Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Bhoora on 30 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 57873/2016)
FIR No. 217/2014
Police Station Jahangir Puri
Charge sheet filed Under Section 302/34 IPC
Charge framed Under Section 302/34 IPC
State V/s (1) Bhoora
S/o Mr. Irfan
R/o Jhuggi No.134, Gali No.4
H-2 Block, Market,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
Presently at:
District Jail, Bareilly,
Uttar Pardesh.
(2) Mohd. Miyan
S/o Mr. Wajid Ali,
R/o Kasba Saroli, Mohalla
Kauva Tola, Bareilly,
Uttar Pradesh.
Presently at:
District Jail, Bareilly,
Uttar Pardesh.
......Accused Persons
Date of institution 12.08.2014
Arguments concluded on 31.03.2023,
25.04.2023 &
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri
State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 1 of 58
30.05.2023
Judgment Pronounced on 30.05.2023
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion are that allegedly on 20.03.2014 at about 11.00 am in the main gali H2 Market Jhuggi, near Jhuggi No.H-2/83, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of one Nisar Ahmed, S/o Ibrahim by inflicting cut throat injury and on other vital parts of his body with sharp edged weapon i.e. knife and screw driver like object. The entire incident was witnessed by eye witness Hasiya w/o Sheikh Khalil, who immediately raised alarm upon which the accused persons fled the spot. On her raising alarm, someone called the son of injured, who along with his mother rushed him to the hospital but Nisar Ahmed was declared brought dead.
As per the postmortem report bearing no. 246/14, the cause of death was opined as hemorrhagic shock consequent to the cut throat injury caused by sharp edged cutting weapon and which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After the postmortem, the body was handed over the relatives and further investigation was done. The accused persons were eventually arrested on 26.03.2014. Statement of SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 2 of 58 witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement of eye witness Hasiya was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Both the accused persons had refused for conducting their TIP proceedings. After the entire investigation, charge-sheet was eventually filed under Section 302/34 IPC in the court.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 15.11.2014 charge under Section 302/34 IPC against accused Bhoora and Mohd. Miyan was found to be prima facie made out. The formal charge as above was framed on the said date to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 31 witnesses in all.
PW1 is HC Jitender Singh. He has deposed that on 20.03.2014, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Jahangir Puri and on that day at about 12.10 p.m. he received information from duty constable Kapil Tomar from BJRM Hospital that Nisar Khan aged about 50 years has been brought dead by his son Salman in injured condition and has been declared brought dead on MLC by Dr. Gopal, CMO of the said hospital. He further deposed that he entered the same vide DD No. 16A Ex.PW1/A SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 3 of 58 and copy of the said DD was sent to SI Rajan Pal through Ct. Nitin for taking appropriate action and that information was also given to SI Rajan Pal via telephone.
He further deposed that on the same day at about 1.40 p.m. he received rukka from Ct. Nitin sent by SI Rajan Pal and on the basis of the same, registered the present FIR Ex.PW1/B through computer operator Ct.Amit. He further deposed that he made endorsement Ex.PW1/C on the rukka and also issued certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/D regarding correctness of the FIR. He further deposed that copy of the FIR and original rukka were handed over to Ct.Nitin for handing over the same to concerned SHO Inspector Anil Berwal.
PW2 is Ct. Kapil Tomar. He deposed that on 20.03.2014, he was posted as duty constable at BJRM Hospital and on that day at about 12-12.15 p.m. one person namely Salman had brought one person aged about 50 years in injured condition and disclosed the name of injured as Nisar. He further deposed that Dr.Gopal was CMO on that day and examined the injured Nisar and declared him brought dead. He further deposed that he gave the said information to PS Jahangir Puri.
PW3 is Ct. Varun, who deposed that on 20.03.2014, he was on emergency duty and on receipt of DD No.16A he along with SI Rajan Pal reached at BJRM Hospital, where injured Nisar was found there, who was declared brought dead SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 4 of 58 by the doctor. That the dead body was shifted to the mortuary and he was deputed there. He further deposed that on 21.03.2014 Inspector Anil Kumar along with the relatives of the deceased visited the mortuary and carried out inquest proceedings and postmortem examination of deceased Nisar was carried out. That after the postmortem examination, the exhibits sealed with the seal of hospital and was taken into possession by Inspector Anil Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that the dead body was handed over the relatives of the deceased and thereafter, they returned to the police station.
PW4 is ASI Krishan Kumar. He deposed that on 19.03.2014, he was posted as Incharge Crime Team North West District and on that day on receipt of information, he reached at the spot i.e. H-2 Jhuggi where on the directions of the IO, Ct. Sachin took the photographs from different angles. He further deposed that after inspecting the spot, he prepared his detailed report Ex.PW4/A. PW5 is HC Sandeep. He has deposed that on 20.03.2014 he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as HC and was working as MHC(M). That on that day, IO Inspector Anil Kumar had deposited six pulandas sealed with the seal of AB. The same were kept in Malkhana and relevant entry Ex.PW5/A was made in the register No. 19 vide serial No. 2934.
He further deposed that on 21.03.2014, IO Inspector Anil Kumar had deposited one pulanda sealed with the seal of SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 5 of 58 FMT BJRM HOSPITAL DELHI. The same was kept in Malkhana with sample seal and relevant entry Ex.PW5/B was made in the register No. 19 vide serial No. 2937. He further deposed that on 25.03.2014, IO Inspector Anil Kumar had deposited one pulanda sealed with the seal of AB. The same was kept in Malkhana and relevant entry Ex. PW5/C was made in the register No. 19 vide serial No. 2948.
He further deposed that on 30.03.2014, IO Inspector Anil Kumar had deposited three pulandas sealed with the seal of AB. The same were kept in Malkhana and relevant entry Ex. PW5/D was made in the register No. 19 vide serial No. 2960.
He further deposed that on 04.04.2014 ten sealed pulandas and sample seals along with FSL Form were sent to FSL through Ct. Nitin vide RC No. 43/21/14 Ex. PW5/E to deposit in FSL Office. That after depositing the same Ct. Nitin handed over him the acknowledgment Ex. PW5/F. PW6 is Dr. Bhim Singh, Professor from Forensic Medicine, Subharti Medical College, Meerut, UP. He has deposed that on 21.03.2014, he was working at BJRM Hospital as an MD Forensic Medicine. That on that day, at about 3.30 pm, he conducted postmortem on the body of Nisar Ahmed, aged about 50 years male. That on examination, he found the following External and internal injuries:-
i) Incised wound (cut throat) injury 13 cm x 6 cm x muscles, vessels, treckia, esophagus situated front of neck SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 6 of 58 starting from right side of neck, situated 7 cm below chin.
ii) Incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep left side of chest in 6th intercostar space starting from mid line towards lateral aspect, horizontally placed.
Internal examination:
All the organs were pale, stomach was full semi digestive food.
He further deposed that in his opinion, death was due to hemorrhagic shock, consequent upon cut throat injury. That all the injuries were ante-mortem, fresh and caused by sharp edged cutting weapon i.e. knife. That injury no. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the time since death was around 28 hours. He further deposed that after postmortem examination, he handed over clothes of the deceased, blood sample, gauze piece with sample seal of department to the IO. His detailed Postmortem report no. 246/14 is Ex. PW6/A. PW7 is Dr. Gopal Krishan. He has deposed that on 20.03.2014 patient Nisar Ahmed, S/o Ibrahim Khan, 50 years male was brought to casualty by Salman, son of patient with the alleged history of physical assault. That the patient was examined by Dr. Khallilullah Khan, JR under his supervision and he prepared the MLC Ex.PW7/A which bears signatures of Dr. Khallilullah Khan at point A which he identified. He further deposed that the patient was declared brought dead and was shifted to mortuary.
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 7 of 58 PW8 is Ct. Sachin. He has deposed that on 20.03.2014 he was posted at Mobile Crime Team Outer District and working as a photographer. That on that day, he along with Incharge Crime Team ASI Krishan reached at the spot i.e. H2 Market, jhuggis Jahangir Puri and took five photographs from digital camera from different angles on the directions of IO. That thereafter, photographs Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A5 were converted into a CD Ex.PW8/B. PW-9 is Inspector Manohar Lal. He has deposed that on 21.04.2014, he visited the PS and thereafter, visited the spot i.e. H2 Block Market near jhuggi no. 83 & 208, Jahangir Puri along with IO, Inspector Anil Kumar, where on the pointing out of IO, he took the measurements and prepared rough notes. That on the basis of measurements and rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW9/A on 22.04.2014 and handed over to IO and thereafter destroyed the rough notes and measurements.
PW-10 is Smt. Hasiya. She deposed that she alongwith her family resided at Jhuggi No. 83, H2 Block, Jahangir Puri and running her shop at the ground floor of the jhuggi. She further deposed that on 20.03.2014, at about 11:00 am, she was coming down from my room through ladders. When she reached in the gali and she saw Nisar Ahmed (since deceased) was running and he was chased by two more persons namely Mohd. Miyan and Bhoora. That she struck with Nisar due to pushing she stood in a side. Nisar Ahmed fell down and SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 8 of 58 thereafter he sat on the stairs. She further deposed that accused Bhoora caught hold Nisar Ahmed and accused Mohd. Miyan stabbed with the knife several times on the chest of Nisar Ahmed and he also silted the throat of Nisar Ahmed with the same knife. That due to this blood was scattered all around. She raised alarm why they were killing Nisar Ahmed. That thereafter, both the accused fled away from the spot towards the road.
She further deposed that one boy was passing there and she told him to inform the family members of Nisar Ahmed who was residing in their our locality. That after some time wife of Nisar Ahmed and his son came there and they removed him to hospital. She came to know that on the way to the hospital Nisar Ahmed succumbed to his injuries.
She further deposed that accused Bhoora and Mohd. Miyan are also residing in their area in a rented house and both of them used to visit jher shop to purchase goods. That at the time of incident her daughter was taking out the beans of gram (chane ki choliyan chil rahi thi). That police visited the spot and made inquiries from me and recorded her statement Ex. PW10/A. That on the basis of her statement, the present case was registered. That on her pointing out police inspected the spot and prepared site plan at her instance where accused persons had assaulted deceased Nisar Ahmed with knife and thereafter police recorded her statement in this regard.
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 9 of 58 She further deposed that her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW10/B was also recorded by the Ld. MM.
PW-11 is Ms. Sadhika Jalan, Ld. M.M. She has deposed that on 04-06-2014, she was working as MM (Traffic), Rohini Courts. That on that day, an application for recording the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Hasiya W/o Sheikh Khalil was marked to her by Link MM Sh.Rajinder Kumar and same was produced before her by the IO, Inspector Om Prakash Jakhar and he also produced witness Smt. Hasiya and on the same day she recorded the statement of Smt. Hasiya u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/B and certificate in this regard is Ex. PW11/A. That thereafter, IO moved an application for supply of copy of statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which was allowed vide her endorsement Ex. PW11/B. PW-12 is Sh. Harjeet Singh Jaspal, Ld. Civil Judge. He has deposed that on 26.06.2014, he was working as MM, North Rohini Courts, Delhi. That on that day, an application for conducting the TIP of accused Bhoora S/o Mohd. Irfan was moved by IO, Inspector O. P. Jakhar and same was fixed for 01.07.2014 at 3:00 pm at Tihar Jail vide his order Ex. PW12/A. That on 01.07.2014, the TIP of accused Bhoora was deferred on the request of the IO vide his order Ex. PW12/B. That on 04.07.2014, another application for conducting the TIP of accused Bhoora S/o Mohd. Irfan was moved by IO, Inspector O. SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 10 of 58 P. Jakhar and same was fixed for 10.07.2014 vide his endorsement Ex.PW12/C. He further deposed that on 10.07.2014, he visited at Tihar Jail and accused was Bhoora S/o Mohd. Irfan was produced before him by Assistant Superintendent Jail, Ms. Sangeeta Chauhan. That accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings despite warning that an adverse inference could be drawn against him during trial. Even then the accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings Ex.PW12/D and certificate in this regard is Ex. PW12/E. He further deposed that IO moved an application for supply of copy of TIP proceedings and same was allowed, as per rules.
He further deposed that on 03.06.2014, he was working as MM, North Rohini Courts, Delhi. That on that day, an application for conducting the TIP of accused Mohd. Miyan S/o Wazib Ali @ Mohd. Wazib was moved by IO, Inspector O. P. Jakhar and same was fixed for 06.06.2014 at 2:30 pm at Rohini Jail. Accordingly, he visited the Rohini Jail and accused was produced by the Assistant Superintendent Jail Sh. Sujeet Kumar. That accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings despite warning that an adverse inference could be drawn against him during trial. Even then the accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings Ex. PW12/F and certificate in this regard is Ex. PW12/G. That IO moved an application for supply of copy of SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 11 of 58 TIP proceedings and same was allowed, as per rules vide his endorsement Ex.PW12/H. PW-13 is Ms. Parul Nishan. She has deposed that she alongwith her family resided at Jhuggi No. 128, H-2 Market Jhuggis, Jahangir Puri and supplying filter water bottles in the houses. She further deposed that on 20.03.2014, at about 11:00 am, her son Salman coming by running, as he was quarreling with some other boy. Her husband Nisar Ahmad made to understand their son Salman. She further deposed that in the meanwhile, accused Mohd. Miyan and Bhoora came out from their houses. That accused persons asked from her husband to whom he was abusing, as her husband gave abuses to her son Salman. On this, an altercation took place between her husband Nisar Ahmad and accused persons. That she intervened the matter between them and brought her husband in front of their house. That her husband told me that he was going to attend the call of nature. In the meanwhile, one person came running to her house and told that her husband had been killed. Her son ran and she also followed him. That there she saw her husband was lying on the ground in the pool of blood with his front portion of his body was lying on the stairs and one hand was struck in the staircase of wood.
She further deposed that Smt. Hasiya was also present there, as the incident took place in front of her shop. She and her son wrapped her duppata on the neck of her husband, SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 12 of 58 where he had sustained injuries and he had also sustained injuries on his waist and thereafter she and her son Salman took her husband to the main road and from there they hired a cycle rickshaw and one Allauddin helped them to take her husband to BJRM hospital, where the doctors declared dead her husband.
She further deposed that on the next day, at mortuary, she identified the dead body of her husband vide her identification statement Ex. PW13/A. That after the postmortem, the dead body of her husband was handed over to her for final rites vide receipt Ex. PW13/B. She further deposed that on 07.04.2014, her statement was recorded by the police and at that time only they were saying hearsay thing. She did not tell them regarding the involvement of other persons in the incident.
PW-14 is Smt. Taushib. She has deposed that she alongwith her family resides at Jhuggi No. 152. H2 Jhuggi, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and that she is a housewife. She further deposed that on 20.03.2014, on the day of Thursday, she was present in her house. That deceased Nisar was abusing his son Salman as he was not properly studying in 10 th class during the papers. Deceased was abusing his son Salman in front of his own jhuggi, which is just opposite to her jhuggi. That one Mohd. Miyan was standing in the corner of her jhuggi, when Nisar was abusing his son. That on seeing Nisar giving abuses, Mohd. Miyan asked from Nisar why he was abusing him. On this Nisar SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 13 of 58 told to Mohd. Miyan that he is not abusing him, but he was abusing his own son, as he was not properly studying in class 10th.
She further deposed that after some time, Nisar had told Mohd. Miyan that earlier he was not abusing him, now he is abusing him and "Nisar ne maa behan ki gaali di, fir Mohd. Miyan ne bhi Nisar ko maa behan ki gaali di". That thereafter, her husband and Smt. Parul Nisha W/o Nisar had intervened them and Smt. Parul Nisha took her husband inside the jhuggi and Mohd. Miyan also left from there, after both were made to understand. That at that time, Riyaz and Islam were not present, when Nisar and Mohd. Miyan were abusing to each other and thereafter, she also left to pay my EMI and police recorded her statement in this regard.
PW-15 is Smt. Mumtaz. She has deposed that on 20.03.2014 on or about 11 a.m. she was present outside her house i.e. in front of Gali no. 4, and while sitting at in front of Jhuggi no. 207, she along with few other ladies were pilling Cholia (Cholia Chil Rahe The). While she was present over there, she had seen accused Bhura two houses away from her house and he was doing the electricity repair work of the said house as the said house belonged to the relative of accused Bhura. She had also seen accused Bhura carrying Plas and screw driver and was doing the repairing work. That after about 10 minutes, she left the said place as she had to take her son from school. That SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 14 of 58 thereafter, after taking her son from school when she returned back at her house, she had seen many public persons gathered at the spot. She further deposed that she saw blood stain lying in the gali as well as in front of her house. She had made enquiries from the public persons present over there and the said public persons informed me that Mohd. Miyan and Bhura had committed the murder of Nisar. She further deposed that Except she do not know anything else in this case.
PW-16 is Sh. Salman, son of the deceased. He has deposed that on 20.03.2014 at about 10.15 a.m., he was coming towards his house and while reaching the corner of the street, he met his father and upon seeing him, his father started abusing him and stated that he (Salman) is not taking keen interest in studies. He further deposed that upon hearing the said abuses, accused Mohd. Miyan came there and stated to his father "saale tu kisko gali de raha hai". That upon this, his father replied that he had been addressing him. That thereafter, accused Mohd. Miyan went to the house of Riyaz and he also left towards his house and his father went to attend the call of nature.
He further deposed that while he was present at his house, one child came rushing towards his house and told him that his father had been assaulted with knife by accused Mohd. Miyan and Bhoora near kiryana shop and he accordingly rushed towards the kiryana shop and saw her father lying in a pool of blood. That his mother Smt. Parul also present there and he and SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 15 of 58 his mother took his injured father in a rickshaw to BJRM Hospital and got him admitted there. He further deposed that the concerned doctor declared his father dead in the said hospital.
He further deposed that while he had lifted his father and took him to BJRM Hospital, his wearing clothes were got blood stains and he handed over his said blood stained clothes to the IO, which IO had kept in pullanda and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. He has also identified his clothes which were worn by him at that time as Ex.PW16/1 (colly).
PW-17 is Mr. Nasir Khan, who is the relative of deceased Nishar Ahmed. He has deposed that on 21.03.2014, he along with his aunt Smt. Parul went to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital, where he identified the dead body of Nisar Ahmed being his uncle. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement Ex.PW17/A in this regard and that IO also got conducted the postmortem on the body of Nisar Ahmed and that after postmortem, the dead body of Nisar was handed over to them.
He has further deposed that on 30.03.2014, he went to PS Jahangir Puri and in his presence, IO had taken out the wearing clothes of accused Mohd. Miyan as accused had stated that he was wearing the same clothes at the time of occurrence. He further deposed that IO kept the said clothes in a pullanda and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/B and that seal after use was handed over to ASI Somvir.
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 16 of 58 PW-18 is Smt. Rani. She has deposed that earlier she was residing at Jhuggi no. 88, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and in the year 2014, she was studying in class VI in Mangal Bazar wala School. She has deposed that on the date of incident, she was sitting in the gali and was pilling choliya. That her friend Moni was also sitting with her in the gali. Nisar uncle said "Beta pair hata lo". Nisar uncle had scolded his son. She did not hear any words. He had taken choliya from her and the same was given to his grand daughter Muskan. That after that Nisar uncle went from his house towards the main road. She further deposed that public persons had gathered at the spot. She immediately went to the spot and saw Salman, son of Nisar uncle was pressing his forehead, as blood was oozing from the head of Nisar uncle. She further deposed that Salman requested her that I must call his mother and she immediately went to his house and called his mother.
PW-19 is Smt. Shahista. She has deposed that the name of her father is Sh. Kale Khan. She has deposed that at the time of incident, she was residing with my father for the last two years before the date of incident. She further deposed that on 20.03.2014, around 10:00 to 10:30 am, she was sleeping in her house and her mother had gone to deposit loan installment. That she was awake, came outside my jhuggi. She further deposed that Nisar uncle, who was resided in front of her jhuggi was passing from the gali. He took her son in his lap. That before this Nisar SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 17 of 58 told his son Salman that he was going to answer the call of nature.
She further deposed that thereafter, Nisar uncle had gone towards the road for answering the call of nature and after 5 to 10 minutes, one boy came to the house of Nisar uncle and informed to his son Salman that his father had been stabbed by someone. Thereafter, on hearing this, the mother of Salman and Salman followed the said boy to the place, where Nisar uncle had been murdered. That Parul Nisha, mother of Salman had gone to Anganwadi. When mother of Salman followed the said boy to the place, where Nisar uncle had been murdered, one other boy had gone to Anganwadi.
PW-20 is Sh. Soma. He deposed that he has been residing at H-2983, Jahangir Puri, Delhi alongwith his family. That in the year 2014, he was running an Optical Shop in the name of S. S. Optical at Shop no. 103, Sanjay Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that police officials inquired him about one scrap dealer during those days and he replied to the police officials that he did not know anything about the scrap dealer. Thereafter, the police officials left the spot.
He further deposed that except this he do not know anything else in this case and except this I do not want to say anything else in this case.
PW-21 is Smt. Shahnaz. She has deposed that about five years ago, at about 10:00-11:00 am, she was going to SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 18 of 58 purchase meat from C Block market. Mohd. Riyaz was coming from the side, where she was going to purchase meat in C Block market. She further deposed that except this she do not know anything else in this case.
PW-22 is Smt. Sangeeta. She has deposed that about 4-5 years ago, they had let out a shop to Mohd. Islam. That the shop was situated at the ground floor of our house and Mohd. Islam had vacated their shop. She further deposed that except this I do not know anything else in this case.
PW-23 is Smt. Mansura. She has deposed that about 5-6 years ago, at about 10:00-10:30 am, she was going to the market for filling the gas in the cylinder in Jahangir Puri market. That Riyaz was present at the meat shop of Langra and that the shop of Langra meat wala was situated near the gas shop. She further deposed that her neighbourer Shehnaz was also purchasing the gas from the said shop and she was present there. She further deposed that when she was going to his house, she heard a noise and came to know that Nisar has been stabbed by someone. That she saw blood was lying at the said place.
PW-24 is Sh. Sumit Kumar. He has deposed that has a shop in Mahendra Park for mobile repair. That about 4-5 years ago, he went to his shop, at gali no. 3, Rajiv Nagar, Bhalaswa Dairy, where he used to go early in the morning at about 9:00-9:30 am and closed the same usually at 9:30 pm. That on one day, in the year 2014, he had seen Mohd. Islam at his SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 19 of 58 shop at about 10:00 am. Mohd. Islam was working as a kabadi and his shop was situated in front of his shop.
PW-25 is Ct. Pradeep Kumar, who has deposed that on 29.03.2014, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri and on that day, he joined the investigation with Inspector Anil Kumar Berwal and other staff and they left the PS and reached in the Rohini Court Complex. That IO moved an application for interrogation and arrest of accused Mohd. Miyan, which was allowed by Ld. MM. That accused Mohd. Miyan was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW25/A. That accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW25/B. He further deposed that IO moved an application for PC remand of accused which was allowed by Ld. MM. That accused was got medically examined in BJRM Hospital. He further deposed that accused led them to different places, but no knife was recovered.
PW-26 is Ms. Rukhsana, who has deposed that before marriage, she was residing in Jhuggi no. 84, H-2, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. That one day about five years ago, when she was studying in 10th Class, on that day, in the day hours, she was sitting inside her house and watching TV. She further deposed that on that day, she heard a noise that "Maar diya maar diya. She came outside her house and people were talking with each other that Nisar has been killed. She further deposed that she met with her friend Deepika, who told her that Nisar has been killed, neither she nor her friend Deepika seen, who had killed Nisar.
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 20 of 58 She further deposed that there is a shop of Muldari aunty near our house and except this I do not know anything else in this case.
PW-27 is ASI Somdev. He has deposed that on 25.03.2014, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri and on that day, he joined the investigation with Inspector Anil Berwal / SHO. That accused Bhoora S/o Irfan was in police custody. He has deposed that accused revealed that he was wearing green colour shirt and blue colour jeans, on the date of the incident. He further deposed that IO arranged the clothes for accused and the worn clothes of accused Bhoora were taken and wrapped in a piece of cloth, converted into a pulanda, which was sealed with the seal of AB. That thee said pulanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/A. He further deposed that the accused Bhoora led them to the scene of crime and pointed out the same vide pointing out memo Ex.PW27/B. That accused was taken on one day PC remand and the search of the weapon used by the accused and co-accused Mohd. Miyan were made, but no clue was found. He further deposed that accused revealed that he had thrown the weapon in Yamuna Pushta.
He has further deposed that on 30.03.2014, he joined the investigation of the present case with IO. That accused Mohd. Miyan was in police custody and accused Mohd. Miyan made supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW27/C. He further SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 21 of 58 deposed that accused led us to the scene of crime and pointed out the same vide pointing out memo Ex.PW27/D. That public person Nasir Khan also joined the investigation. He further deposed that accused revealed that he was wearing the clothes i.e. shirt having black, white and green lines and having white and black colour buttons and grey colour dharidar pants on the date of the incident. That the worn clothes of accused Mohd. Miyan were taken and wrapped in a piece of cloth, converted into a pulanda, which was sealed with the seal of AB and was taken in possession. He further deposed that aeal after use was handed over to him. That accused made supplementary disclosure statement and led them to Sanjay Nagar market and pointed out shop no. 103 of Islam, where he had washed his hands. He further deposed that the FSL team was called. That FSL team reached at the spot and lifted two blood stains from the said place and put the same in an envelope which were handed over to IO, who sealed the same with the seal of AB and seized vide seizure memo is Ex. PW27/E. He has further deposed that from the threshold / dehleej of the shop no. 103 and corner of the drain, concrete plaster was broken and taken by putting the same in a polythene, which was wrapped in a piece of cloth and sealed with the seal of AB and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW27/F. That thereafter, they reached near Church H-2 Block, Jahangir SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 22 of 58 Puri, where efforts were made to find out the knife used in the commission of offence, but the same was not found.
He has identified the case property i.e. one green colour shirt having cuts and black colour buttons and blue colour jeans pants having cuts and a piece of cloth having seal impression of AB Ex. PW27/Article 1 (colly). He has also identified one green colour, white linings full sleeves shirt having cuts and grey colour pants and a piece of cloth having seal impression of AB Ex. PW27/Article 2 (colly).
PW-28 is SI Jaswinder, who deposed that on 03.05.2014, he was osted at DIU North West and on that day, he joined the investigation with Inspector O.P. Jakar and went to the house of Smt.Sangeeta Jindal, Soma Parmar and Sumit Kumar, who joined the investigation and IO recorded their statement.
PW-29 is Ct. Nitin Kumar. He has deposed that on 20.03.2014, he was posted at Jahangir Puri and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 16A already Ex. PW1/A regarding the death of Nisar in BJRM Hospital, he went to BJRM Hospital, where he met SI Rajan Pal to whom he handed over the said DD. That he alongwith SI Rajan Pal went to main gali, H-2 Market, near jhuggi no. 83 and 208, where blood and black colour plastic chappal were found. He further deposed that at the spot, they met Smt. Hasia W/o Sheikh Khalil and IO recorded her statement. That IO made endorsement on the same and prepared rukka which was handed over to him at 1:20 pm. He went to police SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 23 of 58 station, where he handed over the rukka to duty officer, who registered FIR and handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka, which he handed over to Inspector Anil Berwal, the then SHO/IO at the spot.
He further deposed that on 04.04.2014, on the direction of the SHO, he received the sealed pulandas from the MHC (M) HC Sandeep for depositing the same in FSL vide RC No. 43/21/14. He deposited the same in FSL and obtained the acknowledgment of FSL and copy of RC, which he handed over to MHC (M) on his return to the PS. He further deposed that so far as the said sealed pulandas remained with him, the same were not tampered in any manner.
PW-30 is SI Rajan Pal, who deposed that on 20.03.2014, he was posted at Jahangir Puri and was on emergency duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. That on that day, at about 12:15 pm, on receipt of information on telephone regarding the death of Nisar in BJRM Hospital, who was admitted by his son Salman and doctor declared him dead, he alongwith Ct. Varun reached at BJRM Hospital, where he found Nisar admitted vide MLC and declared brought dead. That the dead body of Nisar was shifted to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and Ct. Varun was deputed to guard the dead body. He further deposed that he met with Ct. Nitin, who handed over him DD No. 16A Ex. PW1/A. He alongwith Ct. Nitin went to main gali, H-2 Market, near jhuggi no. 83 and 208, where blood and black SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 24 of 58 colour plastic chappal were found. That at the spot, they met Smt. Hasia W/o Sheikh Khalil and he recorded her statement Ex. PW10/A, who put her thumb impression at point A, which was attested by her signatures at point B. He further deposed that he made endorsement Ex.PW30/A on the statement of Smt. Hasia and prepared rukka which was handed over to Ct. Nitin at 1:20 pm, who went to police station. He further deposed that SHO Inspector Anil with staff reached at the spot and at the same time, crime mobile team of the district reached over there. That Crime team inspected the scene of crime and photographer took the photographs from different angles. That Ct. Nitin came with the copy of FIR and original rukka, which he handed over to Inspector Anil Berwal.
He further deposed that the blood with the help of gauze piece, broken blood stained floor and plain earth control were lifted and put in plastic containers which were wrapped with doctor tape and given serial no. 1, 2 & 3. The same were sealed with the seal of AB. The black colour chappal of Redicon of size no. 7 was wrapped in a piece of cloth, converted into a puladna and given serial no. 4. The same was sealed with the seal of AB. He deposed that all the four pulandas were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/B. He further deposed that at the instance of complainant, IO prepared site plan. Thereafter, they reached at the house of the deceased, where Salman handed over his blood stained clothes SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 25 of 58 i.e. checkdar shirt of pink, white and light blue colour, brown colour half pant and black colour T-shirt type baniyan, which were wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of AB and the said pulanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A He further deposed that the wife of deceased namely Parul Nisha also produced her blood stained clothes i.e. suit and salwar of pink and yellow and blue colour flowers and leaves printing, which were wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of AB and the said pulanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/C. He further deposed that the efforts were made to find out the accused persons, but they were not found anywhere.
He further deposed that on 24.03.2014, he alongwith the IO and other staff left for the search of accused. IO received secret information that accused Bhoora is roaming near Mangal Bazar Chowk, if raid conducted, he can be apprehended. That on this information, they all reached there and met with secret informer, who pointed out a boy coming from the side of C Block, Kushal Chowk, wearing green shirt. The said boy was apprehended on the pointing of secret informer and the said boy revealed his name Bhoora. That accused Bhoora was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW30/D and personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW30/E That SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 26 of 58 accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW30/F. That accused was got medically examined.
PW30 identified the case property i.e. one black colour plastic chappal make Redicon of size 7 Ex.PW30/Article 1 and one shirt of pink, blue and white colour linedar shirt having cuts, one black colour baniyan having white line at the end of arm and neck having cuts and one half pant of brown colour as Ex. PW16/1 (collectively). He deposed that these clothes were handed over by Salman.
He has also identified one multi colour half sleeves kurta having cuts, multi colour salwar having cuts and a cut open piece of cloth as Ex. PW30/Article 2 (collectively).
PW-31 is Inspector Anil Berwal, who is the IO of the present and deposed on the lines of investigation conducted by him during the investigation of the present case. He has deposed that on 20.03.2014, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri and on that day, an information vide DD No. 16A Ex.PW1/A regarding admission of Nasir, who was admitted by his son Salman in injured condition at BJRM Hospital, where doctor declared him dead, was received. That the said DD was marked to SI Rajan Pal, who alongwith Ct. Varun went to BJRM Hospital. The dead body was sent to the mortuary of BJRM hospital. That SI Rajan Pal Singh reached at the spot, where he met Smt. Hasia and recorded her statement. SI Rajan Pal Singh made endorsement on SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 27 of 58 her statement and prepared rukka, which was handed over to Ct. Nitin for registration of FIR.
He further deposed that he alongwith other staff also reached at the spot. SI Rajan Pal Singh apprised him the facts of the case. The crime team reached at the spot and inspected the scene of crime. The photographer took the photographs from different angles. Ct. Nitin came to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same for further investigation. That the blood with the help of gauze piece, broken blood stained floor and plain earth control were lifted and put in plastic containers which were wrapped with doctor tape and given serial no. 1, 2 & 3. The same were sealed with the seal of AB. The black colour chappal of Redicon of size no. 7 was wrapped in a piece of cloth, converted into a puladna and given serial no. 4. The same was sealed with the seal of AB. That all the four pulandas were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B. He further deposed that at the instance of complainant Hasia, he prepared site plan Ex.PW31/A. That they reached at the house of the deceased, where Salman handed over his blood stained clothes i.e. checkdar shirt of pink, white and light blue colour, brown colour half pant and black colour T-shirt type baniyan, which were wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of AB. The said pulanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A. The SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 28 of 58 wife of deceased namely Parul Nisha also produced her blood stained clothes i.e. suit and salwar of pink and yellow and blue colour flowers and leaves printing, which were wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of AB. The said pulanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/C. He further deposed that the seal after use was handed over to SI Rajan Pal and efforts were made to find out the accused persons, but they were not found anywhere. He further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses and case property was deposited with MHC (M).
He further deposed that on 21.03.2014, he alongwith relatives of the deceased reached at BJRM Hospital, where he met Ct. Varun at the mortuary. Smt. Parul Nisha and Nasir Khan identified the dead body vide their statements Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW17/A. He further deposed that he filled up form 25.35 Ex.PW31/B and prepared application Ex.PW31/C for conducting postmortem on the body of the deceased. That Postmortem was conducted on the dead body vide report Ex. PW6/A and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW13/B and that after postmortem, the doctor handed over the sealed blood sample alongwith sample seal and pulanda, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. He deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses and deposited the case property with MHC (M).
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 29 of 58 He further deposed that on 24.03.2014, he alongwith SI Rajan Pal and other staff left for the search of accused. He received secret information that accused Bhoora is roaming near Mangal Bazar Chowk, if raid conducted, he can be apprehended. That on this information, they all reached there and met with secret informer, who pointed out a boy coming from the side of C Block, Kushal Chowk, wearing green shirt. The said boy was apprehended on the pointing of secret informer and the said boy revealed his name Bhoora. The accused Bhoora was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW30/D, personal search of the accused was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW30/E and accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW30/F. That on 25.03.2014, he alongwith ASI Somdev and other staff left the PS with accused Bhoora S/o Irfan, who was interrogated. He further deposed that accused revealed that he was wearing green colour shirt and blue colour jeans, on the date of the incident. He arranged the clothes for accused and the worn clothes of accused Bhoora were taken and wrapped in a piece of cloth, converted into a pulanda, which was sealed with the seal of AB and was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/A. He further deposed that accused Bhoora led them to the scene of crime and pointed out the same vide pointing out memo Ex. PW27/B. He further deposed that the accused was produced in the court before Ld. MM, where he moved an application for his police custody remand, which was allowed and accused was SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 30 of 58 taken on one day PC remand. That the search of the weapon used by the accused and co-accused Mohd. Miyan were made, but no clue was found. That accused revealed that he had thrown the weapon in Yamuna Pushta. That he produced the accused in the court and sent to JC. He recorded statement of witnesses and deposited the case property with MHC (M).
He further deposed that on 28.03.2014, the accused Mohd. Miyan moved an application before Ld. MM and surrendered himself in the court and the same was listed for 29.03.2014. That on 29.03.2014, the accused Mohd. Miyan surrendered in the court. he moved an application for interrogation and arrest of the accused, which was allowed by Ld. MM. That he interrogated and arrested the accused Mohd. Miyan vide arrest memo Ex.PW25/A. That accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW25/B. He further deposed that he moved an application for PC remand of the accused, which was allowed by Ld. MM and the accused was taken on PC remand. That on 30.03.2014, accused Mohd. Miyan made supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW27/C. That accused led us to the scene of crime and pointed out the same vide pointing out memo Ex. PW27/D. That accused Mohd. Miyan pointed out the place i.e. Sanjay Market, Mahendra Park, Shop no. 103 main market, shop of Islam, where he had washed his blood stained hands. That public person Soma S/o Bala Ram also joined the investigation with them. He further SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 31 of 58 deposed that he prepared pointing out memo in this regard Ex.PW20/A. He further deposed that the FSL team was called. FSL team reached at the spot and lifted two blood stains from the said place and put the same in an envelope which were handed over to IO, who sealed the same with the seal of AB. The seizure memo of the same is Ex. PW27/E. He further deposed that from the threshold / dehleej of the shop no. 103 and corner of the drain, concrete plaster was broken and taken by putting the same in a polythene, which was wrapped in a piece of cloth and sealed with the seal of AB and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/F. He further deposed that public person Nasir Khan also joined the investigation. That accused revealed that he was wearing the clothes i.e. shirt having black, white and green lines and having white and black colour buttons and grey colour dharidar pants on the date of the incident. That the worn clothes of accused Mohd. Miyan were taken and wrapped in a piece of cloth, converted into a pulanda sealed with the seal of AB. That the said pulanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/B. That thereafter, they reached near Church H-2 Block, Jahangir Puri, where efforts were made to find out the knife used in the commission of offence, but the same was not found.
He further deposed that on 04.04.2014, the exhibits were handed over to Ct. Nitin for depositing the same at FSL and SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 32 of 58 Ct. Nitin deposited the same. He further deposed that the present case file was transferred from PS Jahangiri Puri and further investigation was conducted by Inspector Om Prakash Jakhar of DIU, North-West. Inspector O. P. Jakhar recorded the statement of Smt. Parul Nisha and Salman.
He further deposed that on 21.04.2014, Inspector Manohar Lal, Draftsman visited the scene of crime for preparing the scaled site plan. That Inspector Om Prakash got prepared the site plan from Inspector Manohar Lal, who handed over the scaled site plan on 22.04.2014. He further deposed that Inspector Om Prakash obtained the proceedings conducted by Ld. MM Ms. Sadhika Jalan, Rohini Court u/s 164 Cr.P.C. regarding statement of Hasia Ex.PW10/B. That Inspector Om Prakash also obtained the TIP proceedings qua accused Mohd. Miyan dated 06.06.2014 conducted by Sh. Harjeet Singh, Ld. MM and placed the same on the record. That Inspector Om Prakash also obtained the TIP proceedings qua accused Bhoora dated 10.07.2014 conducted by Sh. Harjeet Singh, Ld. MM and placed the same on the record. That in both the TIP proceedings, both the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. Inspector Om Prakash also obtained the FSL result dated 28.10.2016 Ex. PW31/D (running into 3 pages) prepared by Ms. Pooja Shrotriya. He further deposed that Inspector O. P. Jakhar also obtained the CDR in CAF of mobile number 8860869651 and 9891694393. That Inspector Om Prakash Jakhar has filed chargesheet against both SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 33 of 58 the accused and also filed supplementary charge-sheet against both the accused persons alongwith suspects. He has also identified the case property of the present case.
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 294 CR.P.C.
4. Vide their joint statement, both the accused persons without prejudice to their rights and contentions under Section 294 Cr.P.C. admitted the original RFSL report dated 28.10.2016 prepared by Ms.Pooja Shrotriya (running into 03 pages) Ex.PW31/D and the CDR and CAF along with certificate of mobile phone number 8860869651 of Riaz and mobile number 9891694393 of Mohd. Islam Ex.PX1 and Ex.PX2.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
5. After closure of PE, the respective statements of the accused Bhoora and Mohd. Miyan was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 04.02.2023, wherein they denied all the evidence put to them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. That case property has been planted upon them and all the witnesses have deposed falsely at the instance of the IO.
Accused persons chose not to lead defence evidence.
6. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 34 of 58 ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard Sh. Harvinder Nar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh.Yogesh Pandey, Ld. Amicus Curiae for both the accused persons.
8. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature and through the testimonies of material witnesses, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused persons deserves conviction.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelived.
9. On the contrary, Sh. Yogesh Pandey, Ld. Amicus Curiae for both the accused persons has argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated. It was argued that the eye witness PW10 Hasiya and PW15 Mumtaz have given inconsistent versions. That the other material prosecution witnesses viz. PW13, PW14, PW16, PW18, PW19 and PW20 to PW24 have not supported the case of the prosecution. That the forensic evidence also does not cull out any incriminating evidence against the accused persons. No recovery of weapon was made. That benefit of doubt has to be granted to the accused SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 35 of 58 persons and accordingly, accused persons deserve acquittal.
10. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
11. The accused Bhoora and Mohd. Miyan had been charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
12. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 20.03.2014 at about 11.00 am in the main gali H2 Market Jhuggi, near Jhuggi No.H-2/83, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of one Nisar Ahmed, S/o Ibrahim by inflicting injuries on his throat and other vital parts of his body with sharp edged weapon i.e. knife and screw driver like object. The entire incident was witnessed by eye witness Hasiya w/o Sheikh Khalil, who immediately raised alarm upon which the accused persons fled the spot. On her raising alarm, someone called the son of Nisar Ahmed, who along with his mother rushed him to the hospital but it was declared brought dead.
As per the postmortem report bearing no. 246/14, the cause of death was opined as hemorrhagic shock consequent to the cut throat injury caused by sharp edged cutting weapon and which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 36 of 58 nature. After the postmortem, the body was handed over the relatives and further investigation was done. The accused persons were eventually arrested on 26.03.2014. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement of eye witness Hasiya was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Both the accused persons had refused for conducting their TIP proceedings. After the entire investigation, charge-sheet was eventually filed.
13. At the very outset, it is relevant to quote the law. The relevant Section is reproduced as under:
SECTION 302 IPC "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine".
SECTION 34 IPC "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
14. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 37 of 58 him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty....
Thus, it is a settled law that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 38 of 58 PUBLIC/EYE WITNESS
15. There were two witnesses to the alleged incident of murder, Mumtaz PW15 and Hasiya PW10.
The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW10 Hasiya, W/o Sheikh Khalil/complainant.
In the original rukka/complaint Ex.PW10/A, the witness has categorically stated that two accused persons ran after the deceased Nisar Ahmed and accused Mohd. Miyan gave a cut throat injury with a knife and the other co-accused hit the deceased on his chest with a screw driver type of instrument because of which the deceased started bleeding profusely and thereafter both the accused persons ran away from the spot leaving the deceased on the road in that condition.
In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW10/B recorded before the Magistrate, she categorically reiterated her earlier version and stated that at the time when the murder took place, she was at her shop. It was around 11.00 a.m. in the morning. Accused Mohd. Miyan stabbed Nisar Ahmed in front of her shop firstly on the stomach and thereafter, cut his throat, which she saw categorically. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased and his son came running and took him to the hospital. Mohd. Miyan and the deceased Nisar Ahmed both were her neighbours who were residing at the gap of 2 to 3 galis. She categorically states that she does not know both of them very SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 39 of 58 closely.
The said witness entered the witness box as PW10 during the course of trial. PW10 Hasiya had deposed that she alongwith her family resided at Jhuggi No. 83, H2 Block, Jahangir Puri and running her shop at the ground floor of the jhuggi. She further deposed that on 20.03.2014, at about 11:00 am, she was coming down from my room through ladders. When she reached in the gali and she saw Nisar Ahmed (since deceased) was running and he was chased by two more persons namely Mohd. Miyan and Bhoora. That she struck with Nisar due to pushing she stood in a side. Nisar Ahmed fell down and thereafter he sat on the stairs. She further deposed that accused 2 She further deposed that one boy was passing there and she told him to inform the family members of Nisar Ahmed who was residing in their our locality. That after some time wife of Nisar Ahmed and his son came there and they removed him to hospital. She came to know that on the way to the hospital Nisar Ahmed succumbed to his injuries.
She further deposed that accused Bhoora and Mohd. Miyan are also residing in their area in a rented house and both of them used to visit her shop to purchase goods. That at the time of incident her daughter was taking out the beans of gram (chane ki choliyan chil rahi thi). That police visited the spot and made inquiries from me and recorded her statement Ex. PW10/A. That on the basis of her statement, the present case was registered.
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 40 of 58 That on her pointing out police inspected the spot and prepared site plan at her instance where accused persons had assaulted deceased Nisar Ahmed with knife and thereafter police recorded her statement in this regard.
She further deposed that her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW10/B was also recorded by the Ld. MM.
She was thoroughly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused persons at length. Even in her cross-examination, the said witness was adamant on her stand and again reiterated that accused Bhoora caught hold of Nisar Ahmed and Mohd. Miyan inflicted stab injury and silted his throat.
From the testimony of PW10 it is clear that on the date of incident, she was present at the spot and saw the deceased running being chased by the accused persons. The witness has categorically identified the accused persons correctly during the course of trial. The witness has categorically explained the manner in which she saw from her own eyes how the accused persons committed the crime. She categorically deposed that accused Bhoora caught hold of Nisar Ahmed and accused Mohd. Miyan stabbed on the chest several times and silted the throat of Nisar Ahmed with a sharp edged knife. She further deposed that blood was scattered all around and she immediately raised alarm, upon which both the accused persons fled away from the spot towards the road. She further proved that one boy was SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 41 of 58 passing from there, whom she asked to inform the family members of Nisar Ahmed and after sometime his son and wife came running and took Nisar Ahmed to hospital. She proved her statement recorded by the police as Ex.PW10/A. The said witness in her testimony also explained that there was no other public person present at that time except her as she was running a shop in the gali and her daughter. Her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is proved as Ex.PW10/B. She even withstood with the vigors of the cross- examination and maintained her stand regarding the manner and the way the accused persons stabbed Nisar Ahmed. She maintained the stand that accused Bhoora was holding the deceased from behind and accused Mohd. Miyan gave multiple stab wounds on the chest and cut the throat with a sharp edged weapon. She further stated that "Bhoora jhuka hua tha, aur jahan tak mujhe yaad hai, Mohd. Miyan ne chaku se kata".
Thus, said eye witness, who is not even related to either of the parties, and cannot be labelled as an interested witness, has categorically identified both the accused persons, has been thoroughly consistent in all her versions regarding the manner of the commission of the crime, the role played by both the accused persons and has fully supported the prosecution story.
It was argued by ld. Counsel for the accused that the SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 42 of 58 other eye witness PW15 Mumtaz had turned hostile during the course of trial and therefore, the testimony of PW10 Hasiya should also be read in that light and is not trustworthy.
However, it is pertinent to mention that testimony of a sole eye witness is also sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution provided she is consistent in her version, there is nothing to believe that her version is improbable and she is not an interested witness.
16. At this stage, reliance is place upon the case titled as Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, Appeal (crl.) 914 of 2006 decided on 13/03/2007, it is held that:
So far as legal position is concerned, it is found in the statutory provision in Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872; which reads;
134. Number of witnesses. No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
Let us now consider few leading decisions on the point.
In Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614, referring to Mahomed Sugal, this Court stated;
On a consideration of the relevant authorities and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the following propositions may be safely stated as firmly established : (1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 43 of 58 outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character (2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.
Quoting Section 134 of the Evidence Act, their Lordships stated that "we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the Court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated."
The Court proceeded to state;
It is not seldom that a crime had been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play.
The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 44 of 58 accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution.
The said law was reiterated in the landmark judgment of Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam (1993) 3 SCC
282.
17. Credible testimony of a single eye witness is sufficient to prove the case beyond reason doubt. In the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebagouda vs The State Of Karnataka decided on 16 March, 2023, reiterated that credible testimony of a single eye witness is sufficient to prove the case beyond reason doubt even if there are several accused persons.
In the case of Karunakaran Vs. State of Tamilnadu (1976) 1 SCC 434, it was held that if a witness is absolutely reliable then conviction based thereupon cannot be said to be infirm in any manner.
In the present case, as detailed above, the said eye SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 45 of 58 witness PW-10 Hasiya, who is also the complainant and is not even related to either of the parties, and cannot be labelled as an interested witness, has categorically identified both the accused persons, has been thoroughly consistent in all her versions regarding the manner of the commission of the crime, the role played by both the accused persons and has fully supported the prosecution story and in the wake of aforesaid case laws, there would be no legal impediment to conclusively hold that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Yet, as a matter of caution, this Court proceeds further to delve upon the other evidence adduced.
OTHER MATERIAL WITNESS
18. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had vehemently argued that other material witnesses had mostly resiled from their earlier statements given to the police and did not support the case of the prosecution. The Hon'ble Superior Courts on number of occasions have laid down the Principles to be kept in mind while dealing with the testimony of hostile witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest judgment of Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebagouda vs The State Of Karnataka decided on 16 March, 2023, has again reiterated the said Principles which are as follows:
Evidence of hostile witness:
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 46 of 58
a) Corroborated part of the evidence of a hostile witness regarding the commission of offence is admissible.
Merely because there is deviation from the statement in the FIR, the witness's statements cannot be termed totally unreliable;
b) The evidence of a hostile witness can form the basis of conviction.
c) The general principle of appreciating the evidence of eye-
witnesses is that when a case involves a large number of offenders, prudently, it is necessary, but not always, for the Court to seek corroboration from at least two more witnesses as a measure of caution. Be that as it may, the principle is quality over quantity of witnesses. [Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479] 17.2 Effect of omissions deficiencies:
Evidence examined as a whole, must reflect/ring of truth. The court must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancies which do not shake the foundations of the prosecution's case. [Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434; Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537; and Karan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 52] 17.3 Reliance on single witness:
If a witness is absolutely reliable then conviction based thereupon cannot be said to be infirm in any manner.
[Karunakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1976) 1 SCC 434; and Sadhuram Vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 11 SCC 231] 17.4 Testimony of a close relative:
A witness being a close relative is not SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 47 of 58 a ground enough to reject his testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even "partisan" or "interested"
witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not one of general application. [Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537]
19. In the present case, I have carefully perused the testimony of all the public witnesses namely PW13 Parul Nisa wife of the deceased, PW14 Taushib, PW15 Mumtaz, PW19 Shashista, PW20 Soma, PW21 Sahanaz, PW23 Mansura, PW18 Rani, PW22 Sangeeta, all neighbour of the deceased, PW16 Salman son of the deceased PW13 was the wife of the deceased and she proved the altercation which had taken place between her late husband and accused persons. She categorically deposed that her husband was at that point abusing his own son Salman, when the accused persons started arguing with him and she herself intervened in the matter and brought her husband inside. Thereafter, her husband told her that he was going to attend the call of nature and soon thereafter one person came running telling that her husband had been killed. She further proved that when she went on the spot, her husband was lying in a pool of blood and the incident took place in the front of shop of PW10 Hasiya, who was also present at the spot. The said Hasiya, PW10, who was the eye witness has deposed categorically regarding the manner in which the crime SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 48 of 58 was committed as well as correctly identified the accused persons. Thus, from the testimony of PW13, the prosecution has been successful in proving motive and the factum of altercation between the deceased and the accused persons immediately prior to the incident.
Her testimony is duly supported by the testimony of PW14 Taushib, who categorically deposed that she saw the altercation between the accused persons and the deceased immediately prior to the incident. She categorically proved that the deceased was abusing his son Salman in front of his own jhuggi, which is just opposite to her jhuggi. One Mohd. Miyan (accused) was standing in the corner of her jhuggi, when deceased Nisar was abusing his son. On seeing Nisar giving abuses, Mohd. Miyan asked from Nisar why he was abusing him.
Thereafter, altercation took place and Nisar ne maa behan ki gaali di, fir Mohd. Miyan ne bhi Nisar ko maa behan ki gaali di.
20. PW15 Mumtaz proved that she had seen accused Bhoora carrying a screw driver (which is one of the weapon of offence) doing some repairing work and also after sometime she saw a lot of public persons gathered at the spot and blood was lying in the gali and upon inquiry, she came to know that accused Bhoora and Mohd. Miyan had killed Nisar. Although, she resiled from her earlier statement but at least the presence of accused SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 49 of 58 persons at the spot immediately before the incident and the pool of blood lying at the spot after the incident has been proved with her testimony which is supportive of testimony of main eye witness PW10 and other public witnesses.
21. PW16 Salman, who is the son of the deceased had also deposed regarding the altercation immediately prior to the incident. He categorically deposed that on 20.03.2014 at about 10.15 a.m., he was coming towards his house and while reaching the corner of the street, he met his father and upon seeing him, his father started abusing him and stated that he (Salman) is not taking keen interest in studies. He further deposed that upon hearing the said abuses, accused Mohd. Miyan came there and stated to his father "saale tu kisko gali de raha hai". That upon this, his father replied that he had been addressing him. That thereafter, accused Mohd. Miyan went to the house of Riyaz and he also left towards his house and his father went to attend the call of nature. Thus, he completely supports the testimony of PW13 and PW14 about the factum of altercation and heated arguments.
He further proved that as he along with is mother PW13 rushed towards the spot, he saw his father lying in a pool of blood and immediately rushed him in a rickshaw to BJRM Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. He further proved that while he was lifting his father and taking him to the hospital, SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 50 of 58 even his clothes got blood stains and had handed over the same clothes in a sealed pullanda to the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. They were categorically shown and correctly identified by the witness during the trial and proved as Ex.PW16/1.
22. PW18 Rani categorically deposed that she was present in the gali and she had seen the deceased going from his house to the main road. Soon she saw a lot of public persons were gathered and she saw on the spot that the son of the deceased Salman was pressing his forehead as blood was oozing out and Salman requested her to call his mother.
23. PW19 Shahista also on similar lines deposed that she had seen that deceased had gone towards the road for answering the call of nature.
The other public witnesses PW20 to PW24 were hearsay witnesses, who deposed that they have heard the deceased had been stabbed.
Thus, from the testimony of aforesaid independent witnesses, even if they had partially resiled from their earlier statements, yet material facts regarding the factum of altercation immediately prior to the incident between the accused persons and deceased, the presence of accused persons on the spot, the blood stains on the spot and that in that condition that wife PW13 SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 51 of 58 and the son PW16 had taken the deceased in a rickshaw to the hospital, can be culled out from their testimony and stand proved. All the said witnesses have supported the testimony of main eye witness PW10 on these aspects.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE
24. Coming to the cause of death/medical/forensic evidence PW6 Dr. Bhim Sigh deposed that on 21.03.2014, he was working at BJRM Hospital as an MD Forensic Medicine. That on that day, at about 3.30 pm, he conducted postmortem on the body of Nisar Ahmed, aged about 50 years male. That on examination, he found the following External and internal injuries:-
i) Incised wound (cut throat) injury 13 cm x 6 cm x muscles, vessels, treckia, esophagus situated front of neck starting from right side of neck, situated 7 cm below chin.
ii) Incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep left side of chest in 6th intercostar space starting from mid line towards lateral aspect, horizontally placed.
Internal examination:
All the organs were pale, stomach was full semi digestive food.
He further deposed that in his opinion, death was due to hemorrhagic shock, consequent upon cut throat injury.
SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 52 of 58 That all the injuries were ante-mortem, fresh and caused by sharp edged cutting weapon i.e. knife. That injury no. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the time since death was around 28 hours. He further deposed that after postmortem examination, he handed over clothes of the deceased, blood sample, gauze piece with sample seal of department to the IO. His detailed Postmortem report no. 246/14 is Ex. PW6/A. It is pertinent to mention accused persons vide their statement recorded on 02.12.2019 under Section 294 Cr.P.C. admitted the FSL report dated 28.10.2016 Ex.PW31/D. The articles contained in the seized parcels were the blood stained clothes, the blood lifted from the ground (cemented and concrete material), the clothes of the son of the deceased which had also got blood stains while he was carrying his father to the hospital as identified by the son Ex.PW16/1, the clothes of the wife of the deceased which had also got blood stains while she was carrying her husband to the hospital, which were found to contain human blood and further supports the case of prosecution.
MOTIVE & OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE OFFENCE
25. Coming to the aspect of motive and opportunity with the accused to commit the crime.
In the case titled as NANDU SINGH VERSUS SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 53 of 58 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 7998 of 2021), it is held that by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India that:
"Relying on Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the 1(2020) 10 SCC 1665 legal position clear in following words:-
.......it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused...........
The motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or ex-cited them to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one.
26. In this background I proceed to analyze the motive and the opportunity with the accused to commit the offence.
27. All the public witnesses including PW13 Parul Nisa SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 54 of 58 wife of the deceased, PW14 Taushib, PW15 Mumtaz, PW19 Shashista, PW20 Soma, PW21 Sahanaz, PW23 Mansura, PW18 Rani, PW22 Sangeeta all neighbour of the deceased, PW16 Salman son of the deceased had categorically deposed that the accused persons Bhoora and Mohd. Miyan had an altercation immediately prior to the incident, while the deceased was scolding his son Salman.
28. Also, accused persons got ample opportunity when the victim was all alone and had gone towards the roadside from his house to attend the nature's call as has been proved by the testimony of the aforesaid public witnesses. The victim was unarmed and alone in the gali, apart from the eye witnesses.
Thus, it was NOT the case where the accused persons committed the offence in a fit of rage or in a sudden quarrel. The incident of quarrel had already seized and there was enough cooling period between the two incidents.
POLICE OFFICIALS
29. PW25 Ct. Pradeep Kumar proved the arrest memo Ex.PW25/A of accused Mohd. Miyan and his disclosure statement Ex.PW25/B. PW27 is ASI Somdev. He has proved the seizure memo of the clothes of accused Bhoora as Ex.PW27/A, pointing out memo of the scene of crime prepared at the instance of accused Bhoora as Ex.PW27/B, supplementary disclosure SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 55 of 58 statement of accused Mohd. Miyan as Ex.PW27/C, pointing out memo of the scene of crime prepared at the instance of accused Mohd. Miyan as Ex.PW27/D. He has also proved the seizure memo of two blood stains lifted from the spot as Ex.PW27/E, seizure memo of blood stained concrete pullanda as Ex.PW27/F. He has also identified the wearing clothes of accused Bhoora as Ex.PW27/Article 1 and that of accused Mohd. Miyan as Ex.PW27/Article 2.
PW30 ASI Rajan Pal, who made endorsement Ex.PW30/A on the statement of Smt.Hasiya and prepared the rukka. He has proved the seizure memo of blood on gauze, broken blood stained floor, plaint earth control and black colour chappal as Ex.PW30/B. He has also proved the blood stained clothes of PW Parul Nisha as Ex.PW30/C, arrest memo of accused Bhoora as Ex.PW30/D, personal search of accused Bhoora as Ex.PW30/E and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW30/F. He has also identified the black colour plastic chappal as Ex.PW30/Article 1 and clothes handed over by PW Parul Nisha as Ex.PW30/B. PW31 Inspector Anil Berwal proved the site plan as Ex.PW31/A, form no.25.35 as Ex.PW31/B, application for conducting postmortem as Ex.PW31/C and FSL result dated 28.10.2014 as Ex.PW31/D. It was argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused that the police officials had manipulated the scene of crime and did SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 56 of 58 not carry the investigation in a fair manner.
All the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelived and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625.
CONCLUSION
30. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that PW-10 Hasiya, the eye witness, who is not even related to either of the parties, and cannot be labelled as an interested witness, has categorically identified both the accused persons, has been thoroughly consistent in all her versions regarding the manner of the commission of the crime, the role played by both the accused persons and has fully supported the prosecution story. The remaining public witnesses including PW13, PW14 and PW16 have proved the motive of a prior quarrel and altercation immediately before the incident. Both the accused persons had enough opportunity to commit the crime when the victim had gone towards the roadside to attend his nature's call and was completely alone and unarmed. Further, the medical evidence specifically the postmortem report proved as Ex.PW6/A corroborates the version the material witnesses and proves the cause of death. Simply because some of the witnesses had turned hostile but they were not the eye witnesses but only SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 57 of 58 the witnesses to the prior incident of quarrel which admittedly had taken place sometime before and it does not on its own give a ground to reject the evidence of eye witness who has been totally consistent and her testimony is trustworthy.
In view of the detailed findings, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Bhoora and Mohd. Miyan stand convicted of the offender under Section 302/34 IPC.
31. Copy of the judgment running into 58 pages be provided to the accused free of cost.
32. Matter be listed for arguments on the quantum of sentence on 31.07.2023. In the meanwhile, the convict and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State are directed to file their respective affidavits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Karan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020 decided on 27.11.2020.
Dictated and announced in the open (Shefali Sharma) Court on 30.05.2023 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 58 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 57873/16, FIR No. 217/14 PS Jahangir Puri State Vs. Bhoora Etc. Page No. 58 of 58