Delhi District Court
State vs . Gopal Singh Negi on 16 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 02 : CENTRAL DISTRICT :
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi
FIR No. 45/2009
SC No. 27738/16
P.S. Anand Parbat
U/s 302 IPC
1. SC No. of this case : 27738/16
2. Date of commission of offence : 23.03.2009
3. Name and address of accused : Gopal Singh Negi S/o Sh. Kalyan Singh
R/o H. No. 16, Gali No. 2, Nehru Nagar,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.
4. Offence complained of : 302 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Final order : Acquitted.
7. Date of institution : 12.06.2009
8. Date of such order : 16.12.2020
JUDGEMENT
1. Accused Gopal Singh Negi has faced trial for committing offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC".) on the allegations that he alongwith coaccused Ravi Kumar Meena has committed murder of one Anil.
2. Before coming to the factual background of the case, at this stage it would be relevant to mention the proceedings which took place in the present case. Originally, the FIR of this case was registered only against accused Ravi Kumar Meena for the offence u/s 302 IPC and after completion of investigation the chargesheet was also filed only against him. After committal of the case to this Court, the matter proceeded for framing of charge and recording of evidence. During evidence two eye witnesses, PW3 Santosh Kumar and PW15 DrupadKumar, during their respective testimony named present accused Gopal Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2020.12.21 16:59:23 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 1 of 17 Singh Negi as one of the assailant of the crime. On the basis of evidence of these two eye witnesses, Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 11.04.2012 summoned the accused Gopal Singh Negi invoking powers under section 319 CrPC, this is how, accused Gopal Singh Negi has faced trial in the present case. It would also relevant to mention here that the present accused was summoned by the Ld. Predecessor when the matter qua accused Ravi Kumar Meena was almost at the final stage of recording of his statement u/s 313 CrPC, therefore, trial of present accused was separated from the case qua accused Ravi Kumar Meena. Importantly to be mentioned here, accused Gopal Singh Negi was earlier examined as prosecution witness (PW14). He gave his statement to the effect that on the day of incident accused Ravi Kumar Meena was employed with him to whom he has sent to collect the cable charges and later on he was informed that he has killed someone.
3. It is again important to take note of the fact that vide separate order both dated 25.01.2014 passed by Ld. Predecessor, coaccused Ravi Kumar Meena has already been convicted u/s 304(1) IPC and accordingly sentenced. The order of conviction of coaccused Ravi Kumar Meena was challenged by him in appeal before Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the said appeal was dismissed, consequently the order of his conviction attained finality.
4. Reverting back to the facts of the case, the case of the prosecution is that in the year 2009, accused Gopal Singh Negi was running the business of cable operator in the area of Anand Parbat and convict Ravi Kumar Meena was his employee. On the fateful date i.e. on 23.03.2009 at about 08:30 PM, convict Ravi Kumar Meena alongwith his one associate had gone to collect the cable charges at gali no. 8, Nehru Vihar, Anand Parbat, Delhi. At the time, convict Ravi Kumar Meena alongwith his associate was collecting the cable charges, deceased Anil alongwith Suraj Bhan (PW2) was coming after purchasing the vegetables. The elbow of Ravi Kumar Meena and deceased Anil got struck due to which the receipt book of Ravi Kumar Meena fell down. On that, Ravi Kumar Meena got agitated and started uttering abuses to deceased Anil despite repeated apology by the later.
Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL CHARU Date: AGGARWAL 2020.12.21 16:59:31 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 2 of 17
Ravi Kumar Meena got agitated to the extent that he immediately took out knife from his pocket and repeatedly stabbed into the stomach of deceased Anil Kumar due to which Anil Kumar fell down and filled in pool of blood. The entire incident was witnessed by Sh. Sanotsh Kumar (PW1), who at the time of incident was sitting on a rickshaw just near the spot of incident and on seeing that Ravi Kumar Meena has stabbed Anil, he (PW1) shouted "Chaku Maar Diya Chaku Maar Diya". On hearing the noise, immediately the other residents of the gali particularly Drupad Ram, Badri Prasad @ Guddu and Adalat Ram came out. Sh. Santosh Kumar, Adalat Ram and Drupad Ram shifted the injured to Hindu Rao Hospital where he was declared brought dead. Some of the residents Particularly Badri Prasad @ Guddu (PW9) apprehended Ravi Kumar Meena at the spot and snatched knife from his hand. 100 number call was made and at PS Anand Parbat, DD No. 74 B was recorded regarding the incident. On receipt of the DD, ASI Sultan Singh alongwith Ct. Pawan reached at the spot, where several public persons alongwith Ravi Kumar Meena (now convicted) were found by them. The public persons handed over the custody of Ravi Kumar Meena and one knife to the police officials reached at the spot. Police officials were informed that injured has been shifted to hospital. In the meantime, the information vide DD No. 77 B was received at PS Anand Parbat from Hindu Rao Hospital that one person namely Anil has been brought dead in the hospital. The information was passed to the concerned SHO. Inspector Raghubir Singh reached at the spot. ASI Zora Singh alongwith Ct. Yogender reached at Hindu Rao Hospital where they found 3 public persons namely Santosh Kumar, Drupad Ram and Adalat Ram. ASI Zora Singh recorded the statement (Ex. PW1/A) of Sh. Santosh Kumar (PW1), on the basis of which FIR was registered. ASI Zora Singh also collected the blood stained cloths of the deceased. The case property i.e. knife was handed over by ASI Sultan Singh to IO which was sent by the IO to FSL. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted, thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
5. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed by the IO in the concerned court of Ld. MM who after compliance of provisions of Section Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21 16:59:40 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 3 of 17 207 CrPC committed the case to the Sessions. As already noted above, originally the chargesheet was filed only against accused Ravi Kumar Meena who was later on convicted also but the two eye witnesses, Santosh Kumar and DrupadRam also named present accused during their respective testimony, therefore, the Ld. Predecessor by invoking powers u/s 319 CrPC summoned this accused.
6. Vide order dated 30.11.2012 charge u/s 109 r/w 302 IPC was framed against the accused Gopal Singh Negi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined total 20 witnesses to prove the charge against the accused Gopal Singh Negi.
Public witnesses
8. PW1 is Sh, Santosh, eye witness of the alleged incident, who has stated that on 23.03.2009 at about 8 p.m. he was sitting on a rickshaw in front of his house bearing House No. 284/Q, Nehru Nagar, Gali No. 8, Anand Parbat, Delhi under an electric pole. At that time deceased Anil and Suraj Bhan, both tenants of this PW, were returning from the market after purchasing vegetables. Accused Gopal and his employee Ravi Meena were collecting cable charges from the residents of the locality and issuing receipts. The elbow of Anil came in contact with Ravi Kumar Meena due to which his receipt book fell down. Accused Ravi Kumar Meena started abusing Anil in filthy language despite offering apology by Anil. Anil picked up the receipt book and handed over the same to Ravi Meena. In the meantime, accused Gopal Singh Meena caught hold Anil and uttered "Ravi Chaku Maar". Accused Ravi Kumar Meena inflicted 2/3 knife blows on the chest of Anil. This PW raised noise "Chaku Maar Diya Chaku Maar Diya". Thereafter this PW alongwith Adalat and Drupad shifted injured Anil to Hindu Rao Hospital in an auto rickshaw where Anil was declared brought dead. This PW has further stated that the concerned doctor informed the police regarding the incident but the police did not reach there. Doctor did not allow this PW, Adalat and Drupad to leave the hospital. This PW alongwith his two other friends reached at police Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21 16:59:48 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 4 of 17 station Anand Parbat where statement (Ex. PW1/A) of this PW was recorded. He has correctly identified the accused in the Court.
9. PW2 is Suraj Bhan, who at the time of incident was accompanying deceased Anil. He has stated that in the year 2009 he used to reside in a rented accommodation in gali No. 8, Nehru Vihar, Anand Parbat, Delhi. Deceased Anil was also residing in the same property on the ground floor in which this PW was residing. He has further stated that in the year 2009 at about 78 p.m. (date and month has not been mentioned by this witness by saying that he does not remember the same) reached at gali No. 8 where they saw that accused Ravi Kumar Meena alongwith one other person was standing in the street. Ravi was having receipt book of cable. Deceased Anil pushed this PW due to which he struck against elbow of Ravi, consequently receipt book fell down from the hand of Ravi. He has further stated that Anil picked the receipt book and handed over to Ravi but Ravi got annoyed and started hurling abuses and in anger he took out knife and stabbed Anil with the said knife. This PW has further stated that he did not remember what happened thereafter due to lapse of time. He was cross examined by Ld. APP.
10. PW7 is Drupad Ram who has stated that on 23.03.2009 at about 8 p.m. he was present at his house at gali No. 8, Nehru Vihar, Anand Parbat, Delhi when he heard noise of quarrel coming from outside. On hearing the noise in the gali, he came out of his house and saw that accused Ravi Meena and Anil were quarrelling with each other. Accused Gopal was holding Anil and exhorted to Ravi Kumar "Ravi Nikal Chaku Aur Mar Anil Ko". Ravi Kumar Meena took out a knife and stabbed the same in the chest of Anil. Santosh who was standing close to Ravi shouted "Chaku Mar Diya Chaku Mar Diya". Public persons gathered there and caught hold of Ravi Meena. However, accused Gopal fled away from the spot. One Beni Prasad @ Guddu snatched the knife from the hands of accused Ravi Meena. This PW alongwith Santosh and Adalat took the injured Anil to Hindu Rao Hospital in TSR. Accused Ravi Kumar Meena was arrested by the police.
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21
16:59:55
+0530
State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 5 of 17
11. PW9 is Beni Prasad who has stated that in the year 2009 he was residing at gali No. 8, Nehru Vihar, Anand Parbat. He has deposed that on 23.03.2009 at about 8 p.m. he was present at his house when he heard some noise of" Chaku Mar Diya". On hearing this, this PW came out and saw that Anil, son of uncle of his landlord Santosh, was lying on the ground and Santosh and other public persons were trying to apprehend accused Ravi Kumar Meena who was brandishing knife after the incident and they finally managed to apprehend him. This PW snatched knife from the hand of Ravi Kumar Meena. Public started beating Ravi. In the meantime, injured Anil was shifted to hospital in TSR. Police also reached at the spot to whom Ravi Kumar Meena and knife were handed over. Police prepared sketch of knife vide Ex. PW7/E. The blood stained earth was also lifted and kept in parcel vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B.
12. PW14 is Sh. Ram Path, father of deceased Anil, who has identified the body of deceased Anil vide statement Ex. PW14/A. After the post mortem he also received dead body vide receipt Ex. PW14/B.
13. PW15 is Sh. Chandan, brother of deceased Anil, who also identified the body of deceased and received the dead body vide memo Ex. PW14/B. Police witnesses
14. PW3 is ASI Ranbir Singh, who was posted as duty officer at the relevant time at the police station Anand Parbat. He has stated that on the intervening night of 23/24.03.2009 const. Yogender brought one tehrir sent by ASI Joga Singh on the basis of which FIR of this case was registered. After registration, FIR was handed over to const. Yogender to be delivered to Inspector Raghubir Singh for investigation.
15. PW4 is const. Jot Ram who has stated that on 19.05.2009 on the directions of IO, he collected six parcels out of which four parcels were sealed with the seal of HRH and remaining were sealed with the seal of RS to be deposited in FSL Rohini. Those parcels were collected from MHC(M) vide RC No. 19/21/2009 and after depositing the same at FSL the receipt was handed over to MHC(M).
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21
17:00:02 +0530
State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 6 of 17
16. PW5 is HC Gautam who has stated that on 25.03.2009 he joined the investigation with IO SI Raghbur Singh. They reached at Hindu Rao Hospital where dead body of one Anil Kumar lying in the mortuary was identified by his family members. After the post mortem, dead body was handed over to the family members. After post mortem, concerned doctor handed over two parcels sealed with the seal of hospital and one sample to the IO which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. The same were deposited by this PW with the MHC(M).
17. PW6 Const. Pawan has stated that on 23.03.2009 ASI Sultan Singh received DD No. 74 B regarding "Chaku Lagne Ki" at Gali No. 8, Nehru Vihar, Anand Parbat, Delhi. On receipt of this information, this PW alongwith ASI Sultan Singh reached at the spot where several public persons were gathered out of whom one person namely Beni Prasad @ Guddu handed over accused Ravi Meena and one knife snatched from Ravi Meena to ASi Sultan Singh. The said knife was having blood stains on the blade. Ravi Meena was found beaten by the public persons. Public persons found at the spot informed the police officials that Ravi Meena had given knife blow to one Anil who has been shifted to hospital in a TSR by other public persons. ASI Sultan Singh alongwith this PW and said Ravi Meena as well as Beni Prasad @ Guddu reached at RML hospital where he was medically examined. After his medical examination they all came at the spot where inspector Ragubir Singh met them to whom accused Ravi Meena and knifwe were handed over by ASI Sultan Singh. This PW has correctly identified the knife.
18 PW8 is ASI Phool Singh who has stated that in the year 2010 he was posted as MHC(M) at Police station Anand Parbat. He has brought the register containing entries regarding the deposit of case property at Mal Khana vide Sr. No. 1847 and 1848 Ex. PW8/A.
19. PW10 is Inspector Mahesh Kumar who has stated that on 17.05.2009 he was posted as Draftsman in Crime Branch PHQ and on that day on the request of inspector Raghubir Singh he reached at the police station Anand Parbat and wherefrom he alongwith IO and ASI Sultan Singh visited the spot Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21 17:00:10 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 7 of 17 where at the instance of ASI Sultan Singh he prepared the rough notes and measurement of the spot on the basis of which scaled site plan Ex. PW10/A was prepared.
20. PW11 is retired SI Sultan Singh who has stated that on 17.05.2009 on receipt of DD No. 74 B (Ex. PW11/A) he alongwith const. Pawan reached at the spot where public persons were present. One person namely Ravi was already beaten by the public. Ravi Meena was handed over to the police by one person namely Beni Prasad @ Guddu. Blood was oozing from the head of Ravi Kumar.
Beni Prasad @ Guddu told this PW that the person who was stabbed by Ravi Kumar has been shifted to hospital in TSR. This PW alongwith Ravi Kumar Meena and Const. Pawan went to Ram Manohar Lal Lohia Hospital (RML) where Ravi Kumar was examined and treated . Const. Yogender also met them at the hospital and had handed over copy of DD No. 77 B and informed that injured Anil Kumar has already been admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital and ASI Joga Singh is also directed to take further action there. This PW collected MLC of Ravi Kumar. Thereafter, this PW, convict Ravi Kumar, const. Pawan Kumar and Beni Prasad @ Guddu came back at the spot where inspector Raghubir Singh was already present. This PW handed over Ravi and the knife to Inspector Raghubir Singh. IO Inspector Raghubir Singh prepared sketch of knife Ex. PW7/E and took it into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/D.
21. PW12 is ASI Yogender who has stated that on 23.03.2009 he was posted at Police Station Anand Parbat as const. On that day he alongwith ASI Zora Singh were returning after attending a call from RML hospital when they received another call regarding one person brought dead at Hindu Rao Hospital. This PW alongwith const. Zora Singh reached at Hindu Rao Hospital where ASI Zora Singh collected the MLC of deceased Anil. Duty officer at hospital handed over one sealed pullanda to ASI Zora Singh which was taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. Thereafter, ASI Zora singh recorded statement of Santosh Kumar at hospital and prepared the ruqqa which was handed over by him to this PW for registration of FIR. Accordingly, the FIR was registered.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21
17:00:19 +0530
State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 8 of 17
22. PW13 is HC Ramesh who has stated that on 23.03.2009 he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, Central District as photographer. On that day he alongwith members of crime team reached at the spot and on the instructions of IO, he clicked three photographs Ex. PW7/A to Ex. PW7/C and negatives Ex. PW7/D to Ex. PW7/F. The photographs are now exhibited as Ex. PW13/A to Ex. PW13/C and negatives are Ex. PW13/D to Ex. PW13/F(colly.).
23. PW16 is Inspector Dinesh Kumar who prepared the chargesheet against accused Ravi Kumar Meena and filed the same in the Court.
24. PW17 is IO Inspector Raghuvir Singh who has stated that on 23.03.2009 he received information regarding the incident of the present case and on receipt of this information, he reached at the spot where SHO and other police officials were already present. Injured was informed to be shifted to Hindu Rao Hospital and was declared brought dead. Assailant who had stabbed the injured was taken to RML hospital by ASI Sultan Sultan Singh alongwith const. Pawan and one Beni Prasad who has snatched the knife from accused. In the meantime, const. Yogender reached at the spot and handed over original ruqqa to this PW. This PW collected the report from crime team. This PW recorded the statements of public persons and other police officials. He collected the pullandas from the hospital, seized all the relevant material and sent to FSL. He formally arrested the accused Ravi Kumar and completed the investigation.
25. PW20 is retired SI Zora Singh who has stated that on 23.03.2009 he was posted at police station Anand Parbat. On instructions, he alongwith Ct. Yogender reached at Hindu Rao Hospital and collected the MLC of Anil. The duty const. at Hindu Rao Hospital handed over him a sealed pullanda stated to be containing clothes of deceased which was seized by this PW. Public persons namely Santosh, Adalat and Drupad met this PW at the hospital where the statement of Santosh Kumar was recorded by him on the basis of which ruqqa Ex. PW20/A was prepared and handed over to const. Yogender for registration of FIR. This PW also made request to call Crime team. This PW alongwith above named three public persons reached at the spot where inspector Raghuvir Singh was Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21 17:00:27 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 9 of 17 already present to whom the MLC and sealed pullandas and seizure memo were handed over. In the meantime, const. Yogender reached at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR to the IO. In the meantime, ASI Sultan Singh alongwith accused Ravi and three public persons also reached there. ASI Sultan Singh handed over accused Ravi and one blood stained knife to the IO.
Medical witnesses
26. PW18 is Dr. Ajeet Pal Singh Sodhi who has stated that he has been deputed by Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital to identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Anamika Dhawan who prepared the MLC No. 2028/09 of injured Anil and has now left the hospital whose whereabouts are also not known. He has stated that he can identify handwriting and signatures of Doctor Anamika as he has seen her writing and signing during the course of her job. He has stated that MLC No. 2028/09 was prepared by Dr. Anamika Dhawan as the same was in her handwriting and bears her signatures. As per MLC (Ex. PW18/A), patient was declared brought dead.
Forensic witness
27. PW19 is Dr. M.K. Panigrahi, HOD, Department of Forensic Medicines, Hindu Rao Hospital. He has stated that on 25.03.2009 at about 1.30 p.m. he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of deceased Anil brought by const. Gautam. After conducting the post mortem on the body of deceased Anil Kumar, he prepared post mortem report Ex. PW19/A. He also opined the cause of death of Anil to be shocked and hemorrhagic consequent to injuries detailed in post mortem report. All the injuries opined by him are antemortem in nature, caused by forceful sharp pointed weapon. On 21.04.2009 this PW gave his opinion on the knife vide his report Ex. PW19/B and opined that the injuries mentioned in post mortem report could be possible by the said knife.
All the prosecution witnesses were crossexamined by the defence side.
Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL CHARU Date: AGGARWAL 2020.12.21 17:00:35 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 10 of 17
28. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement u/s 313 CrPC of the accused was recorded to which he pleaded his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated by Santosh and DrupadKumar.
29. The accused has led his evidence by examining DW1 Sh. Sanjay, his employee, who has stated that on 23.03.2009 he was employed with the accused and on his instructions he had gone to collect cable charges from the customers. On that day between 8 to 9 p.m. he went to the house of accused Gopal Singh Negi to hand over the amount collected by him and found him (accused Gopal Singh Negi) present at his house. After handing over the cash to him, this PW was leaving the house but in the meantime 23 boys reached at the house of accused and informed him that his employee Ravi Kumar Meena was beaten by some public persons at Pahari side. Accused immediately left his house and asked this DW to wait. After 1 ½ hour, accused came back to his house and told that Ravi was being beaten by public persons in some quarrel. This DW thereafter left the house.
30. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Vineet Jain for accused.
31. Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present accused as out of three eye witnesses, two, Sh. Santosh Kumar and DrupadRam have categorically deposed in their respective testimony that accused Gopal Singh Negi alongwith convict Ravi Kumar Meena was collecting the cash from the customers at gali No. 8, and in the quarrel between Ravi Kumar Meena and Anil Kumar, this accused instigated Ravi Kumar by exhorting "Ravi Chaku Nikal". Ld. APP has submitted that nothing has come in the testimony of both these witnesses creating doubt on their testimony. He also submitted that even coaccused Ravi(now convict) has already been convicted by the Ld. Predecessor on the basis of testimony of these two witnesses only and the said conviction of the accused Ravi Kumar Meena attained finality upto even Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21
17:00:43 +0530
State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 11 of 17
32. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against this accused since both the eye witnesses of the prosecution on the basis of whose testimony this accused was summoned, are not reliable witnesses since during the entire investigation of the case they did not name this accused in their statements recorded u/s 161 CrPC. He submitted that the name of accused Gopal Singh Negi was first time introduced by both these eye witnesses in the Court with the ulterior motive to falsely implicate him. Ld. Counsel has pointed out several discrepancies in the testimony of both these eye witnesses.
33. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld. APP and Ld. Defence counsel.
34. The place of occurrence of cause of death of deceased Anil is not disputed and was also duly proved during the trial of convict Ravi Kumar Meena as recorded in the judgement of conviction dated 25.01.2014 passed against him, which attained finality upto Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Now, the court only has to examine the role of present accused Gopal in the incident. As already noted above, neither any role nor name of accused Gopal was mentioned either in the FIR or during entire investigation but his name first time surfaced during the trial of convict Ravi Kumar Meena, when PW1 Santosh Kumar and PW7 Drupad Ram, named him as associate of convict Ravi Kumar Meena. The role attributed to the accused Gopal in the crime was that at the time of incident he was accompanying the convict and during the altercation between deceased and the convict, he (Gopal Singh Negi) instigated the convict to take out a knife and hit on the deceased. As per the story of the prosecution, when PW1 Santosh Kumar shouted "Chaku Maar Diya Chaku Maar Diya", this accused immediately fled away from the spot. Before examining the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution, I would first like to make reference to judgement "Baital Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.", AIR 1990 SC 1982, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue as in the present case that the name of one of the accused Baital Singh was first time introduced by the prosecution witnesses during trial of the case but no role was assigned to him by any of the eye witnesses in their Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21 17:00:50 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 12 of 17 statements recorded u/s 161 CrPC. In the said case benefit of doubt was given to accused Baital Singh and his conviction recorded by the Ld. Trial Court, uphold by Hon'ble High Court was set aside.
35. It is settled law that in assessing the value of eye witness, two things are to be considered, whether in the circumstance of the case, it is possible to believe his presence at the spot and secondly whether there is anything inherently improbable or unbelievable in his evidence (Reference be made to AIR 1980 SC 3073, AIR 1997 SC 234)
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements has time and again held that unless there are vital improvements, they cannot by itself create doubt on the credibility of the witness but if those contradictions are of material dimensions they should not be used to convict the accused.
37. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principle of law on the evaluation of the truthfulness and credibility of the witnesses let us examine the present case. The prosecution, originally, cited only two eye witnesses, PW1 Santosh Kumar and PW2 Suraj Bhan. But, interestingly, PW7 DrupadRam deposed in the court in such a manner as if he was also an eye witness to the incident. Hence, now the Court has to scrutinise the testimony of three eye witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW1 Santosh Kumar, PW2 Suraj Bhan and PW7 DrupadRam. PW2 Suraj Bhan, was one of the star witness of the prosecution since at the time of incident he alongwith the deceased was coming back after purchasing the vegetables but unfortunately this witness is not at all reliable since during the trial of convict Ravi Kumar Meena, he completely turned hostile and did not depose anything supporting the case of the prosecution. However, in the trial of present accused he deposed against convict Ravi Kumar Meena by stating that when he alongwith deceased Anil was coming after purchasing vegetables, some altercation took place between deceased and convict Ravi Kumar Meena in which convict stabbed Anil Kumar with the knife due to which he died. But, this PW Suraj Bhan did not whisper a word against present accused during his testimony recorded during the trial of this accused. Now, remains the other two eye witnesses, PW1 Santosh Kumar and PW7 Drupad Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21 17:00:58 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 13 of 17 Ram, of the prosecution whose testimonies have to be evaluated by the Court. First, I will deal with the testimony of PW7 Drupad Ram since he made a vital improvement in his testimony regarding his own presence at the spot which is directly linked to evaluate the role of accused Gopal in the incident. For the sake of repetation, it is again mentioned here that as per the case of the prosecution accused Gopal fled away from the spot immediately on hearing the noise of "Chaku Maar Diya", which implies that the witnesses/residents who came out of their house after hearing the noise of "Chaku Maar Diya" have not seen accused Gopal. Now, in this background, I will scrutinize the testimony of PW7 Drupad Ram. During investigation the statement of PW7 Drupad Ram was recorded twice by the IO Inspector Raghubir Singh. Perusal of his both the said statements recorded during investigation show that he was not the eye witness of the incident. As per his statements recorded during investigation he came out of his house after hearing the noise of PW1 Santosh Kumar "Chaku Maar Diya". However, during his deposition in the Court he made improvement in his version by stating that he on hearing the noise of quarrel in the gali came out of his house and saw that quarrel was going on between deceased Anil and convict Ravi Kumar Meena and during the quarrel accused Gopal Singh Negi exhorted "Ravi Chaku Nikal aur Maar" and on his instigation, convict Ravi Kumar Meena stabbed the deceased. On perusal of this testimony of PW7, it seems that he was the eye witness of the incident but he could not withstand the crossexamination on this aspect as during his crossexamination he admitted the statement given by him during investigation that when he came out of his house he saw that public persons present at the spot were trying to apprehend convict Ravi and at that time injured Anil was lying on the floor in pool of blood. This witness nowhere during investigation stated that he saw the quarrel from inside his house but this fact was first time introduced by him in the Court, which is a material improvement in his testimony for deciding the role of present accused Gopal. This court is consicuous that minor contradictions do appear in the statements of the witnesses which cannot be given undue importance. Minor variation and omission in the statements of witnesses are normal which can be attributed to errors of memory Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21 17:01:05 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 14 of 17 due to lapse of time and normal errors of observations due to which the witness may differ in reproducing the sequence of events. But, nonmentioning the role of assailant of the crime or even not disclosing that the witnesses were the eye witness to the incident at the first opportunity avialable with them during investigation and thereafter first time attributing role to a person whose role or name never surfaced during investigation and deposing in the court in a manner as if the witness was an eye witness, cannot amount to minor condradiction or variation in the statements of witnesses. Rather, it has a serious consequence in a criminal case of serious nature like the preesnt case, therefore, the deposition of PW7 in the court that he saw accused Gopal while holding deceased Anil and instigating convict Ravi Kumar Meena by saying "Ravi Chaku Nikal Aur Maar" is serious variation and improvement made by him in his testimony which was never so stated by him in his statement during investigation and creates serious doubt on his testimony for the role of accused Gopal. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here the observation made by the Ld. Predecessor regarding the conduct of PW7 at the time of recording of his evidence during the trial of convict Ravi Kumar Meena, when he named the present accused Gopal Singh Negi. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court while recording the evidence of PW7 made a court observation to the effect that this witness is repeating the lines himself as if learnt. The said observation by Ld. Predecessor is as follows: "The witness is deposing on his own in verbatim and is repeating the lines in exactly same words as if learnt."
On careful scrutiny of testimony of PW7 and also considering the Court observation by the Ld. Predecessor noted during the recording of evidence of PW7, this Court is of the view that he is not a reliable and truthful witness qua the role of present accused Gopal.
38. Now, remains only PW1 Santosh Kumar the other eye witness of the prosecution. During investigation, the statement of PW1 Santosh Kumar was recorded not only once but thrice but in none of his statement he pointed out either any role or name of present accused. Truly, as per the case of the Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21 17:01:13 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 15 of 17 prosecution one more person was accompanying convict Ravi Kumar Meena at the time of incident but none of the prosecution witness either named or attributed any role to the said associate of convict Ravi Kumar Meena in the incident. Rather, as per the chargesheet it was Ravi Kumar Meena only who got agitated on a trivial issue and took out the knife from his pocket with which he killed deceased Anil. PW1 and PW7 have tried to explain for not naming accused Gopal Singh Negi in the investigation by submitting that despite informing the entire facts to the police including the name of accused Gopal, the police did not mention the entire facts and his name in their respective statements and told to these witnesses to state these facts in the Court. The explanation given by both these witnesses does not found to be satisfactory for the reason that they both have stated that the IO of the case read over and explained the statements to them recorded by him. PW1 has also stated that he signed his statement after reading the same. Both these witnesses have also admitted during their crossexamination that they did not make any complaint against the police officials to any higher authority that police did not record the correct facts of the incident. After analysing the testimony of PW1 & PW7, this court is of the view that their deposition on the role of accused Gopal is not satisfactory and reliable and cannot become the basis of his conviction. The argument of Ld. APP that the prosecution has strong case against this accused since on the basis of evidence of PW1 & PW7, the court has already recorded the conviction of convict Ravi Kumar Meena, has no merit for the same reason that the testimony of both these witnesses is not reliable qua the role of accused Gopal. PW9 Badri Prasad @ Guddu admittedly had reached at the spot on hearing the noise of PW1 Santosh Kumar "Chaku Maar Diya". He was the witness only to the apprehension of convict Ravi Kumar Meena and snatching knife from him. He has nowhere named or attributed any role to accused Gopal. Other prosecution witnesses are either the family members of the decesed who identified the dead body and received the same or were part of the investigation therefore, their testimony is not required to be discussed to examine the role of accused Gopal.
Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL CHARU Date: AGGARWAL 2020.12.21 17:01:20 +0530 State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 16 of 17
39. Accused Gopal Singh Negi was summoned and has faced trial in pursuance of powers exercised u/s 319 CrPC by Ld. Predecessor, therefore, the settled principle of law and the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in its various judgements for summoning the accused u/s 319 CrPC is also relevant to be discussed herein. In a recent Criminal appeal No. 456 of 2019 dated 14.03.2019 titled as Periyasamy & others Vs. S. Nallasamy, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere disclosure of names of persons in the evidence cannot be said to be strong and cogent evidence to make the accused to face the trial especially when their names are not disclosed either in the FIR or in the statement u/s 161 CrPC recorded by the police. Relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:
"15. Mere disclosing the names of the appellants cannot be said to be strong and cogent evidence to make them to stand trial for the offence under Section 319 of the Code, especially when the Complainant is a husband and has initiated criminal proceedings against family of his inlaws and when their names or other identity were not disclosed at the first opportunity."
For this reliance is also placed on Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC.
40. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused Gopal Singh Negi deserves benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted for the offence charged against him. His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. Surety is discharged. Accused is directed to furnish fresh bail bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/ in compliance of Section 437 A CrPC at the earliest.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2020.12.21
17:01:30 +0530
(Announced in the open court on (Charu Aggarwal)
16th December, 2020) Addl. Sessions Judge02
Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
State Vs. Gopal Singh Negi Page 17 of 17