Delhi District Court
State vs . on 28 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
& SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTHEAST: SAKET COURTS: NEW
DELHI
S.C No. 311 of 17
State
Vs.
Rajnesh Kumar
S/on Vishwanath Singh Rathore
R/o Vill. Farukhabad Pinjari
PS, Dashrath Puyr, Distt.Etah, UP
Present Add:
H. No. 24, Pravesh Bainsla KaMakan
near Kuan, Tajpur Village
Badarpur, New Delhi
FIR No. 71/2017
PS : Badarpur
U/s. 302 IPC
Instituted on : 05.05.2017
Committed on : 17.07.2017
Argued on : 21.08.2018
Decided on : 28.08.2018
JUDGMENT
1 The brief facts of the prosecution case are like this. On 10.02.2017 DD No. 50A was received by Insp. HotiLal Meena upon which he alongwith ASI Jagdish and complainant reached at H. No. 24, Pravesh Bainsala Ka Makan, near Well, Village Tajpur, State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.1 / 16 Badarpur, where one dead body was found on the bed in one room. The injury marks with sharp edged weapon were found on different parts of the body. The deceased was identified by the complainant as her husband. The crime team was called. The photographs of the spot were taken. Dead body of deceased Vishvanath was sent in ERV (govt. vehicle) through Ct. Tinku to AIIMS, New Delhi. 2 The complainant Smt. Sudha gave a statement to the police that she alongwith her family has been residing at H. No. 24, Pravesh Bainsala Ka Makan, near Well, Village Tajpur, Badarpur, New Delhi. Her husband used to do labour work. She has two sons and one daughter. Her husband was a habitual drinker who used to frequently quarrel with his family and hurl filthy abuses. Her elder son Rajnesh used to leave the house on hearing abuses from the deceased. Her elder son Rajnesh was upset. On 9.2.2017 at 10pm her elder son Rajnesh came back after driving the auto. The deceased has consumed alcohol who started abusing Rajnesh and uttered the words that he has illicit relations with his sister. The deceased also uttered the words to Rajnesh that he should share the bed with his mother whereas he (deceased) will share the bed with his younger State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.2 / 16 daughter. This enraged her son who picked up one darati and hit the deceased with intention to kill him. She tried to extricate but she was pushed aside. The other children went out of the house out of fear. She was also threatened by her son that he will kill her. She pleaded with her son to leave the deceased but her son Rajnesh kept on hitting the deceased with darati till deceased become unconscious. Her son has wiped out the blood from the room and washed the clothes. She has come to PS. Her statement was recorded. Rukka was prepared and sent to PS through Ct. Mukesh who went to PS and came back to the spot after registration of FIR. Ct. Mukesh has handed over copy of FIR and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to the IO.
3 Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant. The spot was inspected by officials of Crime Team. Statements u/s 161 Cr.PC were recorded. The pullanda of blood stained gudri (mattress) markA was prepared and taken into possession. The blood lying under the bed markB was collected and kept in a plastic dibi. The earth control was lifted and kept in a plastic dibi and given Sl. No. MarkC. All the exhibits were sealed State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.3 / 16 with the seal of JPM and taken into possession vide separate recovery memo.
4 The accused was searched. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested from Jaitpur Mor. His Disclosure Statement was recorded. The fard Nisahdehi of the place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of the accused. The accused has got recovered one yellow colour shirt, blue colour half pant (which he was wearing at the time of incident) and one blood stained gauze, kept in a bag, from the roof of the house. The bag containing the clothes and blood stained gauze were sealed with the seal of JPM and taken into possession vide separate recovery memo and given serial no. markD. 5 The weapon of offence and cloth with which the blood stains were wiped were searched but in vain. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Statements u/s 161 Cr.PC were recorded. The dead body was handed over to the family members of deceased after the postmortem. The viscera and exhibits were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. Scaled site plan was got prepared. The exhibits were sent to FSL. The investigation was State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.4 / 16 completed. The supplementary charge sheet will be filed after the receipt of the FSL. Charge sheet was filed.
6 The accused was produced from J/C. The copy of the challan was supplied to him. The case was committed to the court of Sessions by Ld. MM vide order dated 11.07.2017. 7 The charge under section 302/201 IPC was framed against the accused on 04.08.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8 The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. 25 The accused has admitted FIR Ex. PA, scaled site plan Ex. PB, PMR Ex. PC, MLC of the deceased Ex. PD, FSL Reports dated 17.05.2017 and 31.05.2017 Ex. PE & PF u/s 294 Cr.PC.
9 The accused was examined under section 313 CrPC. His defence is of denial simplicitor. However, no defence evidence has been led.
10 The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. PW1 Sudha is wife of deceased as well as complainant. She stated that on 09.02.2017 at 10 pm she has come back from her work place and saw that deceased Vishvnath was drunk who was preparing chicken. State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.5 / 16 Her children were getting ready for going to Jagran. At 10:30 pm, she alongwith her children namely Avnesh and Rajni has left for Jagran and came back at 6 am in the morning. Her husband/deceased was lying in an injured condition. The food alongwith broken pieces of liquor bottle was lying here and there. The accused reached there . He has changed the clothes of the deceased. She does not know how the police have come to know about the incident. She alongwith accused was taken to PS by the police where signatures were taken on some papers. She has identified the dead body of deceased and received the same after postmortem. The memos to this effect are Ex. PW1/A and B. The accused was arrested whose personal search and arrest memos Ex. PW1/C and D were prepared. She was declared hostile and crossexamined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State she has denied the suggestion that her husband used to allege that accused has illicit relations with his sister or deceased used to beat them regularly or deceased abused the accused in the filthy language and levelled the allegations that he has relations with his sister upon which accused hit the deceased with darati or accused has also State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.6 / 16 threatened her with dire consequences or accused has cleaned the room after the incident or accused has changed the clothes or she has seen the accused while killing the deceased with sickle. She has denied to have given statement Ex.PW1/E to the police. She has identified the photographs Ex.P1 to P11 which belongs to her house and of deceased. During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel she admitted that on 09.02.2017 at 1010.30pm accused was not present at house.
11 PW2 Baby Rajni is daughter of deceased. Certain questions were put to her before recording her statement. This court was satisfied from the answers given by her that the witness understands the question and gives rational answers to them. She understands the sanctity of oath. Her statement was recorded on oath. She stated that accused is her real brother. No quarrel has taken place in her presence. She does not know anything about the case. She was declared hostile and cross examined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During cross examination she stated that deceased has never quarreled with the accused. On 09.02.2017 she has gone to school and came back at 01:30 pm. Her father was making chicken. State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.7 / 16 She alongwith her mother and brother went to attend the Jagran and came back on the next day at 06:30 am. Her father was lying in a pool of blood. Her mother did not inform the police that her father has murdered. On 10.02.2017 she did not go to school. She does not know how the accused came to know about the death of the deceased. The suggestion is denied that on 09.02.2017 that quarrel has taken place between the deceased and accused or accused has murdered her father. She has denied to have given portion A to A of her statement markY to the police.
12 PW3 Avnesh is the son of deceased Certain questions were put to her before recording his statement. This court was satisfied from the answers given by him that the witness understands the question and gives rational answers to them. He understands the sanctity of oath. His statement was recorded on oath. He did not support the case of prosecution. He was declared hostile and cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State. During cross examination by the prosecution the suggestion is denied that deceased used to quarrel with the accused and used to abuse him in filthy language or on the date of incident the deceased has consumed liquor and State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.8 / 16 misbehaved with PW1 upon which a quarrel took place between deceased and accused or accused has murdered the deceased. He has denied to have given portion A to A of his statement mark Z to the police.
13 PW4 Parmesh stated that he is owner of the house where one room was given on rent to Sudha and her family. He came to know later on that deceased Vishvnath has been murdered. 14 PW5 Ombir stated that application for request for postmortem is Ex.PW5/A. He has identified the dead body of the deceased and received the same vide memo Ex.PW1/B. 15 PW6 Ct. Ramesh stated that he has taken the accused to AIIMS, New Delhi for medical examination where the blood sample of the accused was taken which was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of Hospital and handed over to him by the doctor which in turn was handed by him to the IO.
16 PW7 Ct. Mukesh Meena stated that on 10.02.20107 at 09:15 pm DO has informed the beat officers about the incident at House No. 24, Village Tajpur, upon which he reached there where Inspector Hoti Lal and other police officials were present. Rukka State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.9 / 16 was handed over to him at 11:20 pm by Inspector Hoti Lal upon which he went to PS for registration of case and came back to the spot with copy of FIR and tehrir.
17 PW8 Ct. Tinku Yadav has corroborated the version of PW7 and further added that the dead body was shifted through him to Mortuary, AIIMS for postmortem. The dead body after postmortem was handed over to the relatives. The doctor has handed over sealed pullandas to IO which were taken into possession vide fard Ex.PW8/A. 18 PW9 Raj Bahadur & PW10 Yashvir have identified the dead body of deceased.
19 PW11 Ct. Amrender stated that on 10.04.2017 he has taken 810 parcels in a sealed condition from Malkhana vide RC No. 48 to 50/20/17 Ex.PW11/C & D. The exhibits were deposited in the FSL in intact condition and receipts Ex.PW11/A & B were received. 20 PW12 SI Satish stated that on 10.02.2017 he was Incharge, Crime Team, SED. He has received a call from the Control Room upon which he went to PS, Badarpur where he came to know that a murder has taken place at House No. 24, near Well Village State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.10 / 16 Tajpur, Badarpur. He went there where Inspector Hoti Lal alongwith Staff was present. One dead body was lying on the bed. The photographs from different angles were taken. He has inspected the spot and prepared the report Ex.PW12/A. 21 PW14 Ct. Amit stated that he has taken the photographs Ex.P1 to P11 of the place of occurrence from different angles. Ex.P1 A to P11A are the negatives.
22 PW15 Retd. Inspector Hoti Lal is the Investigating Officer of the case. On 10.02.2017 DD No. 50A markA was received by him upon which he alongwith PW13 ASI Jagdish and complainant reached at H. No. 24, Pravesh Bainsala Ka Makan, near Well, Village Tajpur, Badarpur, where one dead body was found on the bed in one room. The injury marks with sharp edged weapon were found on different parts of the body. The deceased was identified by the complainant as her husband. The crime team was called. The photographs of the spot and dead body were taken. Dead body of deceased Vishvanath was sent in ERV (govt. vehicle) through PW8 Ct. Tinku to AIIMS, New Delhi. The statement Ex.PW1/E of Smt. Sudha was recorded. Rukka Ex.PW15/A was State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.11 / 16 prepared and sent to PS through PW7 Ct. Mukesh who went to PS and came back to the spot after registration of FIR. The blood stained gudri (mattress), the blood stained earth lying on the floor and the earth control were lifted were separately sealed with seal JPM and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW13/A. Ct.Mukesh has handed over copy of FIR, rukka and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act to him. Site plan Ex.PW15/B was prepared at the instance of Smt. Sudha.
23 A secret information was received by PW13 ASI Jagdish Parsad that accused is standing at Jaitpur Mor. The accused was arrested. His arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW1/C & D were prepared. His disclosure Statement Ex.PW13/B was recorded. The fard Nisahdehi Ex.PW13/D of the place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of the accused. The accused has took them to the roof of the house where he has kept the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident. The accused has also produced one blood stained piece of cloth. The clothes were kept in a bag and sealed in a pullanda with seal of JPM and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/C. The site plan Ex.PW15/C of the place of State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.12 / 16 recovery of the clothes was prepared.
24 The weapon of offence and cloth with which the blood stains were wiped were searched but in vain. On 12.02.2017, the application Ex.PW5/A was given to the doctor for the postmortem of the deceased. He has filled form 25.35 Ex.PW15/D. The dead body after postmortem was handed over to the family members of deceased. The viscera and exhibits were handed over to him by Ct. Tinku which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW8/A. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana. On 01.03.2017, Inspector Mukesh Kr. Jain reached on the spot. On 02.03.2017 the scaled site plan Ex. P13 was handed over to him. He has collected the report of Crime Team and PMR. The exhibits were sent to FSL. He has recorded the statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. The investigation was completed and Charge sheet was filed. During cross examination he stated that Sudha did not give any complaint in writing. The suggestion is denied that accused was apprehended from Meethapur Chowk or accused was not apprehended from Jaitpur Mor. Something was printed on the bag containing clothes of the accused. The suggestion is denied that accused did not get the State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.13 / 16 clothes recovered from the the roof of the house. 25 PW13 ASI Jagdish has corroborated the version of PW15.
26 Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that accused has committed the murder of the deceased. She further submitted that accused can be connected with the murder of the deceased even if eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. 27 Ld. defence Counsel contended that eye witnesses have not support the case of prosecution and there is no other evidence on record to support the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that testimony of IO and other witnesses cannot be made the basis for convicting the accused once eye witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.
28 Heard and perused the record.
29 The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. 30 PW1 is wife of deceased. PW2 and 3 are the children of deceased. All of them are material witnesses. The FIR Ex. PA has been registered on the basis of statement Ex. PW1/E of PW1.
State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.14 / 16 31 All of them did not support the case of prosecution. All of them were declared hostile and duly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Ld. Addl. PP for the state has failed to shatter them during the course of their cross examination. Nothing incriminating has come out in their testimony to show that accused has allegedly committed murder of deceased Vishvanath. There is nothing on the record to discard their testimony. There is no other eye witness to the occurrence. 32 The accused had allegedly got recovered one full sleeves yellow shirt and blue half jeans pant. The same were taken into possession by the police and sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. The FSL Ex. PF (collectively) dated 31.5.2017 is admitted by the accused. The report shows that no blood is detected on shirt. The report shows that there is no reaction of blood group on the jeans pant. The FSL report nowhere shows that clothes worn by the accused at the time of alleged incident contain the blood group of the deceased. The FSL report does not support the case of the prosecution.
33 The other witnesses examined by the prosecution State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.15 / 16 are formal and official in nature who have carried out investigation of the case which in no way advances the case of the prosecution that accused has allegedly committed murder of the deceased. 34 The eye witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution.
35 Keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The accused is acquitted of the offence charged.
36 The Superintendent Jail is directed to release the accused forthwith from custody, if not wanted in any other case. 37 The case property be destroyed after the expiry of the period meant for appeal or revision, as the case may be. 38 File be consigned to record room after completion of all formalities.
Announced in the open court on 28th August, 2018 (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA) ASJ04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) SouthEast District Saket Courts, New Delhi State v. Rajnesh Kumar SC 311/17 Page No.16 / 16