also recorded in the hospital.
11. PW-4 is Sh. Partap Singh Thakur. He deposed that deceased Lakhan Singh was his cousin (son of elder brother of his father). On 23.11.2005 on receipt of an information regarding death of Lakhan Singh S/o Sh. Narain Singh R/o D-665, Mangolpuri, Delhi, he went to the house of deceased and then to police station and thereafter to mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital at about 11.00 p.m. There he identified dead body of Lakhan Singh. He had also seen accused Mohan Lal along with police officials and clothes of accused Mohan Lal were blood stained at that time. He identified the dead body of Lakhan Singh and his statement to that effect was recorded by the police which is Ex PW 4/A. The postmortem on the dead body of Lakhan Singh was conducted and the dead body after postmortem was handed over to him and son of Lakhan Singh namely Prabhat Singh vide memo Ex PW 1/F. State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 9
12. PW-5 is Manoj. He deposed that in the year 2005, during Deepawali days he had gone to meet his Jija Sumit Poddar at his house at D-666, Mangolpuri, Delhi at about 9.30 p.m. He saw that all the five accused persons were abusing Lakhan Singh who was residing near the house of his Jija Sumit Poddar. Accused Vinod was having scissors in his hand, accused Rakesh was having iron pipe in his hand, accused Chotte Lal was having danda in his hand and accused Mohan Lal was empty handed. All the accused and Lakhan were mutually quarreling. They were also abusing each other. Accused Mohan Lal and Manoj said "Maro Saale Ko Koi Bhi Na Bachne Pai". Chhote Lal and Rakesh caught hold of Lakhan Singh and Vinod injured and stabbed him with scissors. Lakhan Singh fell down on the ground. Thereafter Bina who is wife of Lakhan Singh came there to intervene and saved Lakhan. Accused Rakesh also caused injuries to Bina with danda on her head. Thereafter he and his Jija Sumit Poddar reached there and accused persons also caused injuries to him and his Jija. In the meantime Prabhat @ Kalle son of Lakhan also reached who was also injured by the accused persons. He received injuries on the forehead at the place adjoining forehead and head. His Jija received injuries in the middle of the head. The police reached at the spot and shifted them to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital.
13. PW-6 is Dr. Binay Kumar. He deposed that on 22.11.2005 at about 10.05 p.m, he medically examined the patient Lakhan Singh 55 years male vide MLC Ex PW 6/A. On examination, he found the patient unconsciousness, pulse was not palpable, BP was not recordable, respiration was gasping, heart sound was feeble, pupil was dilated and sluggish reacting to light and on local examination a stab wound of 4 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm over the right side of lower neck just above sterno clavicular joint, lacerated wound of 6 cm x 3 cm x bone expose over the left foot, two lacerated wound of .5 cm and .5 cm over the second and third toe of foot. Patient was intubated (indotracheal) and Cardio Pulmonary Resusciation started and other State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 10 medicines were given to the patient.
At about 10.15 p.m on 22.11.2005 i.e on the same day heart sound of the patient was not audible, pupil was dilated and not reacting to light. Patient was advised ECG and ECG of the patient was showing straight line. He declared the patient as dead at about 10.15 p.m and dead body was shifted to mortuary for forensic opinion.
It is further deposed by PW-6 that on 22.11.2005 at about 10.15 p.m, he also medically examined Sumit Poddar son of Rameshwar Poddar 14 yrs male vide MLC Ex PW 6/B. On examination, there was lacerated wound of 3 cm x 5 cm x .5 cm over the left parieto occipital region of scalp and surgical opinion of the patient was taken. In his opinion, injury was simple in nature. This witness has also proved the ME's (Medical Examination) prepared by Dr. Vishal Gandhi as Ex PW 6/E1 and Ex PW 6/E2 pertaining to Veena Devi and Prabhat Singh respectively. The ME (Medical Examination) of Manoj S/o Arjun Poddar prepared by Dr. Romeil is proved by this witness as Ex PW 6/E3.
14. PW-7 is Dr. Manoj Dhingra. He deposed that he has conducted postmortem on the dead body of Lakhan Singh on 23.11.2005 at about 12.00 noon. The body was sent by Inspector Azad Singh Additional SHO P.S Mangolpuri. Deceased had alleged history of assault on 22.11.2005 and was brought to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital in gasping condition. There were four external injuries on the body of deceased which are mentioned in detailed postmortem report which is proved as Ex PW 7/A. In his opinion, the cause of death is hemorrhagic shock of neck vessels subsequent to stab injury over neck. All the injuries were antimortem in nature and of fresh duration. The articles, clothe and blood gauze were sealed and handed over to IO.
On 10.01.2006 he received application from the IO to opine about weapon of offence. He has made a sketch of weapon and gave his opinion that the injury nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are possible with this or similar such State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 11 weapon. The weapon was repacked and sealed with the seal of SGMH and handed over to the police officer vide documents proved as Ex PW 7/B & C respectively.
15. PW-8 is Constable Kuldeep. He deposed that on 23.11.2005 duty officer handed over him DD No. 90B for handing over the same to SI Amar Singh. He met SI Amar Singh outside P.S Mangolpuri and handed over to him the copy of DD No. 90B which is proved as Ex PW 8/A. Thereafter, he accompanied SI Amar Singh and Constable Anil, reached the spot i.e D-713, Mangolpuri and came to know that injured was already shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. The said SI left him at the spot for guarding the spot and went to SGM hospital along with Constable Anil. The said SI again came to the spot after which he was relieved from the spot.
16. PW-9 is Vinod Thakur. He deposed that on 23.11.2005 at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mortuary, he had identified the dead body of his cousin Lakhan Singh S/o Narain Singh in which regard his statement was recorded by the IO which is proved as Ex PW 9/A.
17. PW-10 is SI Madan Lal. He deposed that on 22.11.2005 he was working as duty officer from 5.00 p.m to 1.00 a.m. At about 10.35 p.m, he received telephonic information regarding the death of Lakhan Singh S/o Narain Singh who was admitted in the hospital in connection with DD No. 90B. This information was recorded vide DD No. 35A dated 22.11.2005, P.S Mangolpuri and was handed over to Constable Manoj Kumar for handing over the same to SI Amar Singh. Attested copy of DD No. 35A is proved as Ex PW 10/A.
18. PW-11 is Constable P. Manoj. He deposed that on 22.11.2005 duty officer ASI Madan Lal handed over him DD No. 35A at about 10.35 p.m for handing over the same to SI Amar Singh. SI Amar Singh met him at SGM State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 12 hospital and he handed over DD No. 35A to him. Thereafter he came back to the police station. IO recorded his statement.
19. PW-12 is Constable Dalbir Singh. He deposed that on 23.11.2005, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team of N/W District as Constable (Photographer). On that day, on receiving information, he along with SI Suraj Bhan (Incharge Crime Team) and other members of the crime team reached in front of House No. D-665, Mangolpuri in the street. There, Incharge crime team SI Suraj Bhan inspected the spot and submitted his report to the investigating officer. He, on the instructions of investigating officer SI Amar Singh took photographs of the spot. IO recorded his statement. He proved the photographs as Ex PW 12/A1 to Ex PW 12/A5 and the negatives as Ex PW 12/B1 to Ex PW 12/B5 respectively.
20. PW-13 is SI Suraj Bhan. He deposed that on 22.11.2005 at about 11.40 p.m, on receiving information, he along with Constable Dalbir (Photographer) and other members of the crime team reached in front of house no. D-665, Mangolpuri in the street. There, IO SI Amar Singh met him. He inspected the spot and submitted his report to the investigating officer. IO recorded his statement.
21. PW-14 is HC Durvesh Kumar. He deposed that on 23.11.2005 he was posted at P.S Mangolpuri as MHC(M) and on that day Inspector Azad Singh deposited 11 pulandas, out of which 8 pulandas were sealed with the seal of 'AS' and 3 pulandas were sealed with the seal of Mortuary, SGM hospital along with sample seal of SGM hospital and FSL form. He deposited the above said articles in the malkhana vide entry no. 6162 in register no. 19 copy of which is proved as Ex PW 14/A. On 10.01.2006 as per the instructions of IO, he handed over one pulanda containing scissors sealed with the seal of 'AS' for obtaining the opinion of the doctor vide DD No. 15A. On 10.01.2006 itself, Inspector Azad Singh again deposited the pulanda State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 13 containing scissors sealed with the seal of SGMH, Mortuary, Mongolpuri, Delhi after obtaining the opinion of doctor vide DD no.22A.
PW-14 further deposed that on 27.01.2006, as per the instructions of IO, he handed over the exhibits of the present case along with sample seal and FSL form to Constable Prassan Singh vide RC No. 686/21/05 for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini. Constable Prassan Singh returned one copy of RC along with the acknowledgment of FSL to him after depositing the exhibits at FSL, Rohini. Photocopy of RC is proved by this witness as Ex PW 14/B and acknowledgment of FSL is proved as Ex PW 14/C.
22. PW-15 is SI Manohar Lal. He deposed that on 30.11.2005 on the call of IO Inspector Azad Singh, he reached at P.S Mangolpuri and from there, he along with IO reached at the spot i.e near H.No. D-712 and D-665 (both being on both the sides of the street) D-Block, Mangolpuri. There, PW Prabhat was present, on whose pointing out, he inspected the spot and prepared rough notes and took measurements. Later on, on the basis of those rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan which is proved as Ex PW 15/A which was handed over by him to the IO.
23. PW-16 is Constable Prassan Singh. He deposed that on 27.01.2006 as per the instructions of IO, he collected the exhibits of the present case in sealed condition along with sample seal and FSL form vide RC No. 686/21/05 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. After depositing the exhibits, he handed over one copy of RC along with acknowledgment of FSL to MHC(M), Mangolpuri.
24. PW-17 is HC Murti Dev. He deposed that on 22.11.2005 on the call of SI Amar Singh, he reached at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where IO handed over him one medical examination form and also handed over Veena W/o Lakhan Singh to him. He got Veena medically examined on 22.11.2005 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 14 at 11.15 p.m and handed over the ME to SI Amar Singh. SI Amar Singh recorded the statement of Smt. Veena and the rukka was sent to police station through Constable Anil Kumar for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he along with IO and Veena reached at the spot.
25. PW-18 is retired SI Amar Singh. He deposed that on 22.11.2005 he was posted at P.S Mangolpuri as Sub Inspector. In the intervening night of 22/23.11.2005, he was on emergency duty from 8 p.m to 8 a.m. At about 10 p.m, he received DD No. 90-B from Ct. Kuldeep when he was in the area of police station and thereafter he along with Constable Kuldeep and Constable Anil Kumar reached at H.No. 713, Gali No. 12, Mangolpuri. There he came to know that injured has been shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. He left constable Kuldeep at the spot and he along with Constable Anil Kumar reached at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where they came to know that injured Lakhan Singh was declared brought dead and injured Sumit Poddar, Chotte Lal, Rakesh, Beena, Prabhat, Manoj and Mohan Lal met him in the hospital under treatment in injured condition. He recorded statement/complaint of Beena Devi which is Ex PW 2/A and he prepared rukka which is proved as Ex PW 18/A. He handed over the rukka to constable Anil Kumar and in the rukka he had requested the duty officer to send the crime team at the spot. He along with Prabhat left the hospital and reached at the spot. Crime team was already present there who inspected the spot and got the spot photographed. He recorded statements of Incharge Crime team SI Suraj Bhan and photographer Constable Dalbeer. Meanwhile Inspector Azad Singh Additional SHO Mangolpuri also reached at spot as the investigation was marked to him. He also joined the investigation with him. IO (Azad Singh) prepared site plan at the instance of Prabhat. IO lifted blood lying on the spot with the help of paper which was kept in two plastic jars. Blood stained road material (rodi) as well as plain road material (rodi) was also lifted from the spot and was kept in two separate plastic jars. All the four jars were wrapped in white cloth separately and were sealed with the seal of AS which were State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 15 taken into police possession vide seizure memos Ex PW 1/A to Ex PW 1/C respectively.
It is further deposed by PW-18 that accused Mohan Lal and Chotte Lal were arrested from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital after they were discharged vide arrest memos Ex PW 18/B and Ex PW 18/C respectively. Their personal searches were conducted vide memos Ex PW 18/D and Ex PW 18/E respectively. IO recorded disclosure statement of both the accused which are proved as Ex PW 18/F and Ex PW 18/G respectively. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused Chotte Lal led the police party to his house no. D-715 Mangolpuri and from the first floor of the said house, he got recovered one iron pipe which was used as a weapon of offence. Same was wrapped in a cloth piece and was sealed with the seal of AS and was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex PW 18/H. When they were passing through Bapu Park from there on the identification of Prabhat, accused Vinod @ Goli who was standing on the gate of the park was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex PW 18/J and Ex PW 18/K respectively. IO recorded his disclosure statement which is proved as Ex PW 18/L. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused Vinod led the police party to his house no. D-715 Mangolpuri and from beneath the bed which was lying in a room situated at rear side of first floor he got recovered one blood stained scissor which was wrapped in a polythene. IO prepared sketch of the scissors which was taken in police possession after preparing a pulanda and after sealing the same with the seal of AS vide seizure memo Ex PW 18/M. The total length of the scissors was 26 cm. Length of blade (fal) was 13 cm and maximum width of the blade was 3.3 cm. One blood stained shirt which was produced by Prabhat Singh belonging to his father Lakhan Singh was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex PW 1/D after preparing a pulanda and sealing with the seal of AS. The blood stained sweater and shirt of Mohan Lal was also taken in police possession after preparing a pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of AS vide seizure memo Ex PW 18/N. Accused Chotte Lal also State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 16 produced his blood stained shirt which was taken in police possession vide seizure memo Ex PW 18/P after preparing pulanda and sealing the same with the seal of AS. IO recorded his statement. This witness identified the shirt which was produced by Prabhat belonging to his father Lakhan Singh, iron pipe which was recovered at the instance of accused Chotte Lal and scissor which was recovered at the instance of accused Vinod @ Goli as Ex P-1 to Ex P-3 respectively.
PW-18 also identified container having blood sample on three paper as Ex P-4, two containers containing blood stained road material as Ex P-5 and Ex P-6, fourth container containing sample concrete/ road material as Ex P-7, shirt produced by accused Chotte Lal as Ex P-8, shirt produced by accused Mohan Lal as Ex P-9, sweater produced by accused Mohan Lal as Ex P10 and vest produced by accused Mohan Lal as Ex P-11. On being put leading question to this witness by Ld Additional Public Prosecutor, he admitted it correct that he along with Beena Devi W/o Lakhan Singh reached at the spot from the hospital.
26. PW-19 is Constable Bhagawatender. He deposed that on 22.11.2005 he was posted at Mangolpuri as Constable. On that day, he was working as DD writer from 5 p.m to 1 a.m. At about 10 p.m, wireless operator arrived at the DO room and informed him regarding scuffle (jhagda) at D-713, Gali no.12, Mangolpuri. He recorded DD No. 90B regarding this information and DD was marked to SI Amar Singh and was handed over to Constable Kuldeep to hand over the same to SI Amar Singh. Copy of DD No. 90B is proved as Ex PW 19/A.
27. PW-20 is SI Dharam Pal. He deposed that on 23.11.2005 he was posted at P.S Mangolpuri as ASI. On that day, he was working as duty officer from 1 a.m to 9 a.m. At about 2.55 a.m, he received a rukka sent by SI Amar Singh through Constable Anil Kumar, on the basis of which he registered present FIR which is proved as Ex PW 20/A. He made his State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 17 endorsement on original rukka which is proved as Ex PW 20/B. Further investigation was marked to Inspector Azad Singh.
28. PW-21 is Head Constable Laxman Prasad. He deposed that on 23.11.2005 he was posted at P.S Mangolpuri as Constable. On that day, his duty was as motorcycle rider on motorcycle no. DL-1SN-4136. On that day, duty officer ASI Dharampal handed over him three envelopes (special dak) at about 3.45 a.m vide DD No.4. Along with special dak, he left the police station on his said motorcycle and first he reached at the residence of Sh. Vinod Yadav, Ld M.M at Samaypur Badli (Sector-18, Rohini). His house was found locked and on enquiry from neighbourers, he came to know that he is on leave and had gone outside Delhi. Thereafter, he reached at the residence of first Link M.M, Smt. Kaveri Baweja situated at Phase-II, Ashok Vihar. Her house was also found locked and on enquiry from neighbourers, he came to know that she is on leave. Thereafter, he reached at the residence DCP North West situated at Kingsway Camp, Delhi and handed over one envelope to the official deputed at the residence of DCP North West. Thereafter, he reached at the residence of Joint Commissioner situated at Andheria Mod, Delhi and delivered one envelope there. Thereafter, he telephonically contacted duty officer and narrated him regarding the non availability of Ld M.M and his first Link M.M. Thereafter he told him the address of second link M.M Sh. P.K. Jain i.e G-15, Rang Mahal, Cooperative Society, Flat No. 13D, Saraswati Vihar. He reached there but came to know that Ld M.M. Sh P.K. Jain had already left his house to Tis Hazari court. Thereafter he reached at room no. 279, Tis Hazari Court and delivered one envelope there and came back at the police station at about 11.30 a.m and thereafter IO recorded his statement.
29. PW-22 is HC Rajpal Singh. He deposed that on 06.02.2006 he was posted at P.S Mangolpuri as Head Constable and had joined investigation of the present case along with Constable Naresh Kumar and State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 18 IO/Inspector Azad Singh. This witness corroborated with the statement of PW-1 Prabhat Singh with regard to arrest and disclosure statement of accused Manoj Kumar and Rakesh Kumar. The disclosure statements of accused Manoj Kumar and Rakesh Kumar have been proved by this witness as Ex PW 22/A and Ex PW 22/B respectively. It is stated by PW-22 that pursuant to the disclosure statement of Rakesh they searched for the weapon of offence i.e danda in a park behind Chunnu Munnu Dhaba but in vain. Both the accused pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex PW 22/C and Ex PW 22/D respectively. Both the accused were got medically examined at SGM hospital and thereafter they were kept in the lock-up.
30. PW-23 is retired Inspector Azad Singh. He deposed that on 23.11.2005 he was posted at P.S Mangolpuri as Additional SHO. On receipt of information regarding the death of Lakhan Singh from duty officer, he reached at SGM hospital, Mangolpuri where SI Amar Singh with Constable Anil Kumar were present. SHO Mangolpuri with staff also reached there. SI Amar Singh who was entrusted with DD No. 90B dated 22.11.2005 was busy in the investigation. He along with SHO Mangolpuri also assisted him (SI Amar Singh). During investigation, a rukka was sent through Constable Anil Kumar to the police station and the FIR was got registered. As per the orders of SHO Mangolpuri further investigation of this case was marked to him. Thereafter, he along with SI Amar Singh reached at the spot i.e H.No. D-665, H.No. D-711-712 etc Mangolpuri Dehli where Constable Kuldeep was found present. He requisitioned some additional staff from the police station and SI Jogender Singh and HC Rajpal reached the spot. He inspected the scene of crime at the instance of Prabhat Kumar S/o Late Lakhan Singh and his mother Smt. Veena Devi as both of them had also reached the spot from the hospital on the direction of SI Amar Singh. He prepared site plan which is proved as Ex PW 23/A at the instance of Prabhat. This witness corroborated with the statements of PW-1 Prabhat Singh and PW-18 retired SI Amar State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 19 Singh with regard to proceedings conducted at the spot and hospital as well as arrest, personal search and disclosure statement of accused Vinod @ Goli.
It is further stated by PW-23 that he prepared the sketch of scissors which is proved by him as Ex PW 23/B. He recorded statements of PWs. On 23.11.2005, he along with HC Raj Pal and other staff reached at SGM hospital and got the postmortem of the body of deceased Lakhan conducted. Prior to that he completed the inquest proceedings. The report for postmortem is proved as Ex PW 23/C. He also proved the brief facts as Ex PW 23/D and form No. 25.35 (1)(B) filled by him as Ex PW 23/E. He recorded statements of Prabhat Singh, Vinod Thakur and Pratap Singh regarding identification of the dead body of Lakhan Singh which are proved as Ex PW 1/E, Ex PW 7/A and Ex PW 4/A respectively. He deposited all the sealed parcels in the malkhana. After the postmortem HC Rajpal handed over to him two sealed parcels sealed with the seal of SGM hospital along with the sample seal of said hospital which were seized by him vide memo Ex PW 23/E. On 30.11.2005 draftsman was summoned by him at the spot. On the pointing out of Prabhat Kumar the draftsman took the measurements and prepared the rough notes. The draftsman prepared the scaled site plan and handed over the same to him which is proved as Ex PW 15/A. On 10.01.2006 he obtained one sealed parcel with the seal intact from MHCM and produced the same before the doctor who conducted the postmortem. He moved an application before the doctor for subsequent opinion. He proved his application as Ex PW 23/F. After the opinion doctor handed over to him one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of SGM hospital along with his opinion, the sketch of the scissors was prepared by him. He again deposited the sealed parcel in the malkhana. On 27.01.2006 all the sealed parcels and sample seal were sent to FSL Lab for analysis. He recorded statement of witnesses. PW-23 corroborated with the statements of PW-1 Prabhat Singh and PW-22 HC Rajpal Singh regarding arrest and disclosure of accused Manoj and Rakesh. This witness has also identified the iron pipe which was State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 20 recovered from Chhotey Lal as Ex P-2, scissors which was recovered on the pointing out of accused Vinod as Ex P-3, container containing blood sample, blood stained road material and concrete as Ex P-4 to Ex P-7 respectively, shirt belonging to accused Chhotey Lal as Ex P8, shirt of grey colour, one sweater of white and blue colour and one vest belonging to accused Mohan Lal as Ex P-9 to Ex P-11 respectively. This witness has obtained the result of FSL which is proved as Ex PX and filed the same in the court.
31. PW-24 is Ms Anita Chhari, Senior Scientific Biology, FSL Rohini. She deposed that the articles in a sealed condition were received in their office. She has examined all the articles kept in 11 parcels of police station Mangolpuri in this case and after analysis she has given her detailed biological report which is proved as Ex PX. Serological report given by her is proved as Ex PY.
PLEA AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED.
32. In the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons have either denied the prosecution case or have expressed their ignorance about the incriminating evidence emerging from prosecution case put to them by different questions. All the accused persons have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no role to play in this case in any manner. Nothing was recovered from their possession or at their instance. Accused Vinod @ Goli has also stated that he was not present in the city even at the alleged time, date and place and was working at G.D Goenka School, Gurgaon. He was falsely implicated on his return on 23.11.2005 after forcibly removing him from his house. All the accused persons have led evidence in their defence.
33. The accused persons have examined two witnesses in their defence. DW-1 is Sh. Hari Om Sharma, Statical Assistant Clerk, Trauma State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 21 Centre, Matcaf Road, Delhi. He has proved the record of patient Rakesh dated 23.11.2005 to 01.12.2005 regarding his treatment by Dr. Subodh Kumar as Ex DW 1/A. He stated that the patient was admitted in the unit of Dr. Subodh Kumar Gupta. He identified the signatures of Dr. Dhruv at page no.5 as he has worked with him.
34. DW-2 is Dr. Satyendra Kumar, CMO Sushruta Trauma Centre. He deposed that he has been working in aforesaid Sushruta Trauma Centre since 1999 as medical officer. He has been deputed by Medical Superintendent to depose on behalf of Dr. Subodh Kumar Gupta for proving CR No. 28639 of Rakesh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal aged about 20 yrs, male. He proved the original case sheet including treatment paper and CT scan report and transfer summary paper of SGM hospital as mark DW 2/A collectively. The CT scan report given by Sr. Resident Radiologist is attached with the report. It is further stated by this witness that there is a fracture on the vital part head, undisplaced fracture on right half of frontal bone with underlying small SDH and death may be possible due to such type of injuries. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
35. I have heard Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsels for all the accused persons at length and have gone through the record of the case and relevant provisions of law.
For the sake of convenience and clarity, the different questions raised during the arguments from both the sides are dealt with under different headings.
Eye Witness Account :
36. The eye witness account is treated as one of the best piece of evidence in the criminal trial. In the present case, the prosecution has State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 22 examined four eye witnesses, PW-1 Prabhat Singh s/o victim/deceased Lakhan Singh, PW-2 complainant Smt. Beena, wife of victim/deceased Lakhan Singh, PW-3 Sh. Sumit Poddar, the injured in the case and accused in the cross case registered under Sec. 308 IPC in FIR No.828/2005 and PW-5 Sh. Manoj s/o Arjun Poddar, the brother in law (brother of wife of PW-3 Sumit Poddar). All these witnesses have stated that they were present at the spot. The presence of the son and wife i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 of the deceased Lakhan Singh who was neighbour of the accused persons and whose house is near the spot is free from any doubt. Similarly, Sumit Poddar is also a neighbour and has come with PW-3, his brother in law at the spot after the quarrel started between the accused and deceased Lakhan Singh as per statement of eye witnesses and their presence at the spot is also natural. The fact that Sumit Poddar has also received injury in the incident makes him important witness and confirms his presence at the spot at the time of incident.
37. The three witnesses i.e. PW-1 Prabhat Singh, PW-2 Beena and PW-3 Sumit Poddar have by their corroborated statements confirmed that accused Chhotey Lal was having iron rod in his hand, accused Rakesh was having danda in his hand and accused Vinod was having scissors in his hand.
38. PW-5 Manoj has stated that accused Chhotey Lal was having iron pipe in his hand, but again he has stated that accused Chhotey Lal was having danda in his hand. He stated that accused Rakesh was having iron pipe in his hand while the other three eye witnesses have stated that accused Rakesh was having danda in his hand. He, however, has stated in the further examination in chief that accused Rakesh also caused injuries to Beena with danda in his hand indicating that accused Rakesh was having danda in his hand while in the initial part of examination in chief, he stated that accused Rakesh was having iron pipe in his hand. Therefore, with State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 23 regard to weapons in the hands of accused Chhotey Lal and Rakesh, PW-5 has like other witnesses indicated that they were having iron rod and danda in their hands, but at the same time he has deviated and stated at one stage in his statement that accused Rakesh was having iron pipe in his hand and accused Chhotey Lal was having danda in his hand. However, from the corroborative statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 with regard to weapons in the hands of accused Rakesh and Chhotey, the discrepancy in the statement of PW-5 Manoj can be ignored. As regards, accused Vinod, like other three eye witnesses, PW-5 Manoj has also stated that accused Vinod was having scissors in his hand.
39. PW1 Prabhat Singh, PW2 Smt. Beena Devi and PW3 Sumit Poddar have specifically stated that accused Mohan Lal and Vinod caught hold of deceased and accused Vinod hit him with scissors blow.
40. As regards, the injuries inflicted on the person of PW-3 Sumit Poddar, PW-1 Prabhat Singh has stated that Sumit Poddar and his sala Manoj Kumar came to save them. They were also beaten by Rakesh, Mohan Lal and Chhotey Lal and in self defence, Sumit Poddar caused injuries to Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Chhotey Lal. PW-2 Smt. Beena has stated that when Sumit and Manoj tried to save them from the accused persons, the accused persons have also given beatings to Manoj and Sumit. PW-3 Sumit Poddar has stated that he being the neighbour, came down and had taken Lakhan towards his house, Rakesh also hit him on his head with danda. He has also stated at other place in the examination in chief that Mohan Lal exhorted at the top of his voice that no one would be spared and also exhorted that he (Sumit Poddar) may be killed. Then, all the accused persons came towards him and he just saved himself, snatched danda from Rakesh and saved himself from the accused persons with the help of danda. PW-5 Manoj has stated that he and his jija (Sumit Poddar) also reached the spot and accused persons had caused injuries to him and his jija Sumit Poddar. He received injuries on the forehead at the place adjoining forehead and his jija (Sumit Poddar) received injuries in the middle of head.
State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 24
41. The testimonies of these eye witnesses not only have largely corroborated with each other as to date, place of incident and weapons used by accused persons but also stood the test of cross examination, if we ignore minor discrepancies owing to lapse of time.
Motive
42. Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eyewitnesses or circumstantial evidence [See State of Uttar Pradesh v Babu Ram 2000 Cr LJ 2457 (SC)].
43. The motive of the crime as per prosecution case was that about six months before the date of incident, Sangeeta the daughter of accused Mohan Lal eloped with one Bittoo, who is tenant of injured Sumit Poddar @ Bhola, but accused Mohan Lal did not initiate any police proceedings and instead he become revengeful to Sumit Poddar and used to abuse him frequently. Another reason of discord between Sumit Poddar and accused Mohan Lal was that accused Sumit Poddar was running a welding shop in the gali and the bright light emerging from welding work, used to cause inconvenience to school going children and family members of accused Mohan Lal.
44. The eye witnesses have testified in support of prosecution story. PW-1 Prabhat Singh has stated that accused Mohan Lal used to ask Sumit Poddar to get his house vacated from tenant failing which consequences would not be good. Sangeeta, daughter of accused Mohan Lal had run away with son of tenant of Sumit Poddar, for which Mohan Lal had not lodged any report. The accused Mohan Lal used to abuse Sumit Poddar. His (PW-1's) father used to ask Mohan Lal not to do so. On this Mohan Lal told his father that he was taking side of Sumit Poddar and it was not good. PW-2 Smt. Beena has also stated that about six months prior to incident, the daughter of State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 25 accused Mohan Lal had gone away with one Bittoo who was tenant of Sumit. However, Mohan Lal did not lodge any complaint with the police. He was having ill will against Sumit being landlord of Bittoo and Mohan Lal used to abuse Sumit. Her husband used to persuade accused Mohan Lal not to abuse Sumit as it was not good to abuse or quarrel in the same locality. On this accused Mohan Lal extended threats to her husband for taking side of Sumit.
45. PW-3 Sumit Poddar has given detailed account of facts leading to motive and enmity between him and accused Mohan Lal. He has stated that one Bittoo was his tenant in the year 2003-2005. During his tenancy, in his accommodation, he noticed that his tenant Bittoo and one girl Sangeeta, daughter of Mohan Lal were seeing each other. He told this fact to the parents of Bittoo and instructed them that in case Bittoo continued to do these activities, they would have to vacate the premises. When he pressurized Bittoo to abstain from these activities, he showed him photographs and letters and also told him that Sangeeta herself used to write letters to him and throw these letters in his house. He called the mother and chachi (aunt) of Sangeeta and two other ladies of the gali and narrated them by showing the letters and photographs and also requested them to control Sangeeta. On one or two occasions, Bittoo was apprehended at about 2-3 a.m when he was going in the house of Sangeeta in the night by crossing the balcony. On those occasions, police was also called but Mohan Lal amicably settled the matter before the police. When this relation between Sangeeta and Bittoo continued, he got the premises vacated from Bittoo and his family. Within a week of getting the premises vacated from Bittoo, Sangeeta daughter of Mohan Lal also went away from her house. Mohan Lal had not made any complaint to the police regarding missing of his daughter. But Mohan Lal used to abuse him and his neighbour Lakhan by standing in the gali. He (PW-3 Sumit Poddar) gave a written complaint to the police about his abuses.
State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 26
46. PW-2 Beena in the cross examination on behalf of accused Mohan Lal and Rakesh, has stated that it was correct that Sumit Poddar owned a shop of welding where the iron rods were molded into various shapes. There were no iron pipes lying at the spot. In the further cross examination she has stated that it was correct that there was enmity between Sumit Poddar and Mohan Lal due to having commercial welding shop in the gali and also because of daughter of Mohan Lal was taken away by Bittoo, who was tenant of Sumit Poddar.
Medical Evidence
47. PW-6 Dr. Binay Kumar has proved the MLC of deceased Lakhan Singh as Ex. PW-6/A. The MLC of the deceased Lakhan shows a stab wound of the size of 4 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm (depth) over the right side of lower neck joint above the sterno clavicular joint. In addition, four lacerated wounds one on the parietal region, one on the big toe of the left foot and two lacerated wounds over second and third toe of foot. The postmortem report of deceased Lakhan Singh is proved by PW-7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra as Ex. PW-7/A. The cause of death as per opinon of the doctor is hemorrhagic shock of neck vessels subsequent to stab injury over neck.
48. The MLC of PW-3 Sumit Poddar, who is also injured in the incident is proved by PW-6 Dr. Binay Kumar as Ex. PW-6/B. This MLC shows fresh CLW 3 cm x 0.5 cm over the left parieto occipital region of scalp and nature of injury as per the opinion of the doctor was simple.
49. In addition to the MLC of the deceased Lakhan Singh and injured Sumit Poddar, the prosecution has also proved the request of the IO for medical examination of PW-2 Beena Devi, PW-1 Prabhat Singh and PW-5 Manoj Kumar. The opinion of the doctor of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital on these applications is also present on the record, proved by PW-6. Ex. PW-6/E1 shows that PW-2 Beena Devi received injury CLW on left parietal State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 27 region of the size of 3 x 1 x 0.5. PW-1 Prabhat Singh as per the report of doctor Ex. PW-6/E2, was having one abrasion over the left supra scapular area. The medical report of PW-5 Manoj Kumar Ex. PW-6/E3 shows that there was one CLW of 2.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 over the left frontal scalp.
Forensic Evidence
50. The FSL report is proved by PW-24 Ms. Anita Chari, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini as Ex. P-X, which shows that blood was detected on three pieces of papers having dark brown stains, blood stained concrete pieces, four shirts having brown stains, one baniyan having brown stains, one sweater having brown stains, one iron pipe having brown stains, one scissors having brown stains, one pyjama having brown stains alongwith fungal growth, one underwear having brown stains alongwith fungal growth, one T-shirt having brown stains alongwith fungal growth, one towel having brown stains alongwith fungal growth, blood gauze cloth piece of deceased. The report of serologist is proved as Ex. P-Y by PW-24 and shows that except in one sample of concrete pieces where no reaction was found, the blood on the above articles was found to be human blood and on piece of paper, three shirts, one sweater and scissors, the blood of B group was found and with regard to other articles, the group of the blood could not be ascertained due to inclusive result or no reaction. Therefore, the forensic evidence also shows that human blood was found on the shirt of accused Chhotey Lal and sweater of accused Mohan Lal seized by the police vide memos Ex. PW-18/P and PW-18/N and shirt of deceased Lakhan Singh seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/D and also on the weapon of offence scissors. However, the forensic evidence in itself, here, is of the value of corroborative piece of evidence.
Recovery of weapon of offence
51. The scissors Ex. P-3 sketch of which is proved by PW-23 retired Insp. Azad Singh as Ex. PW-23/B was recovered at the instance of accused State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 28 Vinod @ Goli from his residence D-665, Mangolpuri, Delhi, from the bed room on the first floor wrapped in a blue coloured polythene. This scissors was bloodstained at the time of its recovery and after converting it into a pullanda was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW-18/M. The iron pipe Ex. P-2 was got recovered by accused Chhotey Lal from the first floor of his residence D-715, Mangolpuri, Delhi from the outer corner of the room vide seizure memo Ex. PW-18/H. The recovery of these weapons of offence from the residences of the two accused Vinod and Chhotey Lal also supports the prosecution case. However, lathi (wooden stick) alleged to be used in the incident by accused Rakesh is not recovered. The reason may be that PW-3 Sumit Poddar has stated that he snatched the lathi and saved himself from the accused persons with the help of that danda. He being accused in cross case under Sec. 308 IPC and obtained anticipatory bail, the lathi could not be recovered from him in this case.
Medical opinion regarding weapon
52. PW-7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Lakhan Singh, has stated that on 10.01.2006 he has received application from the IO to give opinion about weapon of offence. He made sketch of the weapon Ex. PW-7/B and gave his opinion Ex. PW-7/C. The opinion of PW-7 with regard to weapon of offence i.e. scissors is that injuries numbering 1 to 4 in the postmortem report Ex. PW-7/A are possible with this weapon or a similar such weapon. Therefore, besides recovery of scissors, it is also established that this weapon may have been used in inflicting injuries on deceased Lakhan Singh. This corroborative evidence supports the eye witness account also and establishes that it was the accused Vinod @ Goli who used the scissors Ex. P-3 in inflicting injuries on the person of deceased Lakhan Singh.
Recovery of incriminating articles
53. The investigating officer has recovered the bloodstained State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 29 concrete vide memo Ex. PW-1/C where the blood was lying on the road. He also seized the bloodstained concrete where the deceased Lakhan Singh had fallen on the road after sustaining injuries, vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. The sample of concrete from the road was lifted by the IO vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. In addition, the investigating officer has also seized the green coloured shirt of deceased Lakhan Singh vide memo Ex. PW-1/D, the bloodstained blue and white coloured sweater with green flowers of accused Mohan Lal vide memo Ex. PW-18/N, the bloodstained grey coloured shirt with white and blue stripes of accused Chhotey Lal vide memo Ex. PW-18/P. The majority of these recovered articles are proved by forensic/serologist reports Ex. P-X and Ex. P-Y to have human blood stains.
Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder/offences committed by accused persons
54. The deceased Lakhan Singh as per MLC Ex. PW-6/A (and also as per the postmortem report Ex. PW-7/A) has received four injuries out of which, a stab wound of 4 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm over the right side of lower neck just above sterno clavicular joint, lacerated wound of 6 cm x 3 cm x bone expose over the left foot, two lacerated wound of .5 cm and .5 cm over the second and third toe of foot. Out of these four injuries, the cause of death is injury no.1 as per postmortem report Ex. PW-7/A. This injury as per ocular statement of witnesses PW-1 Prabhat Singh, PW-2 Beena Devi and PW-3 Sumit Poddar and PW- 5 Manoj Kumar is caused by accused Vinod @ Goli by a scissors. As regard the other four injuries, PW-1 has stated that accused Chhote Lal who was having iron rod in his hand, has attacked the deceased. He and PW-3 Sumit Poddar have stated that accused Rakesh has hit the deceased on the head with a danda. Similarly, PW-2 Smt. Beena Devi wife of deceased has also stated that Rakesh gave danda blow to her husband. PW-3 Sumit Poddar has also stated that accused Rakesh hit deceased Lakhan with danda and accused Chhotey Lal attacked him with iron pipe. Therefore, the fatal injury on neck was inflicted by accused Vinod State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 30 @ Goli and head injury to deceased Lakhan was inflicted by accused Rakesh and other injuries on the deceased were inflicted by accused Rakesh and Chhotey Lal (since deceased). So far as accused Vinod @ Goli is concerned, only single blow of scissors, as per statement of witnesses, can be attributed to him which was fatal blow. The accused Vinod @ Goli has not repeated the blows with scissors upon the person of victim or any other person from the complainant party at the spot. In such circumstances, there is enough case law which shows that the offence attributed to a single blow death cases is under Sec. 304 (I) and not under Sec. 302 IPC. {See, Raisuddin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1993) II CCR 985 (All) (DB) ; Prakash @ Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan (1995) 1 CCR 411 (Raj) (DB) ; Babu Ram @ Babulal Vs. State of Rajasthan 1998 Cr.L.J. 3212 (Raj) (DB) : Mohindra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1992) III CCR 2318 (Raj) (DB)}.
55. The other accused persons can not be said to have intention to kill. It is a case in which as much as five persons received injuries from the complainant side, namely Deceased Lakhan Singh vide MLC Ex. PW-6/A, PW-2 Smt. Beena Devi vide MC Ex. PW-6/E1, PW-3 Sumit Poddar vide MLC Ex. PW-6/B, PW-1 Prabhat Singh vide MC Ex. PW-6/E2 and PW- 5 Manoj Kumar vide MC Ex. PW-6/E3. From the side of accused party, three persons received injuries on their person. The accused Rakesh suffered injury on his scalp for which a cross case under Sec. 308 IPC was lodged against PW-3 Sumit Poddar vide FIR No. 828/05 PS Mangol Puri. In addition, in the judicial file alongwith the challan the copies of MLCs of Chhotey Lal and Rakesh are filed by the prosecution. Since these copies are filed alongwith the challan and the basic position is that the documents filed by a party, can be relied against that party, so these two MLCs if support the cause of accused persons to whatever extent, should be taken as proved on record against the prosecution. Therefore, these are now, marked as Ex. M-1 and Ex. M-2. In addition, in the defence evidence the accused persons have produced DW-1 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 31 Hari Om Sharma, who has proved that the accused Rakesh was admitted to the hospital from 23.11.2005 to 01.12.2005 and he has proved the record as Ex. DW-1/A to show this fact. DW-2 is Dr. Satyendra Kumar has also stated that accused Rakesh suffered injuries. He had brought the original case sheet including treatment papers and CT scan report and transfer summary papers which are marked as Ex. DW-2/A (Colly).
56. Further, PW-1 Prabhat Singh has stated that in self defence Sumit Poddar (PW-3) caused injuries to Mohan Lal, Rakesh Kumar and Chhotey Lal. PW- 3 Sumit Poddar has also admitted that when all the accused persons came towards him and he just saved himself, he snatched danda from Rakesh and saved himself from the accused persons with the help of that danda. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Mohan Lal and Rakesh, he had admitted that it was correct that he has stated to the police in his statement under Sec. 161 CrPC that he has inflicted the injuries on the persons of Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Chhotey Lal with the iron pipe lying there in order to save himself from them. Therefore, though, the medical record pertains to the injuries suffered by Rakesh and Chhotey Lal as referred before by me, but PW-3 has admitted in the cross examination that Mohan Lal has also suffered injuries at his hand. Similarly, PW-1 Prabhat Singh has stated that Sumit Poddar caused injuries to Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Chhotey Lal in self defence. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the case show that injuries were suffered from both the sides, though the number of persons injured from the complainant side were five but from the side of accused party, two persons suffered injuries.
57. The plea of self defence can only be taken by accused and since in the present case Sumit Poddar is not an accused so the plea of self defence taken by Sumit Poddar cannot be considered in the present case. However, since Sumit Poddar came with his brother in law afterwards at the spot, as per prosecution story, when the quarrel was taking place between State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 32 deceased Lakhan Singh and accused Mohan Lal etc. and since there are three injured person from accused persons side and five from the complainant side including deceased Lakahan Singh, it does not look to be a case in which the accused persons alone can be said to be aggressor party. Rather, it looks to be a case of a sudden fight between the two groups looking at the number of injured from both the side and number of persons available with both the sides. Therefore, in such a case the purpose of the accused persons (other than accused Vinod @ Goli) cannot be said to be intention to kill but was to badly beat the complainant party. The intention of the accused persons can at the most was to badly beat or cause injuries on the persons of the complainant party and not to kill anybody. Therefore, knowledge can be attributed to them that by badly beating injured persons they were likely to cause their death not amounting to murder. Accused Vinod @ Goli though, caused death of Lakhan Singh can not be said to have intention to kill him reflected by a single blow dealt with by accused Vinod @ Goli upon deceased Lakhan Singh. Had there been intention to kill, he would have repeated the scissors blow upon the said victim. He came to spot with different weapon i.e. scissors, unlike other accused persons who had come to spot with wooden stick and iron pipe/rod. Therefore, the accused persons (other than accused Vinod @ Goli) can be said to have common intention to inflict serious injuries to the victims but accused Vinod @ Goli wanted to inflict injury to victim Lakhan Singh only and he alone is responsible for his death.
58. On behalf of accused Manoj and Chhotey Lal, the following authorities are relied upon :-
1. Kora Ghasi Vs. State of Orissa, Crl. Appeal No. 84 of 1976 decided on 03.02.1983.
2. Mohd. Rizwan Vs. State and Mohd. Jalil @ Kala Vs. State, 2010 (4) JCC 2474
3. Resham Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H), 1994 (3) Recent CR 622.
State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 33
4. T.T. Antony Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2001 (2) JCC (SC)
282. And, on behalf of accused Mohan Lal and Rakesh, the following authorities are relied upon :-
1. Shyam Sunder & Raj Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), 1996 JCC 35
2. Ramashish Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 1999 (2) JCC (SC) 471
3. Matadin Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 (2) JCC (SC) 65
4. Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu and ors. Vs. State of A.P & Ors., 2003 (3) JCC 1505
5. Megh Singh VS. State of Punjab, 2003 (3) JCC 1513
6. State Vs. Mohd. Akhtar & Ors., 2006 (2) JCC 662
7. State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar Govind Pakhare, 1998 (1) JCC (SC) 219
8. State of Punjab Vs. Bakhshish Singh & Ors., 2009 (1) JCC 219
9. Nagaraja Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (1) JCC 386
10. Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2010 (3) JCC 1937
59. I have gone through the above authorities and the same are entirely different on facts, so are not applicable to help the accused persons.
In cases where hot exchange of words and filthy languages resulted in some kind of provocation and heat of passion and a single fatal injury is caused upon the victim, the only intention which could be attributed to the particular accused i.e. Vinod @ Goli in the circumstances could be to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. This attracts Section 304 Part-I and not Section 302 IPC.
60. In a case where the accused picked up a scissors from a nearby shop and caused single blow with that to the victim, he did not have the intention to cause such an injury which would have resulted into the death of victim, but has caused only one blow with the scissors and did not State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 34 repeat the same. The Division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that considering the injury on vital part which was sufficient to cause death, the offence would fall under Sec. 304 Part I IPC and not under Sec. 302 IPC {See, Gurkirpal Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, 1999 Crl. L.J. 2176, DB}.
In the case sudden fight, with no premeditation, where accused inflicted only single knife blow on the body of deceased, he was held guilty under Sec. 304 Part I IPC. {See, Tirthi Lal and another Vs. State of Punjab, 1999 Crl. L.J. 2356 P & H DB}.
Therefore, only accused Vinod @ Goli is guilty of offence under Sec. 304 Part I and not under Sec. 302 IPC. The other accused persons are not guilty of offence under Sec. 302 IPC or 304 Part I.
61. However, so far as the injuries inflicted upon PW-3 Sumit Poddar vide MLC Ex. PW-6/B, which is lacerated wound of 3 cm x 5 cm x .5 cm over the left parieto occipital region of scalp, the injuries caused to deceased Lakhan Singh (except neck injury caused by accused Vinod @ Goli) and the injuries caused to the other persons Ex. PW-6/E1, E2 and E3 are concerned, all the accused persons except accused Vinod @ Goli are equally liable for causing injuries to the other injured persons including deceased Lakhan Singh. Since, accused Chhotey Lal has already expired during the pendency of the case, the case against him stood closed. Therefore, the other accused persons i.e. Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Manoj are guilty of offence punishable under Sec. 308/34 IPC.
Defence of Accused:
62. Accused Vinod @ Goli has also stated in his statement under Sec. 313 CrPC that he was not present in the city even at the alleged time, date and place and was working at G.D Goenka School, Gurgaon. He was falsely implicated on his return on 23.11.2005 after forcibly removing him from his house. The accused Vinod @ Goli, however, has failed to prove State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 35 any evidence in support of the plea of alibi, the burden of which was upon him. Therefore, the plea of alibi taken by accused Vinod @ Goli in his statement under Sec. 313 CrPC is liable to be rejected. DW1 Hari Om Sharma and DW2 Dr Satyendra Kumar have testified about the injuries suffered by accused Rakesh Kumar and impliedly prove presence of accused Rakesh Kumar at spot also. PW3 Sumit Poddar is facing trial on the charge under Section 308 IPC for causing injuries to three accused persons Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Chhotey Lal. Therefore, the defence of accused persons is not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case.
Result of the Case:
63. In view of my above findings, I hold that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under Sec. 304 Part I IPC against accused Vinod @ Goli. It has failed to prove the charge under Sec. 302/34 IPC against all the accused persons. I further hold that prosecution has been able to prove its case against other accused persons i.e. Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Manoj for the offence under Sec. 308/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The proceedings against accused Chhotey Lal stood closed due to his death during trial of the case. Hence, accused Vinod @ Goli is convicted under Section 304(1) IPC and accused Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Manoj are convicted under Section 308/34 IPC. Let the accused persons be heard on the point of sentence. Judgment be sent to server(www delhidistrictcourts.nic.in).
Announced in the open court on
this 23rd day of December, 2011 (S. K. SARVARIA)
DISTRICT JUDGE & INCHARGE (N/W)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Mohan Lal etc
36
IN THE COURT OF S.K. SARVARIA DISTRICT JUDGE/INCHARGE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: (N.W.) DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS DELHI Session Case No. 66/2010 State VERSUS 1. Mohan Lal S/o Goverdhan R/o D-714, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
2. Rakesh S/o Mohan Lal R/o D-714, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
3. Vinod @ Goli S/o Jagdish Parshad R/o D-715, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
4. Chhote Lal S/o Jagdish Parshad R/o D-715, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
(died during pendency of trial)
5. Manoj S/o Jagdish Parshad R/o D-715, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
FIR NO : 827/2005Pollice station : Mangolpuri Under Section : 308/34 IPC ORDER ON PROBATION
Vide my judgment dated 23/12/2011 convict Vinod @ Goli was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part 1 IPC. Other convicted persons namely Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Manoj were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued for deterrent punishment to the convicted persons in view of the serious offences proved State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 37 against them.
It is argued on behalf of the convicted persons that the four convicted persons have paid Rs. 25,000/- each to the widow of the deceased PW2 Smt Beena and have compromised to pay her further Rs 25,000/- each in the next three months as per compromise/settlement arrived between them with the intervention of the relatives and the respectable members of the locality/biradari, therefore, accused persons are entitled to lenient view and should be released on probation.
The learned counsel for the convicts has argued that convicts persons are not previous convicts and they have clean antecedents. It is argued that offence under Section 308 IPC is punishable at the most upto seven years or with fine or with both. Reliance is placed upon the authority Naresh Dutt Sharma Vs State 124 ( 2005) DLT 322 Delhi in which benefit of probation was given to the convicts/accused persons convicted for the offences punishable under Section 409, 477A IPC. Reliance is also placed upon the authority Gyan Chand Sharma Vs State 2002 ( 62) DRJ 782, Delhi in which the benefit of probation was given to convicted persons for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
On behalf of the convict Vinod @ Goli it is argued that the convict Vinod @ Goli is married having wife, and four minor children. It is also argued that convict Manoj is his real brother. Their aged mother is more than 70 years of age to whom they are looking after. On behalf of the convict Manoj, it is argued that he is aged about 28 years, unmarried.
On behalf of convict Rakesh it is argued that he is having old aged State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 38 parents having seven sisters one minor brother. It is further argued that father of convict is bed ridden and he is the eldest child of his family and all family members depend upon him and he is sole bread earner of his family.
On behalf of convict Mohan Lal, it is argued that he is aged about 62 years and is unable to do any work due to accident, having his wife, six daughters and two sons. Previously he was doing work of mason and now is dependent upon the rental income.
Ld counsel for the convicts have argued that a lenient view may be taken against them or they be released on probation of good conduct.
I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the convicts/accused persons on the point of probation.
Nominal roll of convict Vinod @ Goli is received from Superintendent Jail according to which he remained in custody for 06 years 01 months in this case.
Nominal roll of the convict Mohan Lal is received from Superintendent Jail according to which he remained in custody for 01 year and o9 months and 12 days in this case.
Nominal roll of the convict Rakesh received from Superintendent Jail according to which he remained in custody for 05 months and 14 days in this case.
Nominal roll of the convict Manoj received from Superintendent Jail according to which he remained in custody for 04 months and 12 days in this case.
In this case complainant and the convicts are relatives. The State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 39 complainant and convicts have compromised the matter amicably and settled their dispute. The convict Vinod @ Goli is convicted for the offence under Section 304(1) IPC which is punishable with the imprisonment of life of 10 years besides payment of fine. Therefore, there is no question of grant of any probation to him, however, as per nominal roll received from the Superintendent Jail in this case that convict Vinod @ Goli has remained in custody for six years and one month. Although, the offences for which convicts are found guilty in this case are not compoundable but still they having compounded it with the deceased's family is certainly a mitigating factor, since he has paid Rs 25,000/- to the widow of the deceased and has promised to pay equivalent after three months as per said compromise, so sentence of fine should also on lower side. Therefore, convict Vinod @ Goli is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and one month under Section 304 (1) IPC and also to pay fine of Rs. 200-/. In default of payment of fine, convict Vinod @ Goli sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The period of detention of convict Vinod @ Goli during investigation and trial of this case shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed against the convict by this order, as provided under Section 428 CrPC. Since, the term of imprisonment awarded to the convict is already undergone by him, he need not be sent to Jail provided he deposited the fine imposed upon him.
As regard three other convicts namely Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Manoj they are found guilty under Section 308/34 IPC which is punishable upto 07 years besides payment of fine, since the injuries to the victims in the present State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 40 case were caused by them. Keeping in view the fact that these three convicts have remained in custody for different period during investigation and trial of this case, as referred before, as confirmed by the nominal roll received from Superintendent Jail with regard to these three convicts and have also paid the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the widow of deceased and have compromised to pay equivalent amount after three months to her as per settlement arrived between them, as referred before, and as also observed in the judgment dated 23/12/2011 that convicts Mohan Lal and Rakesh suffered injuries at the hand of the Sumit Poddar from the side of the complainant party, so the convicts Mohan Lal, Rakesh have additional mitigating factor having suffered injuries on their persons in the incident for which a cross case was lodged and the injured/witness Sumit Poddar is held guilty in the cross case on this count for the same offence under Section 308 IPC. Due to this mitigating factor in favour of three convicts namely Mohan Lal, Rakesh and Manoj and since offence under Section 308/34 IPC is punishable upto 07 years of imprisonment and fine and no previous conviction is alleged or proved against these three convicts, in my view they are entitled to the benefit of probation.
Keeping in view, these facts and age, character and antecedents of the three convicts and the circumstances in which the offences were committed and the fact that complainant and convicts have already compromised and settled their all dispute, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the convicts should be released on probation of good conduct, therefore, instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment , I direct State Vs. Mohan Lal etc 41 that they be released on their entering into personal bonds in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount each to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of three year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Judgment and order on sentence be sent to server( www.delhidistrictcourt.nic.in).
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the (S. K. Sarvaria)
open court District Judge & Addl Sessions Judge
on 24/01/2012 Incharge/ North West Distt
Rohini Court, Delhi
State Vs. Mohan Lal etc