Delhi District Court
State vs . Naresh @ Anna Etc. Fir 315/14 ... on 29 August, 2019
State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16)
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GULATI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF
Case No. 55992/16
FIR No. 315/14
PS Uttam Nagar
U/s 302/354/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
(1) NARESH @ ANNA
S/O SH. BHOJ RAJ
R/O VILLAGE BALRAM PUR
CHOTHAI, PO BALDEV,
PS MAHABAN,
DISTT. MATHURA, U.P.
(2) MOHD. NASEEM @ SAMIM
S/O MOHD. NAEEM
R/O H.NO. 431, KRISHNA COLONY,
KALI BASTI, UTTAM NAGAR,
DELHI.
Result: Convicted Page 1 of 68
State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16)
(3) JAIPAL @ JITENDER
S/O SH. KEDARI SINGH
R/O H.NO. E70, PRATAP GARDEN,
NEAR PS - BINDAPUR,
NEW DELHI.
(4) MANTOO SHARMA
S/O UMA SHARMA
R/O H.NO. A70, MAHARANI ENCLAVE,
HASTSAL, UTTAM NAGAR,
NEW DELHI.
(5) BEERPAL
S/O LATE AMAR SINGH
R/O NEAR GOPAL MANDIR,
BHAGWATI VIHAR,
UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
Date of Institution : 06.08.2014
Date of Reserving Judgment : 26.07.2019
Date of Judgment : 26.08.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons, namely Naresh @ Anna, Beerpal, Mantoo Result: Convicted Page 2 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) Sharma, Mohd. Naseem and Jaipal @ Jitender (5 accused in all) have been charged with willful homicide of deceased Sukhmati and also of molesting her before committing homicide. The alleged crime was committed in a park on the night of 28.3.2014. The entire prosecution evidence revolves around the testimony of a solitary eye witness account i.e. PW 1 Monu who claims to have witnessed the entire incident from a distance. There is also an extra judicial confession to PW 1 Monu, (allegedly) by accused Mantoo Sharma immediately after the commission of the alleged crime. Besides, prosecution has also relied on forensic evidence to connect the accused persons with the crime. The blood detected on the clothes of the accused persons matched with the blood group of deceased Sukhmati.
FACTS :
2. Facts leading to the Prosecution's case are as under :
On 29.03.2014, a call was received from the police control room vide DD no. 17B in Police Stn. Uttam Nagar regarding lying of a dead body of a male in a park near Kali Basti, Krishna Colony. The call was marked to SI Nar Singh who alongwith Ct. Ankur reached the Result: Convicted Page 3 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) crime scene i.e. Safeda Wala Park, in front of Shamshan Ghat, Krishna Colony, New Delhi. There they found the deadbody of an unknown woman, aged about 30/35 years placed on the trunk of a Safeda tree in upside down position. The Safeda tree was a "Thooth tree" (only the tree trunk was standing) and about 3 feet in height. The left cheek of the woman was found pressed and there was injury mark as well on the left cheek. The left side of the forehead of the dead body was also having injury. There was cut mark on her head. About 810 feet away from the dead body, SI found blood & broken bangles, three broken teeth of the deceased woman and a heavy piece of a concrete stone which also had blood stains.
Crime team was called at the spot and photographs were taken. The dead body was identified to be that of Sukhmati by her husband Sh. Jogeshwar and her son Shiv Kumar. On 30.03.2014, the postmortem was conducted on the deadbody of deceased vide PM no. 417/14.
During the course of investigation, statement of one Monu @ Cheddi, who was a ragpicker of the area was recorded to the effect that on 28.03.2014, during his routine rag picking at labour chowk, near theka Uttam Nagar, he saw Jaipal @ Jitender, Beerpal and Result: Convicted Page 4 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) Mantoo Sharma between 06:30 PM - 07:00 PM. Anna and Naseem @ Samim also came there on a motorcycle, make Pulsar, colour blue. Anna and Naseem started talking with the other three boys. Anna gave Rs. 500/ note to Mantoo Sharma and thereafter, Naseem and Anna left the place on the same bike. Around 09:00 PM, Mantoo Sharma purchased three beers and one 'Adha' from the said theka near the labour chowk. Subsequently, Monu @ Chhedi, like his daily routine, went to Safeda Park near Kali Basti to pick rags. There in the light of the street lights on Hastal road in between Safeda Park and Hastal Park, he saw one lady in the Safeda park towards shamshan ghat gate. She was seated on the ground and the above mentioned five boys were drinking alcohol. After some time the woman started walking on the road inside the Safeda park. She appeared to be drunk. All the five boys, named above, were walking behind the woman. All the five boys started molesting her one by one and when she objected and started shouting, Naseem shut her mouth with one hand. When the woman did not stop shouting, Naseem hit her on the head with a beer bottle which was in his other hand. The woman fell on the road but did not stop shouting. Jaipal then picked up one 'Adhaa' stone from nearby and hit her on her face. Beerpal also hit the lady with Result: Convicted Page 5 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) stone. They all dragged her on the said road inside the park. Jaipal & Beerpal took hold of one each of the hands of the lady. Mantoo Sharma gave support beneath her waist & Anna caught hold the two legs of the woman and put her on a "thootha" Safeda tree in upside down condition. After that Anna and Naseem left the place on the same motorcycle through shamshan ghat of Safeda Park. The remaining three left the park through the gate on Hastal Road side. Jaipal could not see him (PW 1 Monu) as he was walking hurriedly but Mantoo and Beerpal could see him. Beerpal confessed that 'Kaand' has been committed and the woman had died, and then left the place following Mantoo and Jaipal.
After completion of investigation, Chargesheet was filed before the Court of Area MM who committed the case to the court of Sessions.
CHARGE :
3. On 10.09.2014, Charge for the offence Punishable U/s 302/353/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial.
Result: Convicted Page 6 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) EVIDENCE :
4. To prove its case, the prosecution in total, has examined 22 witnesses.
A brief resume of the prosecution witnesses and the purpose for which they were summoned is highlighted below PW 1 Monu @ Chhedi Eye witness PW 2 Sub Inspector Devender Singh, Incharge, Crime Team - Inspected the crime scene and prepared crime team report. PW 3 W/ Sub Inspector Savita - proved copy of the FIR and certificate u/s 65 B of the IE Act PW 4 Constable Satpal took photographs of the crime scene PW 5 Constable Parveen Kumar - delivered copies of FIR to senior officers and Area MM.
PW 6 Inspector Mahesh Kumar - prepared the site plan PW 7 Constable Chander Prakash - collected exhibits from the MHC (M) and deposited the same in FSL.
PW 8 Ramanuj Pandey Manager of the Uttam Nagar "rain basera"
(night shelter) where deceased used to spend the night with her husband and son; also accused Jaipal @ Jitender and Mantoo used to Result: Convicted Page 7 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) come to this night shelter'; to depose regarding the visitors to the night shelter.
PW 9 Constable Rajender Singh - same role as that of PW 7 PW 10 Dr. B N Mishra - Conducted the post mortem PW 11 Constable Pramod Sharma - collected sealed 'pullandas' from the DDU Hospital mortuary PW 12 Constable Ankur - went alongwith SI Nar Singh on receipt of information about the dead body in a park; was associated in the initial investigation with SI Narsingh and the Investigating Officer OP Thakur.
PW 13 Dr. R. Kohli - first examined the deceased in emergency ward of DDU hospital PW 14 Head Constable Ram Kumar - witness to the arrest of accused persons except Naresh @ Anna PW 15 Assistant SubInspector Rajesh Kumar - proved the receipt of information from police control room regarding lying of a dead body in a park PW 16 Head Constable Ravinder Singh - arrested accused Naresh @ Anna Result: Convicted Page 8 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) PW 17 Dr. Adesh Kumar - examined the viscera of deceased PW 18 Ms. Manisha Upadhaya - examined 16 exhibits and prepared biological and serological reports. PW 19 SI Narsingh - first police official to reach the crime scene along with Ct. Ankur PW 20 Sh. S.S. Badwal - examined 2 parcels containing broken bangles.
PW 21 ASI Vijay Kumar - MHC (M) PW 22 Inspector OP Thakur - Investigating Officer PW1 Monu @ Chhedi in his chief examination, deposed that he used to pick garbage and rags and used to sleep under Metro Pillar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that about 1½ years ago (from the date of deposition of this witness), at about 06:30 PM, he was present at theka, Labour Chowk, Uttam Nagar, Delhi when accused Anna (Naresh @ Anna) and Wasim came on a motorcycle. Anna gave a currency note of Rs.500/ to Mantoo. Thereafter, accused Mantoo bought three Beer bottles and one half bottle. PW 1 subsequently went to the shop of Pappu (to whom he usually sold the collected garbage) and emptied his garbage bag. He remained there Result: Convicted Page 9 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) for about 1 ½ hours. Thereafter, he reached near Pahari, Hastal Village where, while picking the garbage, saw total six persons out of which one was female. Anna and Wasim administered liquor (daaru) to that lady. When that female started going away from there, Anna caught her and dragged her towards him. The female started shouting whereupon, Wasim shut her mouth with his hand. Thereafter, Mantoo and Jaipal @ Jitender started teasing her. Jaipal @ Jitender removed her Saree and Mantoo who was having Beer, hit Beer bottle on the head of that lady. Thereafter, all the five accused persons started hitting that female with Adha and Rohra (pieces of bricks and stones) on the back and chest. When that female died, all the five accused hanged the body of that lady on an already cut tree trunk which was similar to his height i.e. height of PW 1.
At that stage, Court recorded its observation that the height of the witness was about 5 feet.
This witness further deposed that thereafter, Wasim and Anna sat on the motorcycle and they went away through exit towards Shamshan Ghaat. Mantoo, Jaipal @ Jitender and Beerpal started running towards Hastal Village. Mantoo saw PW 1 and said to this witness that "ककम हह गयक हह , मकर ददयक हह ". Thereafter, this witness Result: Convicted Page 10 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) also started running behind them.
On the next day, 4 accused persons were apprehended Beerpal from Rain Basera, near Shiv Vihar Nala; accused Wasim from Labour Chowk; and accused Mantoo and Jaipal @ Jitender were apprehended from under the Metro Station Flyover, Uttam Nagar. Witness further deposed that since the clothes of the accused were blood stained, the same were seized by the police.
PW 1 correctly identified all the five accused persons before the Court. He also identified his thumb impression on the Arrest memos of accused persons namely Mantoo Sharma (Ex. PW1/A); accused Beerpal (Ex. PW1/B); accused Wasim (Ex. PW1/C) and that of accused Jaipal (Ex. PW1/D). He had also identified his thumb impression on the personal search memos of abovesaid accused persons as also on the seizure memos. This witness identified the deadbody of deceased lady from photograph Ex. PW4/A.9.
In crossexamination, PW 1 deposed that he used to work during day time and sometimes till late in the night. He used to go to the shop of 'kabari' in the evening at 4 5pm and sometimes at 7 pm. He was confronted with his statement to the police wherein he had not stated that accused Naresh @ Anna and Wasim had administered Result: Convicted Page 11 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) liquor to the deceased; that he started to run behind the accused; and that all the 5 accused started to hit the deceased with 'addha & rora'. In his police statement, the witness had told the police that deceased appeared to be drunk and ascribed specific hits to the deceased with stones by 3 of the accused persons i.e. Jaipal @ Jitender, Beerpal and Naresh @ Anna.
Witness further deposed that he had not informed either the police or anyone at the gate of the park or anyone known to him about the incident. He admitted the suggestion that he had reached near the park at about 8 pm and that he already knew all the accused. With regard to the extra judicial confession of accused Mantoo, Witness admitted that he had not stated before the police that accused Mantoo came to him and said "kaam ho gaya...maar diya hai". PW 1 also admitted that near the Safeda park (place of crime), there is a cremation ground where a family resides in a room and that those persons were sleeping inside the room at the time of incident. Witness denied the suggestion that the said family was awakened and was present at the crime scene.
With regard to previous familiarity with the accused person, PW1 deposed that he knew the accused persons during the course of Result: Convicted Page 12 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) rag picking. He admitted that on 29.3.2014, he had an altercation with the accused persons as a result of which they were all taken to the police station and made to sit in the police station. PW 1 further stated that he was made to sit in the Police Station for 56 days.
In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Naresh @ Anna, Witness stated that he knew the deceased female being a beggar in the area and that she used to drink liquor. PW 1 admitted that he was a drug addict and on the day of incident also, had taken 'ganja'. With regard to the visibility aspect at the crime scene, PW 1 stated that light was available and that 56 electric poles were installed there. He also deposed that he did not try to save the deceased out of fear. Towards the end of the cross examination, PW 1 deposed that he kept on watching the incident for about 2 ½ hours and that blood was oozing out of the head and legs of the deceased. As per PW 1, the deceased had been made completely nude.
This witness was also crossexamined on behalf of accused Jaipal @ Jitender wherein he deposed that he had not stated before the police that Jaipal @ Jitender had removed the Saree of that lady. He was confronted with the statement Ex.PW1/DA wherein he had Result: Convicted Page 13 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) not mentioned that accused Mantoo had given beer bottle blow on the head of that lady. Witness further stated that after the crime had been committed, he started to pick rags but after sometime went home which was at a distance of 5 kms. This witness denied the suggestions put to him by the ld. defense counsel that he was not present at the spot on the day of incident; that he had not seen the incident as narrated by him in the Court; and that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police.
PW2 SI Devender Singh, Incharge, mobile crime team deposed in his chief examination that on 29.03.2014, on receiving wireless message from control room, he alongwith SI Dharamvir Singh (Finger print Expert) and Ct. Satpal (photographer) went to Safeda wala park in front of shamshan ghaat, Uttam Nagar. There, on a half cut tree of height about 3 feet, one female deadbody was hanging. There was saree of greenwhite colour, blue coloured blouse and a yellow petticot on the deadbody. The body was lying covered with these clothes. (कपडड शररर पर उपर कर ओर हह रखड थड ). On the left side of face of the deadbody, there were injuries. This witness proved his report Ex. PW2/A. Result: Convicted Page 14 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) In his crossexamination, this witness deposed that he did not notice any hair strands on the road. He denied the suggestion of ld. Defense counsel that he did not visit the crime spot or that his statement was recorded by the IO of his own.
PW3 W/SI Savita proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW 3/A, her endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B and certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW3/C. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW4 Ct. Satpal, photographer, mobile crime team, West district proved the photographs of the crime scene as Ex. PW4/A.1 to Ex. PW4/A.16 and negatives of the same as Ex. PW4/B.1 to Ex. PW 4/B.16.
This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons except accused Jai Pal @ Jaipal @ Jitender. In the crossexamination done on behalf of accused Jai Pal, PW 4 deposed that blood was lying on the concrete cemented road at 23 places at a Result: Convicted Page 15 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) distance of about 60 meters (by way of approximation) from where the body was found hung. There were no blood stains at any other place except the above. He did not notice if there were some human hairs at the spot or not.
PW5 Ct. Parveen Kumar deposed that on 29.03.2014 at about 12:40 PM, the duty officer gave him computerized copy of FIR for delivering the same to the Ilaka MM, Joint CP (South West) and DCP (West). He delivered the same to the above said Officers vide departure entry (DD no. 18A) and came back to the Police Station.
This witness was also not cross examined.
PW6 Insp. Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman, Crime Branch proved scaled site plan of the crime scene as Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that after preparation of the scaled site plan, he had destroyed rough notes and measurements and that Insp. O.P. Thakur collected the scaled site plan.
This witness was also not cross examined.Result: Convicted Page 16 of 68
State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) PW7 Ct. Chander Prakash deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 20.05.2014, he had collected the exhibits of this case from the MHC(M) vide RC no. 37/21/14 for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini. He deposited 16 parcels in the FSL, Rohini out of which one parcel was returned and he deposited the returned parcel in the malkhana. This witness has proved the photocopy of RC no. 37/21/14 as Mark PW7/A and photocopy of acknowledgment of 16 parcels as Mark PW7/B. This witness was crossexamined only on behalf of accused Jai Pal wherein he deposed that he took the exhibits from MHC(M) at around 09:30 AM and deposited the same in the lab around 12:30 PM. He denied the suggestion put to him by the ld. Defense counsel that the exhibits were tampered by him.
PW8 Ramanuj Pandey stated in his chief examination that he was working as Care Taker in night shelter (rain basera) in Tilak Nagar in the year 2007. Thereafter, he was deputed as Care Taker in Uttam Nagar on 22.01.2014. He used to take care of the visitors who came there for taking shelter. A register was being maintained at the Centre, wherein he used to mention the names of visitors. One lady Sukhmati, Result: Convicted Page 17 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) who was beggar and used to consume liquor alongwith her husband and son Shiv Kumar, used to come to the night shelter. Her husband was a handcart puller and her son Shiv Kumar was a rickshaw puller.
This witness further testified that on 28.03.2014, Sukhmati was reported to have died and he came to know about this fact in the early morning. On 28.03.2014, Sukhmati, her husband and son had come to the night shelter around 10:00 PM. They had slept in the shelter. She had taken food through a vendor who had come in Maruti Car around 12 midnight and thereafter, she slept in the night shelter. During night hours, Sukhmati left the shelter but he did not know at what time did she leave. PW 8 proved the register maintained by him as Ex. P.1 and another part of this register as Ex. P.2. He further deposed that entries in this register were also in his handwriting. There was entry dt. 28.03.2014 at srl. nos. 29 & 30 where names of Jogender and Shiv Kumar were written respectively. Name of Sukhmati was mentioned at srl. no. 46. He further deposed that name of Jogender at srl. no. 29 was written due to mistake; however, it was Jogeshwar.
This witness had identified accused Jaipal @ Jitender by stating his name as Satender. He also identified accused Mantoo Result: Convicted Page 18 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) Sharma correctly before the court. He also deposed that accused Jaipal @ Jitender had come to the night shelter on 28.03.2014 at about 04:00 PM however, he had not made any entry in the register in this regard. Accused Mantoo Sharma used to come to the shelter prior to the day of incident and he (PW 8) used to mention their names (of accused persons) whenever they visited the night shelter. This witness also identified the photographs of deceased Sukhmati as Mark PW 8/A. In crossexamination on behalf of accused Jaipal @ Jitender, Witness deposed that on the day of incident, there was no space inside the Rain Basera and hence, Sukhmati and his family remained outside the Rain Basera. Late Sukhmati sometimes used to come drunk to Rain Basera. Accused Jaipal @ Jitender whom he identified as Satender used to come to Rain Basera and he disclosed his name as Satender.
In his crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Beerpal, Mohd. Naseem and Mantoo Sharma, this witness deposed that no time is mentioned in the register against any entry. He admitted the fact that last entry in register Ex. P.2 at srl. no. 46 is that of Sukhmati. He also admitted the fact that Sukhmati was Result: Convicted Page 19 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) quarrelsome lady.
In his crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Naresh @ Anna, the witness deposed that Sukhmati was aged about 3540 years and the age of her husband was about 60 years. Other visitors never complained about the behaviour of the deceased in the complaint register. He further deposed that he had seen the deceased lastly at 12:30 AM (on the intervening night of 28/29.03.2014) and after that he had not seen her. He finally deposed that Deceased never left the Rain Basera prior to 28/29.03.2014 during her stay in the night hours.
PW9 Ct. Rajender Singh deposed that on 22.05.2014, he collected exhibits of this case form the malkhana moharrar vide RC no. 40/21/14 for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini. He deposited the said exhibits at FSL, Rohini in intact condition under a receipt, which he had handed over to the MHC(M) on the same day.
This witness was crossexamined only on behalf of accused Naresh @ Anna wherein he deposed that he did not know about the contents of the Jars which he had taken alongwith some documents to the FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He was not crossexamined on Result: Convicted Page 20 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) behalf of other accused persons despite opportunity.
PW10 Dr. B.N. Mishra, Medical OfficercumMedico Legal Expert and Criminologist, Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU hospital conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Sukhmati aged about 42 years and proved the P.M. report no. 417/2014 as Ex. PW10/A. In his chief examination, he deposed that during autopsy, he observed multiple injuries in the form of laceration, bruises and abrasions present on the head and both upper and lower limbs apart from internal injuries on the head i.e. fractured frontal and nasal bones. He also observed massive 'subdural haematoma' present on the frontal, right temporoparietal region and vertex part of the brain with fractured anterior and middle cranial fossa. The cause of death opined by this witness was due to cranio cerebral injuries caused by hard, heavy and forceful impact upon her head by stone like material. The manner of death was homicide and time since death was approx. 12 hours prior to the postmortem examination. All exhibits were preserved with the seal of "DFMT, DDU Hospital" and handed over to the IO concerned. At this stage, it needs a highlight that this Witness appears to have inadvertently Result: Convicted Page 21 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) stated the time of death as 12 hours prior to the post mortem. This is for the reason that post mortem was conducted on 30.3.2014 at 2.15 pm whereas the body had been recovered by 7.20 am on 29.3.2014 which meant that by the time post mortem was concluded at 3.15 pm on 30.3.2014, a period of more than 36 hours had passed after her death.
In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Jaipal @ Jitender, this witness deposed that no photography/videography of dead body was done before/during conducting the postmortem examination.
In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Naresh @ Anna, PW 10 deposed that on 29.03.2014, he started the postmortem examination at 02:15 PM and completed it at 03:15 PM. He admitted the suggestion of ld. defense counsel that the stomach did not show any signs of consumption of alcohol/poisonous substances including food poisoning by the deceased. However, he clarified that for confirmation of the same, the viscera of the deceased was sent to FSL for chemical analysis to rule out. Witness also deposed that there was no sign of sexual assault on the body of Result: Convicted Page 22 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) deceased. However, for the confirmation of the same, the vaginal/rectal samples (swabs) were preserved and sent to FSL for analysis. Significantly, PW 10 testified that the head injuries sustained on the body of deceased would not have occurred due to fall on the ground. Apart from head injuries, there were multiple minor abrasions and bruises present on the both upper and lower limbs.
This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of remaining accused persons despite opportunity.
PW11 Ct. Pramod Kumar Sharma deposed that on 02.04.2014, on the directions of IO/Insp. O.P. Thakur, he had gone to DDU Mortuary and from there collected three sealed pullandas containing blood and gauze piece, clothes in transparent plastic bag and sealed plastic jar containing viscera of deceased, bearing seal of DDU hospital and three sample seals. He produced all the above said pullandas before the IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. Thereafter, all the pullandas were deposited in sealed/intact condition in malkhana by the IO.
This witness was not crossexamined by any of the Result: Convicted Page 23 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) accused persons.
PW12 Ct. Ankur in his examinationinchief deposed that on 29.03.2016 at about 07:20 AM, he received an information vide DD no. 17B in the Police Station regarding a deadbody lying in Safedawala Park, Kali Basti near cremation ground, which was assigned to SI Narsingh. He alongwith SI Narsingh reached the informed place where they noticed that a body of a woman was lying upside down on the trunk of a Safeda tree. Injuries were noticed on her cheek and forehead. He further deposed that within a distance of 810 feet from that tree, some concrete stones were found, which were heaving blood stains. They also noticed broken bangles and three human teeth lying on the ground near that body. Later on, the name of that deceased lady was discovered as Smt. Sukhmati w/o Jogeshwar. The deceased lady was found having white coloured Saree with flower pictures on it, yellow coloured petticoat and blue coloured blouse, on her body.
This witness further deposed that Investigating Officer called the crime team which reached the spot. The site was inspected by the crime team members and photographs were clicked from Result: Convicted Page 24 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) different angles. He also deposed that he, Ct. Vikas (who was inbeat at that time) and SI Narsingh took the body to DDU hospital where the female was declared "brought dead" and her body was got preserved in the mortuary.
This Witness proved the photographs, which were clicked by the crime team as Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A16. Investigating Officer (IO) prepared a tehrir and handed over to this witness for getting registration of this case. He got registered the present FIR no. 315/14 and returned to the crime spot with a copy of FIR and original tehrir. PW 12 also deposed that IO had seized the exhibits i.e. broken pieces of bangles, blood gauze lifted from the road, near that tree, blood stained earth control, broken teeth lying near the spot, stones etc. IO had also seized the two registers of the 'Rain Basera' (Ex. P.1 and Ex. P.2), in which entries relating to the residents were made by the Rain Basera management staff. He concluded by deposing that as per entries in the registers Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, deceased Sukhmati Devi was residing in that Rain Basera in the month of March, 2014.
This witness was crossexamined on behalf of all the accused persons wherein he deposed that name of the deceased lady Result: Convicted Page 25 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) was disclosed by her husband and son to the Investigating Offiecr (IO) on 29.03.2016 at about 01:00 PM. This witness denied the suggestion that prior to lodging of the FIR, SI Narsingh had seized all the recovered articles at the spot. Witness also denied the suggestions put to him by the ld. Defense counsel with regard to his visit at the spot alongwith the IO; lying of dead body of deceased, which was found hung on the Safeda tree; photographs taken by the crime team at the spot; non lifting the exhibits and articles from the spot; and that the same have been falsely planted in this case.
PW13 Dr. R. Kohli, Medical officer, DDU hospital deposed that on 29.03.2014, while he was working in DDU hospital as Emergency Medical Officer, Ct. Vikas had brought for medical examination, a female aged about 30 years whose name was not known. She was examined vide MLC no. 3435 (Ex. PW13/A) by Dr. Manoj who was working as Sr. Resident under his supervision. The lady was found dead. The body was packed and sent to mortuary. This witness identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Manoj at point A on Ex. PW13/A, as he had worked with him.
This witness was not crossexamined by any of the Result: Convicted Page 26 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) accused persons despite opportunity.
PW14 HC Ram Kumar in his examinationinchief, deposed that on 04.04.2014, he alongwith seven other constables, had joined the investigation of the present case with Insp. O.P. Thakur and went to Uttam Nagar Bus terminal. There, at the instance of Monu @ Chhedi, they had apprehended four persons wanted in this case namely Mantoo Sharma, Jai Pal, Beer Pal and Mohd. Naseem. This witness was able to correctly identify all the above said accused persons in the Court. PW 14 also proved their arrest memos as Ex. PW1/A (that of accused Mantoo Sharma); Ex. PW1/D (that of accused Jai Pal); Ex. PW1/B (that of accused Beer Pal) and Ex. PW1/C (that of accused Mohd. Naseem). Witness also proved their personal search memos as Ex.PW1/F (that of accused Mantoo Sharma); Ex.PW1/I (that of accused Jai Pal); Ex.PW1/G (that of accused Beer Pal) and Ex.PW 1/H (that of accused Mohd. Naseem). He further deposed that clothes of the above named four accused persons were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/M (clothes of accused Jai Pal); Ex. PW1/L (that of accused Mohd. Naseem); Ex. PW1/J (that of accused Mantoo Sharma) and Ex. PW1/K (that of accused Beer Pal). He further Result: Convicted Page 27 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) proved the pointing out memos and disclosure statements of the above named four accused persons. He also identified before the court, the case property i.e. the above said clothes of accused persons.
This witness was crossexamined on behalf of accused Beer Pal, Mohd. Naseem and Jai Pal wherein he stated that Investigating Officer had neither recorded statement of the Incharge of the night shelter nor collected extracts from the visitor's register of Rain Basera situated by the side of big drain in Vikas Puri. At about 03:30 PM, near Uttam Nagar terminal, accused Jai Pal was spotted by secret informer and was apprehended at his instance. The other accused persons namely Mantoo Sharma, Beer Pal and Mohd. Naseem were apprehended within a period of 30 minutes from the place near Rain Basera situated on the other side of drain. IO had prepared three documents in respect of each accused i.e. Arrest Memos, personal search memos and medical forms of accused persons at the time of their arrests. Witness denied the suggestions of ld. Defense counsel that he did not join the investigation on 04.04.2014 or that the accused persons were not arrested in his presence and further, that he signed the relevant memos while sitting in the Police Station. He further deposed that they remained at the Result: Convicted Page 28 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) place of arrest of above said three accused persons till about 06:30 PM. From there, they had visited Safede Wala Park, where the incident had taken place and where public persons were available around the park.
This witness was reexamined by the ld. Addl. P.P. with regard to presence of nonofficial at the time of arrest of accused persons as two versions had surfaced in his statement recorded on 20.03.2017 and 2.6.2017. PW 14 had referred to the person Monu @ Chhedi as a witness in his examinationinchief on 20.03.2017 and on the day of his crossexamination i.e. on 02.06.2017, he referred to him as a 'Secret informer'. On reexamination, PW 14 clarified that he was mistaken in referring to PW 1 as a 'witness' as he was actually the secret informer.
Thereafter, ld. Addl. P.P. for the State (after seeking permission of the Court) put a leading question to this witness as to whether he had inadvertently referred to Monu @ Chhedi as 'Secret informer', whereas, as per charge sheet, he was a witness. In response to this question, witness stated that as per his knowledge, Monu @ Chhedi was the secret informer. However, he was not further cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
Result: Convicted Page 29 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) PW15 ASI Rajesh Kumar proved the DD no. 17B Ex.PW15/A, which was received on 29.03.2014 at about 07:10 AM, through wireless operator, Police Control Room regarding a deadbody lying in Kali Basti park. The information was assigned to SI Nar Singh telephonically.
This witness was crossexamined on behalf of accused persons namely Beer Pal, Mohd. Naseem and Jai Pal wherein he deposed that he had assigned DD no. 17B to SI Nar Singh in time. SI Narsingh was attending a call (information) earlier assigned to him. He admitted that the handwritten copy of DD no. 17B is not in his handwriting.
PW16 HC Ravinder Singh stated in his chief examination that on 06.05.2014, IO/Insp. O.P. Thakur, had directed him to execute Non Bailable Warrants against accused Naresh @ Anna at his residential address i.e. Balram Pur, PS Mahavan, Distt. Mathura, U.P. Since the police staff was busy in election duty, he went alone to the house of accused Naresh @ Anna. While leaving Police Station Uttam Nagar, he had carried copy of Dossier of the accused and had identified the Result: Convicted Page 30 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) accused at the given address from the photograph available on his dossier. This witness arrested the accused Naresh @ Anna vide Arrest memo Ex.PW16/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW16/B. Thereafter, he brought the accused Naresh @ Anna to Delhi and produced him before Insp. O.P. Thakur. He also proved the pointing out memo (Ex. PW16/C) and disclosure statement of accused Naresh @ Anna as (Ex. PW16/D).
In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Naresh @ Anna, Witness deposed that he alongwith accused Naresh @ Anna went on foot to the express way situated about 1 Km. From the residence of accused. From the express way, he took assistance of vehicle make Bolero being driven by a civilian who dropped them near AIIMS, Delhi. From there, he alongwith accused arrived at Police Station Uttam Nagar at about 08:20 PM. The accused had not been handcuffed during the journey to Delhi. Witness did not call the Pradhan of village of accused to join the proceedings of his arrest. He further deposed that disclosure statement Ex. PW16/D is in the handwriting of IO/Insp. O. P. Thakur. He denied the suggestion of ld. Defense counsel that accused was arrested in Delhi or that he had deposed falsely regarding accused's Result: Convicted Page 31 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) arrest from his village.
In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Beer Pal, Mohd. Naseem and Jai Pal, Witness deposed that he had not issued any notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. to the local villagers who were residing near the house of accused for not joining the arrest proceedings. He had not recorded the statement of any of the family members of accused.
PW17 Dr. Adesh Kumar, Sr. Scientific officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini deposed that on 22.05.2014, one sealed polythene parcel was received in his office and same was marked to him for chemical examination. On opening the parcel, it was found containing two exhibits i.e. Ex.1A i.e. stomach, pieces of small intestine with contents and Ex.1B i.e. pieces of liver, spleen and kidney. This witness proved his detailed report as Ex. PW17/A and identified his signatures at points A & B. This witness was not crossexamined by any of the accused.
PW18 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Asstt. Director (Biology), FSL, Result: Convicted Page 32 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) Rohini deposed that on 20.05.2014, 16 parcels were received in her office and after examination of exhibits, she prepared the Biological report, Ex. PW18/A and Serological report Ex. PW18/B.
5.In her crossexamination (on behalf of all the accused persons), Witness denied the suggestions that she prepared reports Ex. PW 18/A and Ex. PW18/B at the instance of Investigating Officers to help the prosecution case, or that the blood group found on Exhibits 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12a, 12b, 14a, 16a and 17a was not of 'B' group, as mentioned in her report.
PW19 SI Narsingh deposed that information vide DD no.17B dt. 29.03.2014 regarding lying of a dead body in the park, was assigned to him whereafter he, alongwith Ct. Ankur went to Safeda Park, opposite cremation ground. There they found that on a tree of Safeda which had been already cut leaving behind approx. three feet height of its trunk, dead body of a lady was lying upside down. She was wearing green & white coloured Saree having flower prints, yellow coloured Petticot and blue coloured blouse. Blood stains were visible on the blouse. There were injury marks on her left cheek and forehead. Her left cheek was in squeezed condition ( दपचकक हहआ).
Result: Convicted Page 33 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) Some broken pieces of bangles were found lying at about 8 to 10 feet away from the dead body. Three broken human teeth were found near the bangles.
The witness further deposed that thereafter, crime team was called which reached the crime scene and conducted proceedings including taking photographs of the spot from different angles. This witness took the body to DDU hospital where the female was declared 'brought dead'. The dead body was preserved in the mortuary of DDU hospital. Subsequently, he prepared rukka Ex. PW19/A and got the FIR registered. He also proved the crime team report and Site plan. Witness stated that he also seized earth control, two blood samples on gauze, blood stained earth, sample of road from the spot, three broken human tooth, 10 pieces of broken bangles, one concrete slabstone having blood stains on it and two other pieces of concrete smeared with blood of deceased vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/C. This witness also testified that after sometime, son and husband of deceased namely Shiv Kumar and Jogeshwar reached the spot. They identified the deceased as Sukhmati. They also informed that they were residing with the deceased in "Rain Basera" near Uttam Nagar East Metro Station. This witness identified the case Result: Convicted Page 34 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) property before the Court.
In his cross examination, which was conducted on behalf of accused Beer Pal, Mohd. Naseem, Mantoo Sharma and Jai Pal, and adopted on behalf of accused Naresh @ Anna, Witness deposed that the Crime team arrived after about one hour of his call. He could not tell the exact number of photographs clicked by crime team but stated that they had clicked about 810 snaps. He reached DDU hospital at about 09:00 AM - 10 AM. He further deposed that he remained with the IO/Insp. O.P. Thakur at the spot till 05:00 PM on 29.03.2014. This witness denied the suggestion that all the exhibits have been planted in the case and no recovery was effected from the spot.
PW20 Sh. S.S. Badwal, Asstt. Director, CFSL, Gauhati deposed that on 19.01.2015, he had received case exhibits for opinion in the form of one sealed envelope containing Ex. 7 as parcel 7 and one sealed parcel containing Ex. 10. Parcel no. 7 was marked as Ex.7 and it contained pieces of broken bangles. Parcel no. 10 was marked as Ex.10 and it contained pieces of broken bangles. He further deposed that on examination of Ex.7 with respect to design pattern, thickness, Result: Convicted Page 35 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) diameter, density, it was found that overall physical characteristics were not much similar to Ex.10. He proved his report as Ex. PW 20/A. This witness was not crossexamined by any of the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW21 ASI Vijay Kumar, MHC(M) in his chief examination, proved the entry no. 4188 contained in register no. 19 regarding deposition of nine sealed pullandas with the seal of OPT by the IO/Insp. O.P. Thakur, with him on 29.03.2014 (Ex. PW21/A). He deposed that on 30.03.2014, IO/Insp. O.P. Thakur had deposited with him one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of OPT and he made an entry in register no. 19 at srl. no. 4190 which was proved as Ex. PW 21/B. He further deposed that on 02.04.2014, IO deposited with him one sealed parcel stated to be containing Viscera samples duly sealed with the seal of DDUH, DFMT, DELHI in intact condition along with three sample seals and the Witness made an entry regarding this in register no. 19 at srl. no. 4205 (Ex. PW21/C). He also proved the entry no. 4215 (Ex. PW21/D) regarding deposition of four sealed parcels by the IO on 04.04.2014. Witness stated that on 20.05.2014, Result: Convicted Page 36 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) on the instructions of IO, he had handed over seventeen sealed parcels and three sample seals to Ct. Chander Prakash for depositing the same in FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 37/21/14. The photocopy of RC (road certificate) was proved as Ex. PW21/E. He further stated that on the same day, Ct. Chander Prakash redeposited one pullanda i.e. no. 13 with him in the malkhana containing Viscera sample of deceased and mentioned so in RC Ex. PW21/E as the same could not be deposited with the FSL. He made an entry at srl. no. 4188 in register no. 19 regarding the same. On 22.05.2014, he had again sent the aforesaid parcel on the instructions of the IO through Ct. Rajender for depositing it in the FSL vide entry at srl. no. 2205 (Ex. PW21/H). On 01.02.2015, the FSL result regarding viscera was received by him along with the sealed parcel of viscera. He made an entry in register no. 19 and the same was proved as Ex. PW21/L. He further deposed that on 18.03.2015, FSL report along with exhibits were received by him from FSL and he made an entry in register no. 19 which was proved as Ex. PW21/M. In crossexamination on behalf of accused Beerpal, Mohd. Naseem, Mohit Sharma @ Mantoo and Jaipal, Witness stated that he did not obtain the signatures of IO in register no. 19 at the Result: Convicted Page 37 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) time of depositing the case property as there was no such requirement. He denied the suggestions put to him that the parcels when received by him, were not properly sealed; that sample seals were not handed over to him; that the 17 pullandas were not sealed when they were handed over to Ct. Chander Prakash on 20.05.2014; and without any authority or application by the IO/SHO, he handed over the parcels to Ct. Chander Prakash.
In crossexamination on behalf of accused Naresh @ Anna, Witness deposed that a reason was given by Ct. Chander Prakash regarding non deposit of Viscera sample on 20.05.2014 but he could not recollect the said reason.
PW22 Insp. O.P. Thakur, Investigating Officer of the case deposed about the proceedings conducted by him in this case. He proved the following exhibits :
(1) Seizure memo of the articles which were lifted from the crime spot as Ex. PW19/C. (2) Seizure memo of two registers of Rain Basera Ex. PW 12/A. Result: Convicted Page 38 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) (3) Arrest memos, personal search memos and disclosure statements of accused persons.
(4) Seizure memo of clothes of accused persons Ex. PW1/J to Ex. PW1/M and (5) Pointing out memos of the place of occurrence.
This witness identified all the five accused persons correctly before the Court.
In his crossexamination on behalf of all the accused persons, Witness denied the suggestions of ld. Defense counsel that he did not conduct the investigation of this case in a proper manner. He admitted that PW Monu @ Chhedi was with him during the entire investigation on the day of arrest of four accused persons but denied the suggestion that the accused persons (except accused Naresh @ Anna) were arrested after threatening witness Monu @ Chhedi as Monu @ Chhedi was an easy target for him since he used to work as a daily wager at Labour Chowk along with the accused persons.
This witness was reexamined by the ld. Addl. P.P. for the State on the issue of identity of accused persons, u/s 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein the witness admitted that he had arrested all the four accused persons namely Jai Pal, Beerpal, Mantoo Result: Convicted Page 39 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) Sharma and Mohd. Naseem and that they were present in the Court. He also admitted that he had taken their signatures on arrest memos as well as on personal search memos.
PW 22 was again crossexamined on behalf of accused persons except accused Naresh @ Anna, wherein he denied the suggestion put to him by the ld. Defense counsel that signatures of above four accused persons were obtained by him on blank arrest memos which were filled up later.
5. Ld. Addl. P.P. dropped witness Ct. Vikas who was listed at srl. no. 14 in the list of prosecution witnesses since other witnesses of similar facts had been examined already. She also dropped witness Sanjay Kumar, cited at srl. no. 12 in the list of witnesses, as his testimony had no direct relation with the merits of this case.
6. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons were put to them while recording their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied the allegations leveled and refuted the prosecution evidence.
Result: Convicted Page 40 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16)
7. Accused Beerpal submitted that he was not present at the crime spot. On 01.04.2014, in between 07:00 to 08:00 PM, he was present at Labour chowk. At that time, one police Gypsy reached there and on the pointing out by PW1 Monu @ Chhedi Police officials arrested him and brought him to the Police Station. No memos were prepared in his presence. He alleged that he had been falsely implicated in this case. On the night of 01.04.2014, Investigating Officer (IO) took his signatures on some blank printed papers. Police had not seized any clothes from his possession. Blood stained clothes were planted upon him by the IO. He further submitted that he was doing labour work at labour chowk and accused Mantoo Sharma, Mohd. Naseem and Jaipal were also doing similar work at labour chowk but he had no personal relations with them prior to his arrest. On 01.04.2014 police came alongwith Monu @ Chhedi at labour chowk and took 45 labourers including him and brought all to the Police Station, where they gave merciless beatings to all of them including PW1. PW1 Monu @ Chhedi used to collect garbage and met them at Labour Chowk. Due to this, he knew them prior to the incident. When the Police conducted inquiry and threatened him (PW1) with false implication in the present FIR, under pressure from the police, he falsely Result: Convicted Page 41 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) disclosed not only his name but also names of other accused persons.
8. Accused Mantoo Sharma deposed that on 02.04.2014, police took his signatures on some blank papers and some blank printed papers. When he was arrested, coaccused Beerpal was already in Police custody. No memos were prepared in his presence. Police had not taken any clothes from his possession. Blood stained clothes were planted upon him. He did not give any disclosure statement to the police. He did not point out any place of incident. He was also doing labour work at Labour chowk alongwith Beerpal and Jaipal where PW1 Monu @ Chhedi used to collect garbage. Due to this reason, he knew them prior to the incident. When this accused was brought to Police Station (PS), PW1 Monu @ Chhedi was already present. Besides him, other accused namely Beerpal and some other suspects were already present in PS. He further stated that when the Police conducted inquiry and threatened him (PW1) to implicate in the present FIR, under pressure from police, he falsely disclosed not only his name but also names of other accused persons. On the date of incident, accused claimed that he was not present at the spot but at the house of his friend Deepak S/o Raj Kumar.
Result: Convicted Page 42 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16)
9. Accused Mohd. Naseem @ Samim also gave his statement on the same lines as the abovesaid accused persons. He further stated that he was arrested by the police officials at about 09:30 AM from labour chowk, Uttam Nagar, Delhi after 34 days of the incident. When he was arrested, coaccused Mantoo Sharma, Beerpal and Jaipal were already in police custody. No memos were prepared in his presence. He also stated about how PW1 Monu @ Chhedi was known to them and why he disclosed their names, in the same terms as accused Mantoo and Mohd. Naseem.
10. Accused Jaipal also got his statement recorded on the same lines as the abovesaid accused persons.
11. Accused Naresh @ Anna stated that he was arrested at 12 O'clock on 05.05.2014 from Murari Cold Storage. He was not present at the crime spot on the date of incident but was present at his native place much prior to the date of incident. When he was brought to the Police Station (PS) after his arrest, PW1 Monu @ Chhedi was already present in the PS and under pressure from the police, he had pointed Result: Convicted Page 43 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) out towards him (this accused) while falsely stating that he was involved in the present incident.
12. The accused persons opted to lead evidence and produced three witnesses in their defense.
13.DW1 Raj Kumar deposed that he is a labourer in a cold storage in his village. Accused Naresh used to work with him in the cold storage. On 05.05.2014, some police officials from Delhi police in civil dress had come to cold storage and took away Naresh @ Anna when he was doing his duty, on the pretext of making some inquiries from him. After that he did not return to his duties at the cold storage. He further stated that he was not aware about the present case.
14. DW1 was crossexamined by the ld. Addl. P.P. for the State wherein he deposed that he knew accused Naresh @ Anna since his birth. Accused Naresh @ Anna was working with him in the cold storage since the year 2012. He did not know about the details of the present case. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely in order to save the accused Naresh @ Anna. DW 1 did not have any Result: Convicted Page 44 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) document to show that accused Naresh was working in the cold storage at Mathura since the year 2012.
15. DW2 Raj Kumar deposed that he is working in the cold storage since the year 2012. He knew accused Naresh @ Anna as he belongs to the same village. He had worked with him in the said cold storage regularly till April/May, 2014. Police came to arrest Naresh @ Anna from the cold storage on 05.05.2014 and took him away saying that he is required for inquiry in a murder case.
16. In his crossexamination, DW 2 deposed that he did not have any document to show that accused Naresh was working in the cold storage on daily wages. He further deposed that he had come to Court at the instance of brother of accused Naresh.
17. DW3 Shri Niwas deposed that he is a Painter and works as a labourer at Uttam Nagar, labour chowk. Accused Beerpal used to live in the same house with him. They used to come back at 06:00 PM. On 28.03.2014, accused Beerpal was with him. They went together to their place of work in the morning of 29.03.2014. He did not return Result: Convicted Page 45 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) with him after the work was over for the said day. On the next day, he came to know that accused had been implicated in the present case.
18. In crossexamination, this witness deposed that accused Beerpal was working at a different place at that time. He did not return to the house during the nights of 29 th and 30th March, 2014. In the morning of 30.03.2014, he went to PS Uttam Nagar for informing the police. There he came to know that Beerpal had been challaned. The brother of accused Naresh had informed him about the date of hearing of the present case. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed at the instance of brother of accused Naresh or that he had tutored him.
19. Arguments have been advanced by ld. State Counsel as also on behalf of all the accused persons except accused Naresh @ Anna. On behalf of accused Naresh @ Anna, arguments were not addressed despite multiple opportunities as is reflected in the order dt. 06.06.2019. Rival submissions have been duly considered alongwith the evidence brought on record.
Finding:
Result: Convicted Page 46 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16)
20. As was highlighted at the outset, the prosecution case rests majorly on the veracity of the eye witness account. The statement given by PW 1 Monu@Chhedi to the police which was the earliest version of the incident of 28.3.2014 corroborates the court testimony of PW 1. There are of course some minor contradictions/additions in the court testimony but none which can put a doubt over the presence of the witness in the park where the alleged incident occurred on the night of 28.3.2014.
21. Before addressing the arguments raised by ld. Defense counsel in regard to the contradictions in the evidence of PW 1, it would be relevant to first highlight the aspects which confirm the veracity of the eye witness. The accused persons were all known to PW 1/eye witness. Just as PW 1 himself, the accused persons were of the same social strata being labourers of the same area and on this assertion, the witness convincingly replied in his cross examination. No suggestion of falsehood was given to PW 1 regarding his previous acquaintance with the accused persons. Infact in their respective defense statements, all the accused persons except accused Naresh, admitted their previous acquaintance with PW 1. Further, none of Result: Convicted Page 47 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) them alleged any previous enmity with PW 1 which could be a motive for false implication. There is corroboration regarding the meeting of all the 5 accused before the alleged incident in the statement given to Police and the court deposition of PW 1 wherein he stated/deposed that Naresh @ Anna and Wasim came on a motorcycle and handed over some money to Mantoo. There is also corroboration regarding buying of liquor by Mantoo. Significant to highlight that there is corroboration even with regard to the manner in which deceased was first molested i.e. when the deceased female sitting with accused persons got up and started to walk on the road inside the park, Anna was the first one to press her chest from back followed by Mohd. Naseem (referred to as Waseem by the witness) who shut her mouth as she started screaming. Thereafter, Mantoo and Jaipal @ Jitender also started teasing her, and she was disrobed. On the aspect of disrobing there is contradiction since in his court testimony, PW 1 stated that it was Jaipal @ Jitender who removed the saree of the lady whereas in his statement to the police, he alleged it was Beerpal who pulled the saree of deceased but the fact of her being disrobed is confirmed from the testimony of PW 2 who was the crime team Incharge. When PW 2 reached the crime scene, he Result: Convicted Page 48 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) saw that a green and white colored saree had been kept on the body which itself was kept upside down on tree trunk. The photographs of the body lying on the trunk also confirm the fact of her having been completely disrobed. In addition, pieces of broken bangles were also recovered from the crime scene which also corroborate the factum of assault on deceased while she was being molested.
22. Further, there is sufficient corroboration with regard to the manner in which the deceased was subsequently assaulted with pieces of stones, her falling down after being hit with stone, her continuous screams even after falling down and subsequent assault by all the accused persons with pieces of stones which ultimately killed her. In regard to the assault on the deceased by accused persons with pieces of stones, apart from the ocular testimony of PW1, forensic evidence corroborates the prosecution case. Ex.P.8 which was sent to FSL, contained two pieces of stones (Marble & cemented material) which contained blood stains and was sent for forensic examination, also reveals blood of 'B' group the same as that of the deceased. In his statement to the police, PW 1 gave specific attributions to the accused person i.e. Naseem hit on the head of deceased with beer bottle Result: Convicted Page 49 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) followed by Jaipal who hit the face of the deceased with a stone and then Anna as also Beerpal hit her with stones which resulted in her immediate death. In the court testimony, he gave specific attribution only to Mantoo i.e. hitting the head of deceased with beer bottle.
Regarding the others, PW 1 deposed that all other accused persons hit the deceased with pieces of bricks & stones on the back and chest of the female. However, it is probable that the accused persons came to park after having liquor since PW1 specifically deposed before the Court as also to the police that he saw Mantoo Sharma purchasing liquor before coming to the park. After the lady died, she was dragged for some time and then all 5 accused persons picked up the body and put her upside on the tree trunk. It is important to highlight that at this stage some contradictions/omissions can be observed in the testimony of PW 1. First (contradiction), the act of hitting the deceased with beer bottle is ascribed to Mohd. Naseem in the statement to the police but in Court, PW 1 stated that it was Mantoo who hit on the head of deceased with beer bottle. Second (omission), in the statement to the police, Monu stated that after the female died, she was dragged before being picked up by all the accused persons and in this regard, specific role was attributed to each of the accused Result: Convicted Page 50 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) persons. In the court testimony however, the aspect of deceased's body being dragged is missing. Third, regarding the extra judicial confession, PW 1 stated in the Court that before leaving the crime scene after killing Sukhmati, accused Mantoo told him that 'Kaam ho gaya hai, maar diya hai" whereas in the statement to the police, he stated that accused Mantoo and Beerpal saw him whereafter Beerpal came to him and said 'kaand ho gaya, aurat mar gayi' and that he was scared.
23.In regard to the deceased being hit on the head with a beer bottle, there appears to be exaggeration from the witness. This observation is based on 3 facts/aspects. First, there is contradiction as to who actually hit the deceased - Naseem or Mantoo? Second, the medical opinion regarding cause of death is forceful impact on the head with a heavy object like stone whereas though beer bottle is hard, it is not heavy. Third and most importantly, if the deceased had been hit with a beer bottle or if the accused persons had been drinking in the park, the IO or the crime team would have picked up empty bottles of beer/liquor. However, no such articles/bottles were found. This would mean that to the extent that accused persons allegedly were drinking liquor and tried to force the deceased also to have the same, testimony Result: Convicted Page 51 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) of PW 1 is to be disbelieved. Fourth and most importantly, no liquor was found in the visceral examination of the deceased which means that she didn't have liquor with the accused persons.
24.There is omission by PW 1 to state in his court testimony the fact of body being dragged after Sukhmati died. However, the statement of PW 1 to the police is corroborative of the injuries appearing on the lower and upper limbs of the deceased. Regarding extra judicial confession, the contradiction was not highlighted by the defense counsel but since the Court has observed it, same cannot be overlooked. This means that Court can not read the extra judicial confession of Mantoo. Nevertheless, the Court is still entitled to conclude that despite the contradiction with regard to who made the extra judicial confession - whether Mantoo or Beerpal/Beerpal, presence of PW 1 is proved at the crime scene since in his statement to the police, he named both Beerpal and Mantoo as the ones who saw him (PW 1) while exiting the park after the incident.
25.It has been highlighted by the ld. Defense counsel that narration of PW 1 to the effect that he kept watching the entire incident (which Result: Convicted Page 52 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) lasted for about 2 hours) appears on the face of it to be not believable. After carefully scanning the oral evidence of PW 1, the Court does not feel that the Witness could not have been at the crime scene for the entire duration. It has to be borne in mind that human curiosity is a difficult trait to handle. Deceased was not a friend or relative of the Witness. Infact, he knew her to be a beggar in the area and someone who used to drink though he didn't know her name. Therefore when he saw the female with accused persons, there is reason to believe that out of sheer curiosity as to what was she doing with the accused persons (who also were known to him), he kept watching them. It also has to be kept in mind that the Witness himself was of a very young age, just 18 yrs in 2014 and it is reasonable to believe that his curiosity got coupled with youthful excitement which prodded the witness to stay on and keep watching. Once the molestation started and assault followed, it would have been all the more difficult for any person to leave the scene. Infact, when one of the accused persons i.e. Mantoo allegedly looked at him and told him about the death of the female, PW 1 also started to run behind them (as per his chief examination) which is probably the most natural reaction that anyone would show when faced with such a situation Result: Convicted Page 53 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) because staying at the crime scene would have meant that even he could have been implicated in the murder. However, in his cross examination, PW 1 clearly contradicted himself by stating that after the accused persons left, he started looking for garbage but soon left thereafter since he didn't feel like working. This is at complete variance with his chief examination, as highlighted above but the statement in cross examination is so unnatural that it is difficult to believe. No person who has just a witnessed a heinous crime like murder would, immediately after witnessing the crime, begin to go about his usual chore. However, this contradiction does not in any way affect the veracity of witnesses' s assertion that he was present at the crime scene. In this regard, another important aspect deserves a highlight. In his crossexamination, PW 1 admitted the suggestion that he had reached near the park at about 8 pm and that he already knew all the accused. This suggestion given to the witness meant that even the accused persons admitted the presence of the eye witness on the crime scene.
26.Ld. Counsel for the accused persons further highlighted that PW 1 Result: Convicted Page 54 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) in his court testimony, deposed that while returning from the crime scene, he saw a sentry standing at the gate of police station but he did not tell him anything. This conduct of the witness was highly improbable. The Court however finds the same to be completely probable, for the following persons. First, witness Monu was from the same working class as the accused persons i.e. rag pickers/labourers and thus it is natural to expect that community loyalty would have worked against the disclosure of such information to the police. Secondly, given the poor reputation and low confidence that police officials have in the minds of the citizens, it is most probable that PW 1 would have been scared of him only being implicated in the crime by the police and thus thought it best not to disclose anything to the police.
27.There is of course no explanation coming forth from the prosecution as to why did police zeroed in on rag pickers and picked up Monu for questioning but in the understanding of the Court, it has to be handed out to the police that given their experience in crime investigation, after looking at the crime scene, they really are in the best position to take leads and discover the persons behind the crime.
Result: Convicted Page 55 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) Perusal of chief examination of IO/PW 22 brings out a possible reason. Looking at the time of crime, he tried to figure out the criminals and 'kabaris' (garbage collectors) who used to roam in the area at night.
28.PW 8 Ramanuj Pandey who was the caretaker of the 'rain basera' where deceased used to stay alongwith her husband (Jogeshwar) and son (Shiv Kumar) deposed about the nature/personality of deceased. He deposed that she used to consume liquor and was quarrelsome. However, regarding the occurrence of 28.3.2014, PW 8 deposed that he last saw Sukhmati at 12 am (night intervening 28 and 29 March 2014) when a food van came to deliver food to residents of 'rain basera'. As per the statement given to the police, she took 2 plates and went towards her husband though the same is not stated in his chief examination. Thereafter, he did not keep a watch on her. He also proved her entry in the register maintained by him for keeping records of the residents of 'rain basera' as she was the last one to come on 28.3.2014. He further deposed that accused Mantoo and Jaipal @ Jitender (witness identified him as Satender) also used to come and stay in the same 'rain basera' where deceased used to stay.
Result: Convicted Page 56 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) It is relevant to highlight at this stage that PW 8 was not cross examined on the aspect of accused Mantoo and Jaipal @ Jitender staying in the 'rain basera' under Uttam Nagar flyover. PW 8 was only cross examined on the aspect of Jaipal @ Jitender/ Satender coming to the Uttam Nagar 'rain basera' on the night of 28.3.2014 i.e. early morning of 29.03.2014. PW 8 asserted that Satender came around 4 am but there was no corresponding entry in the register which led the defense counsel to suggest to the witness that Satender did not come in the early morning of 29 March 2014. The suggestion was however denied. No suggestion was given qua accused Mantoo's stay in 'rain basera' of Uttam Nagar except general suggestion of falsehood. The arrest of both these accused has been shown to have been effected from the same 'rain basera' which corroborates the deposition of PW 8 that both the accused persons used to stay in the Uttam Nagar 'rain basera'. As has already been highlighted, PW 8 identified accused Jaipal @ Jitender as Satender. He was categoric in his assertion that accused Jaipal @ Jitender disclosed his name as Satender. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons highlighted this aspect to contend that the identity of this accused becomes doubtful in view of the testimony of PW 8. The argument was duly considered but in Result: Convicted Page 57 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) the understanding of the Court, the same does not hold much weight for the following reasons. First, the witness correctly identified the accused in Court as the one who used to come to the Uttam Nagar night shelter. Second, Jitender and Satender are rhyming words. It is quite probable that PW 8 heard the pronunciation as "Satender" and accordingly noted the name as such in the attendance register.
29.Whether or not Jaipal @ Jitender came back to the 'rain basera' at 4 am on 29.3.2014 is not relevant for proving or disproving his guilt. What is important is the assertion of PW 8 (on which aspect he was not cross examined) that accused Mantoo and Jaipal @ Jitender also used to come and stay in the same 'rain basera' as the deceased Sukhmati. This meant that both these accused must have known the victim (given her loud nature and propensity to drink liquor) and thus it is not surprising if deceased was found in the company of accused Mantoo and Jaipal @ Jitender alongwith other accused persons. PW 8 also deposed categorically that Sukhmati had a drinking habit. The aspect of accused Naresh @ Anna giving money to accused Mantoo in the evening hours of 28.3.2014 and thereafter, Mantoo buying liquor has been deposed by PW 1. It is thus quite probable that Result: Convicted Page 58 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) accused persons lured her into the park with the promise of giving free liquor. Once the accused persons reached the park, Sukhmati was molested to which she strongly resisted by screaming. As a reaction, the accused persons wanting to quieten her so as to avoid public attention, hit her on the head with stones resulting in her death.
30.It is important to highlight a few aspects at this stage. PW 8 deposed in his chief examination that Sukhmati left 'rain basera' at night after having food i.e. at 12.30 am. If his version is to be believed, the accused persons cannot be held guilty since as per eye witness Monu, the incident occurred from about 8 pm till 10.30 pm. However, as per the PMR, there was no food found in the stomach of deceased which meant that she had last eaten something around 6 pm on 28.3.2014. If she had eaten dinner around 12.30 am, PM examination would have shown undigested food in the stomach, given that she was found dead in the early hours of 29.3.2014. The PMR thus contradicts PW 8 Ramanuj on the point of deceased having food at 12:30 AM. In view of the contradiction between deposition of PW 8 and the PM report, it is the statement of PW 1 which has to believed with regard to the time of alleged occurrence. Testimony of Result: Convicted Page 59 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) PW1 to the effect that he saw the accused persons with the deceased in the park after 08:00 PM also finds corroboration by his own statement given to the police, wherein he mentioned that he saw the accused persons in the park after 09:00 PM, after accused Mantoo Sharma had purchased liquor.
31.Ld. Counsel for the accused persons highlighted that in the statement of PW 12 Ct. Ankur, it has come on record that husband and son of Shiv Kumar came to the crime scene where they disclosed the name of the deceased to the Investigating Officer OP Thakur after 1 pm when the IO reached the crime spot. However, before the Inspector OP Thakur (2nd IO) came to the spot, body had already been shifted to the mortuary at 9.45 am and till 11.20 pm, it was SI Narsingh who was conducting investigation, as is revealed from the testimony of PW 12. Thus there is patent contradiction in regard to the identification of the dead body by Jogeshwar and Shiv Kumar. With regard to the disclosure of identity of deceased to police, the above highlighted contradiction stands clarified in the statement of IO PW 22 wherein he stated in his chief examination that Jogeshwar and Shiv Kumar were taken to the mortuary where they identified the Result: Convicted Page 60 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) dead body. Careful perusal of testimony of PW 12 reveals that he never stated that Shiv Kumar and Jogeshwar identified the dead body in the park.
32.There is also forensic evidence which connects the accused persons with the crime. The clothes of 4 accused persons were seized by the IO when he apprehended them. The seizure memos in this regard are - Ex. PW 1/M of accused Jaipal; Ex. PW1 /L of accused Mohd. Naseem; Ex. PW 1/ J of accused Mantoo; and Ex. PW 1/ K of accused Beerpal. The clothes had blood stains which were sent for FSL examination. As per the FSL report Ex. PW18/B, blood group 'B' was found on the exhibit 14 (a) which was the tshirt of Beerpal, on exhibit 16 (a) which was the shirt of Mohd. Naseem and exhibit 17
(a) which was the shirt of Jaipal @ Jitender. The blood group of deceased Sukhmati also was 'B'. There is of course no DNA profiling to further confirm that blood found on the clothes of the accused persons was actually of Sukhmati but even this limited evidence of matching of blood group points towards the culpability of the accused persons. How else would 3 accused persons have blood of same group on their clothes and which blood group matches with that of the Result: Convicted Page 61 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) deceased. There is no possibility that police would have planted blood stained clothes on the accused persons, which were having blood group as that of the victim. Accused Naresh's clothes could not be seized since he had stated to have burnt his clothes. It needs a highlight that accused Naresh @ Anna was arrested after more than a month of the crime on 28.3.2014.
33.Though there is some contradiction appearing in the testimonies of PW 1, PW 14 and PW 22 (IO) in regard to the place of arrest of the accused persons, the contradictions can be safely ignored since the specific areas mentioned in the respective testimonies of these witnesses from where the accused persons were arrested, are all in close vicinity of each other i.e. rain basera Shiv Vihar Nala, rain basera Uttam Nagar terminal and labour chowk. In so far as arrest of accused Naresh @ Anna is concerned, though in cross examination of arresting witness (PW 14), ld. Defense counsel tried to bring out from him that Naresh was arrested from Delhi and not from his village in dist. Mathura, in defense evidence on behalf of accused Naresh, precisely the very fact that Naresh was picked from his native place was proved by DW 1 and DW 2.
Result: Convicted Page 62 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16)
34. The defense witnesses (DW1 & DW2) were trying to prove that Naresh had been in his native village since 2012 and had been working in a cold storage. DW 1 and DW 2 asserted themselves to be the coworkers of accused Naresh in the cold storage. However, no documentary evidence in the form of muster rolls or attendance rolls were produced to prove the said assertion of Naresh being in his native village since 2012. The defense evidence in this regard is thus difficult to believe. The witnesses did not even disclose the name of the 'cold storage' where they were all supposed to have been working.
35. Even the testimony of DW3 is not inspiring since the witness merely stated that accused Beerpal used to go to work with him. He specifically deposed about Beerpal having gone to work with him on 28.03.2014 and that he returned also on the same evening. He further deposed that in the morning of 29.03.2014, both of them went out together for work. However, nothing has been specified as to what work did accused Beerpal go for which makes the testimony of DW3 doubtful. Even assuming that accused Beerpal came back in the evening from work alongwith DW3 on 28.03.2014, the same still Result: Convicted Page 63 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) does not help the accused persons since the alleged occurrence took place after 08:00 PM.
36. Further, in the statement of PW 1 Monu which was given to the police, he narrated as to how after dragging the body of Sukhmati for a short distance, she was picked up by all the accused. This aspect gets corroborated by the testimony of PW 4 Const. Satpal who took photographs of the crime scene. He stated that blood stains were there at 23 places on the concrete road inside the park at a distance of 60 meters from where the body was found lying on a tree trunk. The reason for blood stains having been found at a distance from where the body was found hung is that after being dragged for some time, the body was picked up by the accused persons. Consequently, so long as the body was dragged, blood stains were found on the concrete and thereafter only at the place where body was found hung.
37. The last argument raised by the ld. Defense counsel was with regard to identification of PW 1 Monu as an 'informer' by PW 14. This witness was a part of the arresting team which apprehended the accused person except Naresh @ Anna. Ld. Defense counsel's Result: Convicted Page 64 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) contention was that PW 1 was infact nothing more than a planted witness and that is why he had been referred to as 'secret informer' by PW 14. It needs no highlight that the prosecution case itself is that the disclosure to the police regarding the incident was made by Monu @ Chhedi. The occurrence was narrated by him and he was also instrumental in getting the accused arrested. Thus at the time when accused persons were being searched for and subsequently arrested, PW 1 was with them as the one giving inputs about their whereabouts. There is thus nothing unnatural about PW 14 referring to PW 1 as the informer since there no doubt about the fact that at the investigation stage, he infact was the lead in this case for the investigating officer to follow.
38. The question which finally needs to be answered is whether the homicide of deceased Sukhmati amounts to murder. The testimony of PW1 Monu reveals that when Sukhmati got up and started to walk away from the accused persons, she was teased and then disrobed as a result of which she started screaming. It appears that in order to prevent her from screaming, she was hit on the head as a result of which she fell down but she did not stop screaming. Resultantly, the Result: Convicted Page 65 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) subsequent blows on her head were given which killed her.
39. In the understanding of the Court, though the purpose of hitting the deceased on her head was to stop her screams, the fact that she was hit again on the head resulting in her death would put this act in the category of Murder i.e. u/s 300 IPC, Explanation 4 th which is as follows :
"If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid".
The act of hitting the deceased on the head with force of a heavy stone has to be classfied as one which would cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Further, the act was without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury.
40. As the Court understands it, after careful consideration of entire evidence on record, testimony of PW 1 is worthy of being placed Result: Convicted Page 66 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) reliance upon. The eye witness account, except the exaggeration of deceased being hit with a beer bottle on her head and that accused persons forced the deceased to drink liquor, appears to be truthful and stands corroborated by his statement given to the police as also the medical and forensic evidence. The presence of accused persons on the crime scene has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are of course contradictions which have appeared in the testimony of PW's but those are bound to occur because of passage of time. In any case, most of them can be explained. Despite the contradictions, the eye witness account is believable and suffers from no infirmity such that it has to be disbelieved.
CONCLUSION :
41. From the above discussion on the evidence led, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, molested the deceased and on resistance having been shown by her, physically assaulted her with stones on her head resulting in fatal injuries. The accused persons in furtherance of their common intention molested the Result: Convicted Page 67 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) deceased by disrobing her and thereafter killed her. Consequently, Prosecution has proved its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused persons namely Naresh @ Anna, Mohd. Naseem, Jaipal @ Jitender, Mantoo Sharma and Beerpal are accordingly held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/354 IPC r/w section 34 IPC.
They be heard on the point of Sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (AJAY GULATI) COURT ON: 26.08.2019 ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi. Result: Convicted Page 68 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) IN THE COURT OF AJAY GULATI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI. IN THE MATTER OF Case No. 55992/16 FIR No. 315/14 PS Uttam Nagar U/s 302/354/34 IPC STATE VERSUS (1) NARESH @ ANNA S/O SH. BHOJ RAJ R/O VILLAGE BALRAM PUR CHOTHAI, PO BALDEV, PS MAHABAN, DISTT. MATHURA, U.P. (2) MOHD. NASEEM @ SAMIM S/O MOHD. NAEEM R/O H.NO. 431, KRISHNA COLONY, KALI BASTI, UTTAM NAGAR, 42.DELHI. Result: Convicted Page 69 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) (3) JAIPAL @ JITENDER S/O SH. KEDARI SINGH R/O H.NO. E70, PRATAP GARDEN, NEAR PS - BINDAPUR, NEW DELHI. Contd....2. Result: Convicted Page 70 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) : 2 : (4) MANTOO SHARMA S/O UMA SHARMA R/O H.NO. A70, MAHARANI ENCLAVE, HASTSAL, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI. (5) BEERPAL S/O LATE AMAR SINGH R/O NEAR GOPAL MANDIR, BHAGWATI VIHAR, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI. ORDER ON SENTENCE : 29.08.2019 :
Present : Ms.Nimmi Sisodia, Ld. Addl. P.P.for the State.
All the Convicts are produced from J.C. Sh. R.P. Sarwan, ld. Amicuscuriae for all the convicts except convict Naresh @ Anna.
None for convict Naresh @ Anna.
The matter has been listed today for pronouncing of Sentence in view of the judgment dt. 26.08.2019, recording Result: Convicted Page 71 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) conviction of all the five accused persons.
Submissions were heard on behalf of the convicted persons on the point of Sentence on 28.08.2019.
The conviction has been recorded u/s 302 IPC and u/s 354 IPC. Qua conviction u/s 302 IPC, convicts can either be sentenced to death or to a life term.
Ld. Counsel for the convicts have submitted that the offence does not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare' cases and consequently, does not warrant imposition of Contd....3.
Result: Convicted Page 72 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) : 3 : capital punishment.
Ld. State counsel also, very fairly submitted that she is also praying for imposition of rigorous life term on the convicts and is not pressing for sentence of death.
Qua the offence u/s 354 IPC, ld. counsel for the convicts submitted that though a finding has been returned by the Court that the victim was disrobed, the PMR does not reveal any sexual assault by the convicts on the victim. Consequently, prayer for imposing minimum sentence has been made.
Conversely, ld. State counsel has argued that the manner in which the victim was molested i.e. she was completely disrobed and in the process even sustained injuries on her shoulder, makes out a case for imposition of maximum sentence.
Rival submissions have been duly considered.
In so far as the sentence u/s 302 IPC is concerned, the Court agrees with the contention of ld. Counsel for the convicts that the offence does not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare' cases. The act was undoubtedly heinous but falls short of shaking the conscious of the court. Accordingly, all the convicts are sentenced to Rigorous Result: Convicted Page 73 of 68 State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) Imprisonment for life for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Fine of Rs. 10,000/ each is imposed on all the convicts, in default of payment of which, they shall undergo further R.I. for six months.
Qua the offence u/s 354 IPC, the Court concurs with the submissions of ld. State counsel. The victim before being done to death, was subjected to molestation of the highest degree. For a women to be disrobed completely amounts not merely to denuding her but robbing her of dignity completely.
Consequently, the act calls for imposition of highest punishment. All the Convicts are accordingly sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years each Contd....4.
Result: Convicted Page 74 of 68State Vs. NARESH @ ANNA ETC. FIR 315/14 (55992/16) : 4 : for the offence u/s 354 IPC. Fine of Rs. 5,000/ each is also imposed on all the convicts, in default of payment of which, each of them will further undergo R.I. for 02 months.
Fine has not been paid.
Both the Sentences of all the convicts shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is given to all the convicts.
Copy of the Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to all the convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY GULATI GULATI ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Date:
(AJAY GULATI) 2019.08.30 COURT ON: 29.08.2019 ASJ05 (West), THC, 16:30:23 +0530 Delhi.Result: Convicted Page 75 of 68