Delhi District Court
Fir No. 324/10; State vs . Ramesh Etc. Page 1 Of 27 on 27 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 95/13
FIR No. 324/10
P.S. Sultan Puri
U/S: 302/34 & 174A IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) Ramesh
s/o Sh. Suraj Bhan
r/o P1 Block, Baarat Ghar,
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
(2) Saurabh
s/o Sh. Narender
r/o P2/22, Sultan Puri, Delhi.
(3) Girish
s/o Sh. Dal Singh @ Dhilwa
r/o Jhuggi no. 10, near Ganda Nala
Sultanpuri, Delhi
Date of Institution: 24112010
Date of arguments: 26052014
Date of judgement: 27052014
FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 1 of 27
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 30082010, Duty Ct. Narayan Das gave information from SGM hospital vide DD no. 4A in PS Sultanpuri that Ravi aged 19 years got admitted by his friend Rajat in SGM hospital with alleged history of knife injury. On this information, ASI Rakesh Kumar along with Ct. Radhey Shyam reached SGM hospital where Laxman @ Naveen was found admitted vide MLC no. 13537/10 with alleged history of physical assault as told by the patient himself. The injured was unfit for statement. No eyewitness was found there. FIR u/s 324 IPC was got registered. During investigation, ASI Rakesh Kumar recorded statement of Laxman @ Naveen wherein he stated that he reside at C6/379, Sultanpuri and used to do motor mechanic job. A few days ago, he had a quarrel and fight with Ramesh and Saurabh residents of P1 Block, Sultanpuri over a small issue. From that day onward, enmity was going on between him and Ramesh and his friends Saurabh and Girish. On 30082010 at about 12:15 am night, he was coming to house on foot and when he reached in front of P1 Block mosque, Ramesh, Girish and Saurabh came and Ramesh was having knife in his hand. Ramesh asked his both FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 2 of 27 friends while saying "pakad lo sale ko, yeh bahut badmash banta hai". On hearing this, Saurabh and Girish grabbed both hands of Laxman and Ramesh gave knife blow in the stomach of Laxman. When Laxman raised voice of "bachaobachao", all three boys fled away from the spot. Laxman collapsed near the mosque in front of Aggarwal Aata Chakki. Ranjit to whom he knew by name, came there and shifted him to hospital in rickshaw. Thereafter, he became unconscious and regained consciousness in SGM hospital. On this statement of injured Laxman, section 324 IPC was converted into section 307 IPC. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant Laxman @ Naveen. Accused Ramesh and Saurabh were arrested and they gave disclosure statement and pointed out the place of incident. PC remand of Ramesh was taken but the knife used in the crime could not be traced. The bloodstained clothes were taken into possession. Accused Girish avoided his arrest and his NBWs and process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. were got issued from the court. Doctor gave the opinion on the MLC of injured as grievous. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Ramesh and Saurabh u/s 307/34 IPC.
2. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 28122010 vide DD no. 22A, information was received in PS that injured Ravi FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 3 of 27 expired in LNJP hospital. Postmortem on the dead body of Ravi was got conducted and thereafter exhibits were taken into possession. It came in the statements of witnesses that Ravi died due to stab injury caused by the accused Ramesh. Thereafter, section 307 IPC was converted into Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheet against accused Ramesh and Saurabh was filed u/s 302/34 IPC. On 01112011, accused Girish was arrested u/s 41(1) (B) Cr.P.C. and thereafter accused Girish was arrested in this case from Rohini Court with permission of the court. Section 174 (A) IPC was added in the case. After completion of investigation, supplementary chargesheet u/s 302/34 IPC and 174 (A) IPC was filed against accused Girish.
3. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against accused Ramesh, Saurabh and Girish and additional charge u/s 174A IPC was framed against accused Girish to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 22 witnesses. PW1 HC Rajbir Singh, in his testimony, proved DD no. 22A regarding the information of death of Ravi as Ex. PW1/A. PW2 Mange Lal, in his testimony, proved dead body identification memo FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 4 of 27 as Ex.PW2/A and the receipt regarding receiving of dead body of son of PW2 as Ex.PW2/B. PW3 Rajesh in his testimony, proved dead body identification statement as Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Dr. P.C. Prabhakar, Medical Officer, SGM Hospital, in his testimony, proved MLC of Ravi as Ex.PW4/A. PW5 Sheela in her testimony, proved confessional statement of Saurabh as Ex.PW5/A; pointing out memo as Ex.PW5/B; documents of accused Saurabh as Ex.PW5/C & Ex.PW5/D. PW6 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, MOIC, SGM Hospital gave opinion regarding nature of injury of Laxman @ Naveen as grievous in MLC Ex.PW4/A. PW7 Dr. Suryottam Kumar, SR (Surgery), SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri did not exhibit any document in his testimony. PW8 Dr. Jatin Bodwal, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, MAMC, New Delhi conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Laxman and proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW8/A in his testimony. PW9 HC Rajbir Singh, in his testimony proved the copy of DD No. 22A as Ex.PW9/A. PW10 retd. ASI Rakesh Kumar, in his testimony proved his endorsement on DD no. 4A as Ex.PW10/A; rukka as Ex. PW10/B; seizure memo of the clothes of injured as Ex. PW10/C; statement of injured Laxman @ Naveen u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW10/D; his application for interrogation of accused Ramesh as Ex.PW10/E; arrest memo of FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 5 of 27 accused as Ex.PW10/F; personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW10/G and disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW10/H. PW10, in his testimony, further proved the pointing out memo of incident as Ex. PW10/J; pointing out and nonrecovery memo of the place as Ex. PW10/K; site plan as Ex. PW10/L and supplementary statement of injured Laxman @ Naveen as Ex. PW10/M.
5. PW11 HC Baljeet Singh, in his testimony proved arrest memo of accused Girish as Ex.PW11/A; personal search memo of accused Girish as Ex.PW11/B; kalandra prepared by him u/s 41.1 (C) Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW11/C and DD no. 55B as Ex.PW11/D. PW12 HC Govind Singh in his testimony proved copy of entry Nos. 12532 and 12761 in register no. 19 as Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B respectively. PW13 HC Raj Kumar, in his testimony proved the arrest memo and disclosure statement of accused Girish as Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively. PW14 Inspector Satya Prakash, PW15 SI Kulvir Singh and PW16 Inspector Arun Sharma in their testimony did not exhibit any document. PW17 SI Dhirender Singh, in his testimony proved the seizure memo regarding blood sample of the deceased in gauze piece along with one sample seal handed over by the Doctor to the IO as Ex.PW17/A. PW18 Inspector Puran Pant, in his testimony did not exhibit any FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 6 of 27 document. PW19 Inspector Samarjeet Singh, in his testimony proved his request letter for conducting postmortem as Ex.PW19/A; brief facts of the case as Ex.PW19/B; form 25.35(1)(B) as Ex.PW19/C and DD no. 22A as Ex.PW19/D. PW20 Rajit @ Ranjeet, in his testimony did not exhibit any document. PW21 HC Chhotu Ram, in his testimony proved the computergenerated copy of FIR as Ex. PW21/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW21/B. PW22 Ct. Radhey Shyam, in his testimony did not exhibit any document.
6. Statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. The accused persons did not opt to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons and the Ld. APP for State and have perused the entire records.
8. The Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons argued that the statement of the deceased was not recorded in the presence of his mother i.e. PW5 but the same was recorded by the IO after consultation and deliberation with her. The deceased was not fit to give his statement. The deceased had company dispute with the accused Saurabh, therefore, the accused have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused Ramesh was not present at or FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 7 of 27 near the spot of occurrence. PW5 did not know the accused Girish and she had given the name of accused Girish and his jhuggi at the instance of IO of the case. She never visited to the jhuggi of accused Girish. The accused Girish did not make any disclosure statement. PW6 and PW7 did not examine the deceased personally. The septicaemia developed since there was no proper and adequate treatment and due to which Laxman @ Naveen died. The deceased did not disclose the names of the accused persons to PW20 and even PW20 also did not take the deceased Laxman @ Naveen to the hospital. There was no eyewitness to the incident. Weapon of the offence i.e. knife was not recovered. No independent public witness was joined during investigation. The IO has not fairly conducted the investigation of this case.
9. The Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons by way of oral testimonies of PWs coupled with the medical evidence. The injuries, MLC, postmortem report and testimonies of PWs have corroborated with each other. The deceased in his statement u/s 161 CrPC categorically stated the names of all the accused persons as assailants with their parentage. The aforesaid statement given by the deceased is the dying declaration. The deceased himself told FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 8 of 27 PW20 that the accused persons stabbed him with knife and PW20 took the deceased in injured condition to the hospital. PW5, mother of the deceased also stated that when her son Laxman @ Naveen regained his consciousness then he told her that the accused Saurabh and Girish caught hold of him and accused Ramesh inflicted injuries with the knife in his stomach. PW5 identified all the accused persons. There were multiple injuries in the intestine of the deceased. The deceased was discharged, readmitted, discharged and again admitted in the hospital due to abdominal pain and vomiting and during treatment he died. It was the direct effect and consequence of the stab injury in the stomach of the deceased which resulted in his death. Moreover, the Doctor/PW8 also opined that the cause of death was due to septicaemia in the operated case of stab injury in the abdomen of the deceased. The accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC and also the accused Girish for the offence u/s 174A IPC.
10. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons and Ld. APP for State, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused persons had committed the offence as charged or whether they have been falsely implicated. PW20 Rajit @ Ranjeet, in his examinationinchief FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 9 of 27 deposed that on 29.08.2010 in the night, he was coming to his house from Mangol Puri after attending the party. At about 12.00 night, when he reached near P1 Block Mosque, he saw Laxman @ Naveen @ Thpaa lying on the ground and his intestines came out from the stomach and he told him to save his life and he further told him that he was stabbed with knife by Sourabh, Ramesh and Girish. PW20 further stated that thereafter he called his friend Rohit through his mobile phone but he was not available and thereafter he made a call to his another friend Sanjay and he came there on his motorcycle. Thereafter, PW20 along with Sanjay took the injured Laxman to SGM Hospital and he was admitted there. His friend Sanjay was driving the motorcycle while injured was sitting in between him and Sanjay. In the hospital, Doctor obtained his signature and thereafter they left the hospital. Later on, police met him and made inquiries and recorded his statement in this regard. During crossexamination, PW20 stated that he did not know the accused persons personally which were disclosed by the injured. PW20 denied the suggestion that injured had not disclosed the names of assailants or that injured was not taken to the hospital by him.
11. PW5 Sheela, in her examinationinchief deposed that on FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 10 of 27 30.08.2010 at about 01.30 am, she came to know that her son Laxman @ Naveen had received stab injuries and he was admitted in SGM Hospital and at that time she was present at her house along with her family. Thereafter, she along with her family members reached at SGM Hospital and she found her son admitted and unconscious in the hospital. In the morning, he regained consciousness and then she inquired from him regarding the injuries and persons, who caused the injuries, on which her son Laxman @ Naveen told that Saurabh and Girish had caught hold him in front of P1 Block, Masjid and one person namely, Ramesh had inflicted stab injuries with knife on his stomach. Her son also told her that one boy, namely, Ranjeet had taken him to the hospital. PW5 further stated that she came to know that one boy named Saurabh had moved anticipatory bail application in Rohini Courts, hence, she also reached in the Rohini Courts Complex. Accused Saurabh was known to her earlier to the incident, as she had seen him in the locality of her Nanad house. She saw accused Saurabh in Rohini Courts and on seeing her, accused Saurabh had hidden himself in the court premises. PW5 informed regarding this fact to the IO, then they reached at gate No. 4 of the Rohini Courts. At about 02.45 pm, accused Saurabh came outside of the Rohini Courts, then PW5 FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 11 of 27 pointed out towards accused Saurabh and on her pointing out, IO apprehended him. PW5 further stated that accused Saurabh took them to place of incident i.e. in front of P1 Block Masjid. Accused Saurabh confessed his guilt, which is E.PW5/A and pointing out memo is Ex.PW5/B. Document of arrest of accused Saurabh are Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D. PW5 correctly identified the accused Saurabh in the Court. PW5 also stated that when her son Laxman @ Naveen regained consciousness then in her presence, ASI Rakesh Rana had inquired from her son Laxman @ Naveen, regarding the incident that how he received injuries and by whom. Her son told to ASI Rakesh Rana in his statement that accused Saurabh and Girish had caught hold him and accused Ramesh had inflicted knife blow in his stomach. PW5 when examined again after the arrest of accused Girish, also stated that she knew accused Girish and other accused Ramesh and Saurabh, as they were residents of nearby locality and they used to visit their house to meet her son Laxman @ Naveen. PW5 also identified the accused Girish in the Court when she was again examined after the arrest of accused Girish.
12. PW10 Retd. ASI Rakesh Kumar, in his examination in chief stated that on 30082010, he received DD no. 4A regarding admission of injured Ravi by his friend Rajat due to knife injuries in FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 12 of 27 SGM hospital. PW10 along with Ct. Radhey Shyam reached SGM hospital and obtained MLC no. 13537/10 of Laxman @ Naveen. PW10 made his endorsement Ex. PW10/A on the rukka u/s 324 IPC Ex. PW10/B. PW10 seized one sealed parcel containing clothes of injured vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/C. PW10 recorded statement of injured Laxman @ Naveen u/s 161 Cr.P.C vide Ex. PW10/D and thereafter, offence u/s 307 IPC was added. The accused persons were not traceable. On 01092010, PW10 attended Rohini Court in connection with surrender application of accused Ramesh and he was interrogated vide application Ex. PW10/E. Accused Ramesh was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW10/F and PW10/G and disclosure statement of accused Ramesh was recorded vide Ex. PW10/H. Accused Ramesh pointed out the place of incident vide Ex. PW10/J. PW10 prepared the pointing out and nonrecovery memo of the place vide Ex. PW10/K. On 10092010, the anticipatory bail application of accused Saurabh was dismissed by the court and accused Saurabh was arrested on the identification of PW Sheela vide memo Ex. PW5/C and his personal search was made vide memo Ex. PW5/D. Accused Saurabh made disclosure statement Ex. PW5/A and he pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex. PW5/B. On 21102010, PW10 prepared the site plan Ex. FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 13 of 27 PW10/L at the instance of injured Laxman @ Naveen and recorded his supplementary statement vide Ex. PW10/M.
13. PW10 in his crossexamination, stated that injured was declared fit for statement at about 05.45 pm on 30.08.2010. PW10 denied the suggestion that he had not made any inquiry to trace the accused persons. PW10 further stated in his crossexamination that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ramesh after his surrender and arrest in front of the Court of Sh. Naveen Gupta, Ld. MM on 01.09.2010. PW10 further denied the suggestion that the accused Ramesh never took them to the place of incident that is why no public person was joined at the time of pointing out memo. PW10 also denied the suggestion that he had not deposited the clothes of injured in the malkhana. PW10 further denied the suggestion that all the writing works and statements were recorded while sitting in the PS. PW10 stated that when he recorded the statement of the injured, he revealed his name as Laxman @ Naveen. PW10 further denied the suggestion that he never collected the MLC of Laxman @ Naveen and the MLC on record is of some other person namely Ravi. PW10 also stated in his crossexamination that he had recorded only one statement of injured Laxman @ Naveen and at that time, he was in ICU and only Doctor was present. PW10 also FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 14 of 27 stated that the distance between the place of incident and the house of the injured was less than half kilometre. The road by way the cycle rickshaw passes from the house of injured to the spot was in good condition. PW10 denied the suggestion that condition of the injured deteriorated as he was taken to the spot in a cycle rickshaw by the road which was full of pits. PW10 denied the suggestion that he never recorded the statement of injured/deceased Laxman @ Naveen u/s 161 CrPC. PW10 further denied the suggestion that the person namely Rajat was responsible for the injuries of the injured Laxman @ Naveen. PW10 also stated that he inquired from the injured Laxman @ Naveen regarding the whereabouts and profession of Rajat but he showed his ignorance about his particulars.
14. PW11 HC Baljeet Singh, in his examination in chief stated that at Singla Medical Store, Sector5, Rohini, Delhi on the pointing of secret informer, accused Girish who was declared PO in this case was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/B. PW11 correctly identified the accused Girish. During crossexamination, PW11 stated that the accused Saurabh was apprehended from the nearby street of Singhla Medical Store. PW11 denied the suggestion FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 15 of 27 that there is no medical store in Sector5, Rohini from where accused Girish was apprehended and arrested. No person was ready to join the investigation. PW15 SI Kulvir, in his cross examination denied the suggestion that the accused Girish did not make any disclosure statement or that he had recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW13/B on his own. PW16 Inspector Arun Sharma, in his crossexamination denied the suggestion that no DD entry was handed over to him by the MHC(R) or that he did not collect any document from HC Baljeet. PW19 Inspector Samarjeet Singh, in his crossexamination denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation u/s 302 IPC or that ASI Rakesh had not handed over the case file to him u/s 307 IPC. PW19 further denied the suggestion that he had not recorded the statement of other witnesses. PW22 Ct. Radhey Shyam, in his crossexamination also denied the suggestion that he was not present in the hospital at the time of recording the statement of injured or that injured Laxman had not disclosed the names of Ramesh, Saurabh and Girish or that due to this reason no staff members of the hospital were examined in this regard by the IO.
15. PW20 is the material witness in this case and he categorically stated that on 29082010, in the night at about 12:00 FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 16 of 27 when he reached near P1 Block Mosque, he saw Laxman @ Naveen @ Thapa lying on the ground and his intestine came out from the stomach and he told him to save his life and he further told him that he was stabbed with knife by Saurabh, Ramesh and Girish. PW20 along with Sanjay took the injured Laxman to SGM hospital where he was admitted. In this regard, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal, 2008 (8) JT 650: 2008 (11) SCALE 233, it was held that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. In Raja Vs. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del.), it was held that it is wellknown principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to a conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the Prosecution. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In the FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 17 of 27 present case, the testimony of PW20 has not only inspired the confidence but creates no doubt and he is also trustworthy.
16. PW5 categorically stated that after regaining his consciousness, her son Laxman @ Naveen told her that accused Saurabh and Girish caught hold of him and the accused Ramesh inflicted stab injuries with knife in his stomach and Ranjeet took him to the hospital. PW5 identified the accused Saurabh and Girish in the Court. In Gulshan Vs. State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (1) JCC 562, it was held that identification in a court is a substantive piece of evidence.
17. PW5, in her crossexamination by the Ld. counsel for accused Saurabh, stated that her statement was recorded when her son regained consciousness in SGM hospital. PW5 denied the suggestion that no statement of her son was recorded in her presence or that the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the IO later on after due deliberations with them. PW5 further denied the suggestion that her son was not even a condition to give any statement on 30082010 as he was in great pain and was not even fit to give any statement. PW5 also denied the suggestion that on 30082010, her son was not in his proper senses as he was under
heavy medication, therefore, he could not have given any statement FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 18 of 27 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the IO at their instance. PW5 further denied the suggestion that accused Saurabh was shown to her by the IO in the PS or that she had no occasion to see him at the time of anticipatory bail since the presence of accused was not required at the hearing of anticipatory bail. PW5 also denied the suggestion that her son had some money dispute with the accused Saurabh and due to the same, they falsely implicated him in this case. In her crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Ramesh, PW5 stated that she did not know about the whereabouts of accused Ramesh prior to the incident. She had firstly seen the accused Ramesh in the court on the first date of hearing when she came to attend this case. Even, accused Ramesh had not visited her house along with his son at any point of time. She did not know where the accused Ramesh was residing. PW5 denied the suggestion that accused Ramesh was not even present anywhere near the place of incident as stated by her in her statement. PW5, in her cross examination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Girish, denied that she did not know any person by the name of Girish and she had given the name of Girish on the asking of police. PW5 volunteered that she knew even house of accused Girish. PW5 further stated that she had stated to the police in her statement the name of Girish FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 19 of 27 as well as address of Girish to the police. PW5 also denied the suggestion that police had told her regarding the jhuggi of accused Girish. PW5 categorically stated that statement of deceased was recorded by the police in her presence and the name of the police official was IO Rakesh Rana.
18. PW5 is the relative i.e. mother of the deceased Laxman @ Naveen. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. It cannot be said that a witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness should not be relied upon. In taking this view, I am supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2003 SC 3617 (1). Similarly, in the case of Harbans Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 2989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no proposition in law that the relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. Reason has to be shown when plea of partiality is raised to show that witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 20 of 27 falsely implicate the accused. In the present case, accused have not shown any reason as to why the mother of the deceased would shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused persons.
19. In the present case, I have found that there are some contradictions in the testimonies of the aforesaid PWs yet these contradictions are minor contradictions and do not go to the root or core of this case. In this regard, a reliance can be placed upon the judgement reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety.
20. It is also relevant to mention here that if the investigation is defective or faulty, the accused persons cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective or faulty investigation. In this regard, I would place reliance upon the judgement reported in the case of State of UP Vs. Hari Mohan and others., AIR 2001 SC 142, it was held that if the investigation is defective in nature, it cannot be made a basis for acquitting accused. In Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920, the appellants had been convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 r/w section 34 IPC. It was held that accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 21 of 27 investigation. To do so, would tantamount to playing into the hands of investigating officer if investigation is designedly defective.
21. The deceased Laxman @ Naveen in his statement dated 30082010 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/D stated as under: "I reside at the aforesaid address with my mother father and learning private motorcycle mechanic work. Some days back, I had a quarrel and fight with Ramesh and Saurabh residents of P1 Block, Sultanpuri over minor issues and from that day onwards I was having enmity with Ramesh and his associates Saurabh and Girish. Yesterday night at about 12:15 am, when I was going to my home on foot through P1 Block mosque, all the three boys namely Ramesh s/o Suraj Bhan, Girish s/o Dhilwa and Saurabh s/o Narender who were known to him from earlier, came from front side. Ramesh was having knife in his hand and told his two associates that "pakad lo sale ko, yeh bahut badmash banta hai". At this, Saurabh and Girish caught hold my both hands hurriedly and Ramesh gave a knife blow in my stomach. I raised noise "bachaobachao" and all three boys fled the spot after leaving him. I collapsed in front of Aggarwal flour mill near mosque. One person named Ranjit whom I know by name and I do not know his house, came near and shifted me to hospital immediately in a rickshaw where I became unconscious. Thereafter, I regained consciousness and found myself in SGM hospital, Mangolpuri. Ramesh, Girish and Saurabh have attacked me by knife in my stomach with the intention to kill me. Legal action be taken against all three boys. My statement is written by you which is correct."
22. Deceased Laxman @ Naveen further gave a statement FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 22 of 27 dated 21102010 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/M which is as under: "I endorse my earlier statement and I further state that today after getting discharge from the hospital, I have come with you in front of PI Block mosque in a rickshaw where Girish and Saurabh had caught hold me and Ramesh had caused dangerous hurt in my abdomen with knife blow with intention to kill me. This incident happened in the night of 29/30082010 at about 12:15 am. You have made site plan at my instance and written my statement which is correct statement."
23. It is settled law that the dying declaration, if after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment to form such dying declaration the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration (Sangam Lal Singh 2004 Cr.L.J. 95 (All). It is not the number of dying declarations which will weigh with the court. A singular dying declaration not suffering from any infirmity and found worthy of being relied on may form the basis of conviction. There is no dispute on the legal proposition that if the dying declaration would pass the test of scrutiny, it can be relied on as the sole basis of conviction. The law does not provide that a dying declaration should be made in any prescribed manner or in the form of questions and answers. Only because a dying declaration was not recorded by a Magistrate, the FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 23 of 27 same by itself may not be a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution case.
24. PW4 Dr. P. C. Prabhakar medically examined the injured Ravi @ Naveen and found stab wound on anterior abdominal wall with loop of intestine coming out of the wound of size 3 cms and active bleeding from the wound. PW4 gave initial treatment to the injured and thereafter, he was referred to surgeon on duty. PW4 proved the MLC vide Ex. PW4/A. PW6 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, stated that according to MLC Ex. PW4/A and discharge card dated 10092010, the injury mentioned was multiple stab injury with jejunal perforation and he opined the injury as grievous in nature by dangerous means i.e. the person could die if not operated at the earliest. PW6 also proved his opinion on the MLC already Ex.PW4/A. PW8 Dr. Jatin Bodwal conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Laxman, 19 years male. PW8 proved his detailed postmortem report as Ex. PW8/A. PW8 in his PM report Ex. PW8/A gave the brief history that Laxman (since deceased) was allegedly assaulted on 30082010 at 1:15 pm at Sultanpuri and he was taken to SGM hospital vide MLC no. 13537/10. Laxman (since deceased) was discharged on 10092010 and on 15092010, he was re admitted in SGM Hospital and discharged on 19102010. On FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 24 of 27 13122010, Laxman (since deceased) developed abdominal pain and vomiting and was taken to G. B. Pant Hospital where he died during the course of treatment on 28122010. PW8 opined that the cause of death was shock as a result of septicaemia and peritonitis in an operated case of stab injury of abdomen.
25. The hurt caused may sometimes result in death. In order to determine whether the offence committed is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder or grievous hurt or simple hurt, it is the intention of the accused that serves as the guideline or the knowledge which can be imputed to the accused with reference to his acts. In cases where more than one person is attacked and it is not possible on evidence to infer any common intention as contemplated by section 34 of the IPC, each of them will be responsible for his individual act only. In Shanmugam alias Kulandaivelu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 209, it was held that the accused inflicted bodily injuries on the deceased which were of such nature that they were likely to cause death. There can be no doubt that the accused intended to cause and did cause the injuries, therefore liable to be punished under the first part of section 304 of Indian Penal Code.
26. In the present case, there was a quarrel between FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 25 of 27 deceased and the accused Ramesh and Saurabh some days ago before the incident and there was an enmity between the deceased and the accused persons. On the day of incident, the accused persons after having been preplanned came to the deceased and the accused Saurabh and Girish caught hold of the deceased and accused Ramesh inflicted knife injuries in the stomach of deceased Laxman @ Naveen. The bodily injury inflicted was that which the accused persons intended to inflict and the same was fatal blow. In view of the testimonies of PW20 and PW5 coupled with medical evidence and the aforesaid statement of the deceased which is considered as dying declaration, it can be said that all the accused persons shared their common intention to cause injuries with the knife in the abdomen of the deceased Laxman @ Naveen which resulted in the death of Laxman @ Naveen. It is a settled law that Section 304 (PartI) IPC comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with an intention of causing death or of causing the aforesaid injuries to the deceased as was likely to cause death. Therefore, the act of the accused persons falls u/s 304 (PartI) of IPC. The prosecution has also proved evidence against the accused Girish for the offence u/s 174A IPC.
27. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 26 of 27 considered opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold all accused persons guilty and convict them u/s 304 (PartI)/34 IPC and accused Girish is also convicted for the offence u/s 174A IPC. Copy of judgement be given to the convicts free of cost.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 27052014 FIR No. 324/10; State Vs. Ramesh Etc. Page 27 of 27