Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder Kumar Ors on 29 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 57972/2016)
FIR No. 333/2011
Police Station Prashant Vihar
Charge sheet filed 304/34 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 302/34 IPC
Section
State Vs. (1) Ravinder Kumar
S/o Late Sh.Ashok Kumar
(2) Smt. Gulabo Devi,
W/o Late Sh.Ashok Kumar
(3) Smt. Geeta,
D/o Late Sh.Ashok Kumar
All resident of:
H-3/79, Sector - 11, Rohini,
Delhi.
...Accused persons
Date of institution 09.05.2012
Arguments concluded on 03.02.2024,
12.02.2024, &
29.02.204
Judgment Pronounced on 29.02.2024
Decision Acquitted
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar
State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc.
Page 1 of 54
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion are that on 10.07.2011 on receipt of DD No.26A, SI Sandeep Ahlawat along with other police staff reached premises bearing no. H-3/79, Sector - 11, Rohini, Delhi, where HC Chittar Mal was already present with another DD bearing no. 49B regarding quarrel at the said place between the landlord K.L. Sharma (since deceased) and the tenants/accused persons Gulabo Devi, her son Ravinder Kumar and Geeta.
After making inquires, it transpired that injured had already been taken to BSA Hospital, where the MLC bearing no. 5604 of an unknown person had been prepared and he was referred for further treatment to Sushtra Trauma Centre. MLC of accused injured Gulabo Devi was also procured bearing no. 5605.
An initial FIR under Section 308/34 IPC had been registered against the accused persons for allegedly assaulting Sh.K.L. Sharma. There was also a cross FIR dated 12.07.2011 bearing no. 337/2011, PS Prashant Vihar, U/s 354/323 IPC which was registered on the basis of complaint of accused Geeta against the deceased in which investigation was conducted by HC Chatter Mal.
Investigation in the present case was carried out and eventually a DD No.48A regarding the death of Sh.K.L. Sharma at Sushtra Trauma Centre had been prepared and the FIR was SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 2 of 54 converted into one under Section 304/34 IPC.
As per the postmortem report bearing no. 300/2011, the cause of death was cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact on the head and the head injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
After completion of investigation and statement of witnesses including the sons of the deceased and public witnesses, charge sheet for the offence under Section 304/34 IPC was filed in the court.
It is the case of the prosecution that there was a landlord tenant dispute between the deceased and accused persons and the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention physically assaulted the deceased, who eventually succumbed to his injuries 09 days after.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 16.07.2012 charge under Section 302/34 IPC was found to be made out against accused persons. The formal charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against all accused persons, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 22 witnesses in all.
PW1 is W/Ct Hiramani Herenj. She has deposed SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 3 of 54 that on 26.08.2022, she had joined the investigation of the present case with W/ASI Rani Jassal and Inspector R.K. Meena and reached at Rohini Court Complex, where accused namely Gulabo Devi and Geeta surrendered. She has proved the arrest memo of Gulabo Devi as Ex.PW1/A, her personal search memo as Ex.PW1/B, her disclosure statement as Ex.PW1/C. She has also proved the arrest memo of accused Geeta as Ex.PW1/D, her personal search memo as Ex.PW1/E and her disclosure statement as Ex.PW1/F. PW2 is W/ASI Rani Jassal. She has deposed that on 28.08.2011, she joined the investigation of this case. She is deposed on the same lines as that of PW1.
PW3 is HC Anil Kaushik. He has deposed that on 10/11.07.2011, he was working as duty officer and on that day at about 1.00 a.m. SI Sandeep handed over rukka to him and on the basis of rukka, he got registered the FIR on computer through computer operator and computer generated copy of the FIR is Ex.PW3/A. The endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW3/B......
PW4 is Sh. Praveen Kumar Sharma. He has deposed that his Late father Sh. K.L. Sharma, owned a house No. H-3/79, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi which was constructed upto second floor (GF, FF and SF). That first floor of the said house was occupied by tenant accused Gulabo Devi, who is residing there alongwith her children ie. Radha, Geeta, Rakhi and Ravinder. Ravinder and Geeta. That Smt. Gulabo Devi was inducted as a tenant about 7-8 years ago from today. He further deposed that since the inception of tenancy, accused Gulabo Devi SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 4 of 54 was paying rent but after 3-4 years, she stopped paying the rent and his father deceased K.L. Sharma had filed a civil suit against Gulabo Devi which is still pending.
He further deposed that on 10.07.2011 he had gone to Chhatisgarh on his official tour. That on the same day at about 07.00 p.m, he received a call from his brother Ravinder Kumar Sharma who told him that their tenant had severally beaten his father who had received severe injury on his head. He further told him that father has been taken to Ambedkar Hospital, who has been referred to Shushrut Trauma Centre, near Majnu ka Tila. He further deposed that on the next day, he took a flight for Delhi from Chhatisgarh and from the Airport, he directly reached Trauma Centre at about 09.00 a.m. He met his brother there, who told him that somebody by the name of Ayub Khan called his father at about 07.00-07.15 a.m, and told him that he wanted to show our house to some of his relatives and he called his father at their house No. H-3/79, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that his brother further told that thereafter, their father reached at the house No. H-3/79. His brother further told him that on the same day in the evening at about 07.00 p.m, Ayub Khan called him by telephone and told him that their tenants had severally beaten their father. His brother further told him that after sometime, he received a call from police man who told him that his father was being removed to Ambedkar hospital as he had received severe injuries in the quarrel. His brother further told him that hearing this, he alongwith his 2-3 relatives went to Ambedkar hospital and from there he called him at Chhatisgarh.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 5 of 54 He further deposed that Rakhi was also present at the spot at the time of quarrel. An FIR bearing no. 337/11 was lodged against his father which a false and fabricated FIR. That after the cremation of his father, when he came to my locality, he and his brother met one Arora and one Manpreet who told them that accused persons including Rakhi had given beatings to our father.
He further deposed that he alongwith his brother Sh. Ravinder Sharma went to Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, where their house is situated. That they met the neighbourers of accused persons namely Manpreet and Pawan Arora, who informed them that on 10.07.2011 his father Sh. K.L. Sharma was given beatings for causing internal injury on his head by the accused persons in their house. They also informed him that on 10.07.2011 they heard noise from the house of accused persons where my father was beaten by them. Thereafter, they met one Ayub Khan, who used to supply building material and he informed them that his late father was sitting with him in his shop and at about 4/4.30 PM he received a telephone call from accused Gulabo Devi. That Ayub Khan also informed them that my late father informed him that Gulabo Devi is calling him at her house. He further deposed that his father was disturbed on the said day as informed to them by Ayub Khan. That Ayub Khan also informed them that his late father discussed with him that accused Gulabo Devi is not paying rent to his late father and not vacating the tenanted premises / house and used to quarrel with his late father. That Ayub Khan also informed them that his late SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 6 of 54 father left his shop and went to the tenanted premises where accused including her daughter Rakhi gave beatings to his late father and causing internal injuries on the body of his father resulting his death. He further deposed that a false case was registered against my father with P.S. Prashant Vihar.
He further deposed that when he came back to Delhi, he went to Trauma Center, where he saw my father in ICU of the said hospital. That on the next day, his father was shifted to the ward and thereafter again my father was shifted to ICU. His father was on ventilator and he died in the ICU of the said hospital on 19.07.2011. He further deposed that he identified the dead body of his father vide his statement Ex. PW-4/A. That the postmortem on the body of his father was conducted in BSA Hospital and after the postmortem on the body of his father, the dead body was handed over to them vide dead body handing over memo Ex. PW-9/B. He further deposed that a false case FIR No.337/11, P.S. Prashant Vihar, U/s 354/323 IPC was lodged against his late father. That the certified copy of the same is Ex. PW-4/B. He further deposed that the accused persons are still living in the said tenanted premises of my late father Sh. K.L. Sharma.
PW5 is HC Sandeep Kumar. He has deposed that on 13.07.2011, he joined the investigation of the present case with SI Sandeep Kumar and went in search of accused and reached at House No. H-3/79, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi, where they found accused Ravinder Kumar. He further deposed that accused Ravinder was interrogated and arrested by the IO vide arrest SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 7 of 54 memo Ex.PW5/A, his personal search was also carried out vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/B. He further deposed that accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW5/C. PW6 is Dr. Bhavana Jain, CMO, BSA Hospital. She has deposed that on 10.07.2011 at about 06.10 p.m, one unknown patient was brought to the hospital by the PCR with the alleged history of physical assault, no proper history available. That Dr.Shahdab, JR Casualty examined the patient and on medical examination patient was unconscious, not following any verbal command but responding to painful stimuli. That on local examination, no obvious fresh injuries were present on body. She further deposed that after giving initial treatment, patient was referred to SR Surgery, Medicine and Anesthesia for further management and opinion. She further deposed that MLC Ex. PW-6/A was prepared by Dr.Shahdab.
PW7 is HC Mazid Khan. He has deposed that on 10.07.2011 he was posted at PCR -Outer District and on that day his duty hours were from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. That he alongwith Const. Kishan Kumar/Driver in PCR Vehicle No. Labra-42, which was parked in front of Ambedkar Bhawan. That at about 5.03 PM, he received a wireless information from the Control Room Libra-I regarding "Jabardast Jhagra at H. No. H- 3/79, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi. That on receipt of the information in the PCR van at the abovesaid place where there was quarrel between landlord Sh. K.L. Sharma and tenants Smt. Gulabo Devi & her family members. That at the spot Smt. Gulabo Devi, her son and daughter were present and Sh. K.L. Sharma-landlord was SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 8 of 54 also present inside the ground floor of the abovesaid house. That Smt. Gulabo Devi met him and informed that she had a quarrel with Sh. K.L. Sharma regarding the dispute of tenancy. Sh. K.L. Sharma also present when Smt. Gulabo Devi informed him. He further deposed that he inquired from Smt. Gulabo Devi as well as Sh. K.L. Sharma regarding any injury to them. On this, Smt. Gulabo Devi told him that she sustained internal injury / Gum Chot and she wish to be taken to the hospital for her medical examination. That Sh. K.L. Sharma was inquired as to any injury on his person. On this, he denied to accompany them to the hospital for his medical examination. He further deposed that only Smt. Gulabo Devi accompanied them to the hospital for her medical examination. They took Smt. Gulabo Devi to B.S.A. Hospital where she was got admitted for her medical examination. Thereafter, they reached in their PCR vehicle to our base at in front of Ambedkar Bhawan.
He further deposed that he informed all the facts to the Labra-I which were recorded in the wireless log & Diary from page 273, 275 & 277. The relevant entries are Ex. PW-7/A to Ex. PW-7/C. PW8 is Sh.R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. He has deposed that as per customer application form, the Mobile No.9650516183 was in the name of Ms. Radha Devi, D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o H-3/79, Block-H, Pocket-3, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-85. The customer supplied election identity card duly attested and signed by the customer. The customer application form is Ex. PW-8/A. The election identity card is Ex.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 9 of 54 PW-8/B. He further deposed that he supplied call details of the aforesaid mobile number dated 10.07.2011 to 09.09.2011, which is Ex. PW-8/C. The details of the customers is Ex. PW-8/D. He has brought the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-8/E. He further deposed that all the call details Ex.PW-8/C were generated from the computer which is lawfully under his control and possession, derived from the computer and its password is protected under his control. He generated the details of the calls Ex. PW-8/C. He further deposed that the information/CDR Ex. PW8/C is computer generated and computer is in function in ordinary course of business and there is no chance of tempering and manipulation in it.
PW9 is Ravinder Kumar. He has deposed that his father late Sh.K..L. Sharma owned a property bearing House No. H-3/79, Sector - 11, Rohini, Delhi and the said house is constructed upto two floors i.e. ground floor, first and second floor. That in the year 2005, his father had let out first floor premises to accused Gulabo Devi, who is residing with her family in tenanted premises. He further deposed that two other daughters of accused Gulabo Devi namely Radha and Rake are also residing in the tenanted premises. That accused persons stopped paying rent of the tenanted premises since 2008 and they have filed a civil suit against the accused persons.
He further deposed that he along with his other two brothers residing the said premises. That on 10.07.2011, at about 7.30 a.m., he served breakfast to his late father, who informed SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 10 of 54 him that he is going to his property in Rohini as he received a telephone call from Ayub Khan, a resident of Sector 11, Rohini. He further deposed that his late father informed him that Ayub Khan is calling him for the purpose of showing him second floor of property no. H-3/79, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that his late father informed him that Ayub Khan intended to induct a tenant in the second floor of the premises to his brother in law (sala).
He furthe deposed that on 10.07.2011 at about 6.45 p.m. he received a telephone call from HC Chhatar Pal, who informed him that his father had met with an accident and admitted in Ambedkar Hospital. That he along with his relatives reached at Ambedkar Hospital in a case and in the hospital, found his late father in unconscious condition and he was being removed in an ambulance. He further deposed that the senior doctors of the hospital advised him to accompany his father in the ambulance. That he boarded the ambulance in which his father was shifted Trauma Centre, ISBT Delhi. He further deposed that in the ambulance, he made a call to his younger brother Parveen, who was attending his official tour at Chhatisgarh. He further deposed that he informed his brother that their father is in bad condition. He got admitted his father in Trauma Centre. He further deposed that senior doctors informed him that his father sustained a serious injury in his head and the said injury cannot be operated due to the old age of his father. That thereafter, he went to Rohini, Sector - 11 at the tenanted premises, where he met Manpreet Singh, who is the neighbour of SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 11 of 54 the said house, informed him that he heard noise of his father from the tenanted house. He further deposed that Manpreet Singh and Pawan Arora also informed him that his father had been severally beaten and they also informed him that all accused persons and their other family members were present at their house due to Sunday and they all gave beatings to his father in the said house at Rohini.
He further deposed that two days since the admission of his father in Trauma Centre, Ayub Khan reached in the hospital and informed them that when my father went to his property, Rohini, Sector - 11, he has fear in his mind that some incident may took place with him.
He further deposed that on 12.07.2011, a false case was registered against his father in PS Prashant Vihar. That he gave written complaint to the police officials of PS Prashant Vihar that a false case has been registered against his father and his father has been killed by severe beatings of the accused persons. He further deposed that on 19.07.2011, his father expired in the hospital. That on 20.07.2011, postmortem was conducted on the body of his father in S.S.A Hospital. He identified the dead body of his father and his statement Ex.PW9/A was recorded in this regard. He further deposed that after postmortem dead body was handed over to them vide memo Ex.PW9/B. He further deposed that despite his complaint Ex.PW9/C police had not taken any action against the accused persons.
PW10 is W/Ct. Sushila. She has deposed that on 10.07.2011, he was working at extension no.113 and at about SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 12 of 54 5.01 p.m., she received an information from informant, who made call from his mobile to Control Room, PHQ and informed that Jabardast Jhagra at H.No. 3-79, Sector -11, Rohini, near Parshuram College. She furthe deposed that she fed the said informant in the PCR Form no.1 Ex.PW10/A and the certificate U/s 65B is Ex.PW10/B. PW11 is ASI Ganesh Dass. He has deposed that on 11.07.2011, he was posted at PS Pr. Vihar as Head Ct. and working as an MHC(M) and on that day, IO, Insp. Rajender Meena had deposited in Malkhana two envelopes sealed with the seal of BSA Hospital and he made relevant entry in register No. 19 vide Sr. No. 3636 Ex. PW11/A. He further deposed that on 09.09.20118, the exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Parvinder vide RC No. 76/21/11 Ex. PW11/B and after depositing the same he handed over him an acknowledgment Ex. PW11/C. PW12 is Mohd. Ayub Khan. He has deposed that he was running business of building material and was known to K.L. Sharma (since deceased) for the last many years prior to his death as he used to purchase raw material from him. He further deposed that as and when deceased visited Sector - 11, he used to meet him and H.No. H-3/79, Sector 11, Rohini, belongs to Sh.K.L. Sharma. He further deposed that in the year 2011, deceased was residing at Narela along with his family.
As he was resiled from his earlier statement, he was thoroughly cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State.
PW13 is Head Constable Raj Kishore. He has SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 13 of 54 deposed that on 10.07.2011, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar as a Constable and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 26A, he alongwith SI Sandeep reached at the spot i.e. H. No. H-3/79, Sector-11, Rohini. That at the spot, HC Chittar Mal also met them. There they came to know that injured was already removed to BSA Hospital. He remained at the spot. SI Sandeep and HC Chittar Mal went to BSA Hospital.
He further deposed that after 5-6 hours, SI Sandeep and HC Chittar Mal came back at the spot and SI Sandeep handed over him a rukka for registration of FIR. He went to PS, got registered the case and came back at the spot with the copy of FIR and original rukka and same were handed over to SI Sandeep and thereafter they came back to PS and his statement was recorded by the IO.
PW14 is Dr. Vijay Dhankar. He has deposed that on 20.07.2011 from 12:15 pm to 1:00 pm, he conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Kanchi Lal Sharma S/o Nathi Mal Sharma, aged-69 years male. That the body was sent by SI Sandeep Kumar of PS Prashant Vihar in case FIR No. 333/11. He further deposed that on examination, he found external & internal injuries which were mentioned in detailed PM report No. 300/2011 Ex. PW14/A. He has opined that death was due to cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head. All injuries are ante mortem and could be caused in a physical assault. The head injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
He further deposed that blood sample in gauze was SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 14 of 54 preserved and sealed and handed over to police.
PW15 is Sh. Pawan Kumar Arora. He has deposed that he was not an eye witness to the incident. He has deposed that on the date of incident, he had gone to his factory at 11.00 a.m. and when he returned home at about 8.00 p.m., he saw public persons had gathered there and police was also present there. He further deposed that he came to know that my neighbour Sh.K.L. Sharma had sustained injuries in a quarrel and he had been taken to hospital.
As he was resiled from his earlier statement, he was thoroughly cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State.
PW16 is Ms. Sunita Gupta, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology). She has deposed that vide letter no. 4015/SHO PRASHANT VIHAR dated 08.09.2011, their lab received one sealed parcel in connection with case FIR No. 333/11. The said parcel was marked to her. She had opened the said parcel, which was found containing one blood stained gauze cloth piece of deceased. That upon examination, blood was detected on the said exhibit. She had also prepared serological report, as per which the blood group AB was found on the said exhibit. Her reports dated 18.10.2011 in this regard are Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW16/B respectively.
PW17 is Inspector Rajesh Kumar. He has deposed that on 10.01.2012, he was posted at DIU, Outer District. That on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He had perused the case file and during the course of investigation, he had visited the place of occurrence in order to SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 15 of 54 search the eye witnesses.
He further deposed that during investigation, on 31.01.2012, he had recorded the statement of HC Majid Khan i.e. PCR official. That he had recorded the statements of Ct. Raj Kumar, eye witnesses Manmeet Singh and Sunil Arora and had also collected FSL result. He further deposed that during investigation, it was revealed to him that accused Geeta got registered one FIR bearing no. 337/11 at PS Prashant Vihar. That upon completion of investigation, he had prepared chargesheet.
PW18 is Ct. Raj Kumar. He has deposed that on 10.07.2011, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar and on that day, while he was on patrolling duty, on or about 5:00 pm, he had received an information about a heavy quarrel at H-3/79, Sector- 11, Rohini. Accordingly, he rushed to the said place and found HC Chittar Mal and other police officials present there.
He further deposed that on the spot, it was revealed to him that the quarrel was in between landlord and tenant and the tenant has already been removed to hospital in PCR. He saw the landlord sitting over the staircases at ground floor. He also came to know that in the said quarrel, on one side was tenant, her son and daughter and on the other side was the landlord. He further deposed that they tried to inquire from the landlord whose name was revealed to him as K. L. Sharma about the occurrence, but he was not in a position to give reply. Since his condition was deteriorating, he immediately put the said landlord in an auto and accused Ravinder had also accompanied him in the said auto and we got admitted Sh. K. L. Sharma to BSA Hospital. He further SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 16 of 54 deposed that later on he came to know that Sh. K. L. Sharma had expired in Trauma Centre during treatment on 19.07.2011.
PW19 is Sh.Manmeet @ Sunny. He has deposed that in the month of March 2012, he along with his family were residing at H-3/78, Sector - 11, Rohini, Delhi, as a tenant. That they had shifted to aforesaid house in the month of November 2011. That accused persons were residing in his neighborhood as tenants.
As he was resiling from his earlier statement, he was thoroughly cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State.
PW20 is Inspector Rajender Kumar. He has deposed that on 20.07.2011, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar as Inspector ATO and on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He had perused the case file and converted the offence u/s 304/34 IPC from that of 308/34 IPC.
He has further deposed that on 18.08.2011, he had collected the postmortem report and also seized one sealed envelope containing blood on gauze of deceased and one sample seal of similar specimen vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/A. He has further deposed that during investigation, he had obtained the NBWs of accused Gulabo Devi and Geeta and on 10.08.2011, he had obtained process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. of accused Gulabo Devi and Geeta.
He has further deposed that on 25.08.2011, accused persons Gulabo Devi and Geeta moved an application for surrendering themselves before the court. That on 26.08.2011, both the accused persons Gulabo Devi and Geeta surrendered SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 17 of 54 themselves before the concerned court and after seeking permission, he had effected their arrest vide arrest memos Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B respectively and conducted their personal searches through W/HC Hiramani and W/ASI Rani Jassal vide personal search memos Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E respectively. He further deposed that accused Gulabo made disclosure statement Ex. PW1/C and accused Geeta made disclosure statement Ex. PW1/F. He has further deposed that both the accused persons were remanded to JC. That during investigation, on 09.09.2011, Ct. Parminder had collected the exhibits from MHC (M) vide RC No. 76/21/11 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. He has further deposed that he had also recorded the statement of witnesses and also collected FLS result Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW16/B respectively. He further deposed that thereafter, he had prepared draft chargesheet and further investigation was marked to DIU.
PW21 is SI Sandeep Ahlawat. He has deposed that on 10.07.2011, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar and on that day, on receipt of DD no. 26A Ex. PW21/A, he alongwith Ct. Raj Kishore went to H3/79, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, where HC Chittar Mal was already present with DD No. 49B Ex. PW3/B regarding quarrel at the said place. He made inquiries and came to know that injured has been removed to BSA Hospital. Ct. Raj Kishore was left at the scene of crime to guard the same. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Chittar Mal went to BSA Hospital, where one unknown person was found admitted with SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 18 of 54 alleged history of physical assault and patient was unfit for statement and after medical examination, patient was referred to higher medical centre i.e. Sushruta Trauma Centre. That he collected the MLC of said unknown injured and Gulabo Goswami. That on the MLC of Gulabo Goswami, no opinion was given by the doctor as to nature of injuries and Smt. Gulabo Devi found admitted in the hospital.
He further deposed that on inquiry, he came to know that owner of the H. No. H-3/79. Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, Kanchi Lal Sharma and tenant Smt. Gulabo Devi, her son Ravinder and daughter Geeta quarreled with each other. That two injured Kanchi Lal Sharma and Smt. Gulabo Devi were admitted in BSA hospital vide MLCs. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Chittar Mal went to Sushruta Trauma Centre and met with doctor, who informed that patient is in deep coma due to internal bleeding in the head and he alongwith HC Chittar Mal returned to the police station.
He further deposed that he made endorsement Ex.PW21/B on DD No. 49B Ex. PW3/B, prepared rukka, which he handed over to the duty officer for registration of FIR and the Duty officer registered FIR u/s 308/34 IPC.
He further deposed that he alongwith HC Chittar Mal went to scene of crime, where they met Ct. Raj Kishore. That Ct. Raj Kishore went to police station and returned to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka, which he handed over to him for further investigation and prepared site plan Ex. PW21/C. He further deposed that HC Chittar Mal handed over him the SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 19 of 54 statement of Ms. Geeta D/o late Ashok Kumar. They made investigation and returned to the police station.
He further deposed that on 12.07.2011, he again went to Sushruta Trauma Centre, where he moved an application Ex. PW21/D regarding the nature of injury sustained by injured Kanchi Lal Sharma. Doctor opined on the same application "As per record, grievous injury from Neurological point of view", which is encircled with red ink at point X on Ex. PW21/D. Doctor opined injured unfit for statement on 12.07.2011, at 9:30 am.
He further deposed that he reached at the scene of crime and made investigation. That on 12.07.2011, a case FIR No. 337/11, PS Prashant Vihar u/s 354/323 IPC was registered, on the basis of the complaint of Geeta and investigation was conducted by HC Chittar Mal. That on 13.07.2011, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep went to the scene of crime, where they met accused Ravinder Kumar, who was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A . The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW5/B. Accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW5/C The accused was medically examined and produced in the court. The accused was sent to JC.
He further deposed that he received DD No. 48A Ex. PW21/E regarding death of Sh. K. L. Sharma at Sushruta Trauma Centre. That he alongwith Ct. Raj Kishore went to Sushruta Trauma Centre, where he collected the death summary of Sh. K. L. Sharma Ex. PW21/F, which he placed on the record. That thte dead body was shifted to the mortuary of Dr. BSA Hospital. That SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 20 of 54 he prepared the inquest documents including form 25.35 Ex. PW21/G, brief facts Ex. PW21/H and application for postmortem Ex. PW21/J. That the dead body was identified by relatives of the deceased namely Sh. Ravinder Kumar and Sh. Praveen Kumar. That the postmortem was conducted on the dead body vide postmortem report Ex. PW14/A and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide dead body handing over memo Ex. PW9/B He further deposed that he returned to the police station, recorded the statements of witnesses. Section 304 IPC was attracted in the present case and further investigation was conducted by Inspector Rajender Kumar Meena/PW20 and he handed over the file to MHCR.
PW22 is Ct. Parminder (under suspension). He has deposed that on 09.09.2011, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar and on that day, on the instructions of IO Inspector R.K. Meena and SHO, he had collected the sealed parcels of the present case from MHC(M) vide RC No. 76/21/11 and deposited the saime in FSL Rohini. That thereafter, he came back to PS and the acknowledgment was handed over to MHC(M).
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
4. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 08.12.2023 wherein they denied all the evidence put to them and stated that they has falsely implicated in the present case in connivance with the SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 21 of 54 complainant.
Vide their separate statements, the accused persons have respectively stated that they are innocent and have been implicated by the police officials in connivance with the complainant. They further deposed that in order to grab their property, the son of the deceased Ravinder Kumar had falsely implicated them in this FIR to put pressure. That thereafter, an amicable settlement had been arrived at between them and the complainant party regarding the said property vide settlement agreement dated 23.12.2022 which had been filed in the concerned court of Ld. ADJ-02, North West, Rohini and consequent to the settlement the civil litigation had been withdrawn. They further stated that in the said settlement specifically in para No. I, the complainant herein had admitted that the accused persons are not reasonable for his father's death.
They further stated that all the proceedings were conducted by the IO while sitting at PS and case property planted upon them. That they never gave any disclosure statement neither point out any place of incident, rather their signatures were obtained by the police forcibly on several blank papers which were later converted into indiscriminate documents against them to falsely implicate them in the present case. They further stated that they were never arrested at the place and manner as shown by the prosecution. That no such incident ever took place and they are not involved in any manner in the present case. They further stated that nothing was recovered from them or at their instance.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 22 of 54 Accused persons opted to lead defence evidence and examined DW1/accused Gulabo Devi.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
5. Accused Gulabo Devi examined herself as DW1. She has deposed that she, her son and daughter have been falsely implicated in the present case. She further deposed that in order to grab their property, the son of the deceased Ravinder Kumar had falsely implicated them in this FIR to put pressure. That thereafter, an amicable settlement had been arrived at between them and the complainant party regarding the said property vide settlement agreement dated 23.12.2022 which had been filed in the concerned court of Ld. ADJ-02, North West, Rohini and consequent to the settlement the civil litigation had been withdrawn. The copy of the said settlement is Ex.DW1/A. She further deposed that in the said settlement specifically in para No. I, the complainant herein had admitted that the accused persons are not responsible for his father's death.
She was thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
6. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard Sh. Nishant Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ld. Counsel for accused persons and perused the entire record.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 23 of 54
8. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature. It was further argued that all the witnesses have clearly proved the manner of offence and prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. That merely because some of the witnesses have not deposed entirely in favour of the prosecution, that alone cannot absolve the guilt of the accused persons and the relevant portion of their testimony can be read.
9. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated. It was further argued that prime prosecution witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution and there was no incriminating evidence against them and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
It was specifically argued that the witnesses have made their statements based upon hearsay. The initial police officials, who had reached the spot i.e. Ct. Raj Kumar and HC Chatter Mal did not say anything about the identity of the injured despite the accused along with other family members were present at the spot and deceased was found sitting at the staircase and was murmuring something. It has been further submitted that accused Gulabo Devi was taken to hospital first by HC Chattar Mal but the prosecution has failed to explain as to how MLC was prepared subsequent to the MLC of the injured. That there were no external injury which had been found on the body of the deceased as per the postmortem report and the allegations of SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 24 of 54 physical assault are baseless and afterthought and that is why there is delay in lodging of FIR.
The material public witnesses PW12 Mohd. Ayub, PW15 Pawan Kumar Arora and PW19 Manmeet have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no weapon of offence, if any, which had been recovered nor the manner in which the death was caused and the role attributed to each accused has been explained by the prosecution.
It is defence of the accused persons is that a prior civil litigation and FIR had been registered against the deceased under Section 354/323 IPC prior on behalf of the accused party and capitalizing the death of the deceased due to sudden fall, a false case had been registered against the accused by the sons of the deceased. Thereafter, an amicable settlement had arrived at in the concerned civil court by the sons of the deceased vide settlement agreement dated 23.12.2022 wherein they admitted that accused persons are not responsible for the death of their father. Accordingly, accused deserve acquittal.
FINDINGS
10. The accused persons had been charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
11. The relevant Section is reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:
SECTION 302 IPC "Punishment for murder.--Whoever SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 25 of 54 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".
12. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against 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 SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 26 of 54 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, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
14. PW7 HC Majid Khan, he was one of the first police officials, who had reached the spot along with HC Chatter Mal on receipt of a wireless information regarding quarrel between the landlord K.L. Sharma and the tenant Smt.Gulabo Devi and her family members (accused persons). He categorically deposed that Smt. Gulabo Devi met him and informed that she had a quarrel with Sh. K.L. Sharma regarding the dispute of tenancy. Sh. K.L. Sharma also present when Smt. Gulabo Devi informed him. He further deposed that he inquired from Smt. Gulabo Devi as well as Sh. K.L. Sharma regarding any injury to them. On this, Smt. Gulabo Devi told him that she sustained internal injury / Gum Chot and she wished to be taken to the hospital for her medical examination.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 27 of 54 That Sh. K.L. Sharma was inquired if there was any injury on his person, on this, he denied to accompany them to the hospital for his medical examination. He further deposed that only Smt. Gulabo Devi accompanied them to the hospital for her medical examination. They took Smt. Gulabo Devi to B.S.A. Hospital where she was got admitted for her medical examination.
Thus, from the testimony of PW7 it transpires firstly that accused had been taken to the hospital but prosecution has failed to explain that how her MLC 5605 is subsequent to the MLC of K.L. Sharma bearing no. 5604 of the same hospital. That as per the version of the prosecution story K.L. Sharma himself refused to go to hospital and PW7 took Gulabo Devi for her medical examination.
Secondly, there was no apparent injury caused to the K.L. Sharma and he was very much conscious and talking and refused to go to the hospital for any medical examination. From the very examination in chief of PW7, it transpires that it was Gulabo Devi, who had infact sustained internal injuries/gum chot and wished to be taken to hospital for her medical examination. Even as per the postmortem report bearing no. 300/2011, Ex.PW14/A, no fresh external injuries were seen on the body of the deceased. Thus, the very basis of the prosecution story about a deadly physical assault by all the accused person upon K.L. Sharma comes under cloud.
PW7 in his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused persons, admitted that when he inquired SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 28 of 54 K.L. Sharma as to whether he was injured and whether he wants to accompany him to the hospital, K.L. Sharma denied the same. The relevant part of his cross-examination is reproduced herein for the sake of reference:
"It is correct that when I inquired from K.L. Sharma, whether he wants to come with us to the hospital, he denied the same.
He is the person who first visited the spot on 10.07.2011, as per the prosecution story and admitted the fact in his cross-examination that he did not see any physical injury on the person of K.L. Sharma (since deceased).
Moving forward, I now delve upon the testimony of other material public witnesses.
OTHER MATERIAL WITNESS
15. The prime prosecution witness were PW4 Praveen Kumar Sharma and PW9 Ravinder Kumar sons of the deceased. PW4 Praveen Kumar Sharma He has deposed that his Late father Sh. K.L. Sharma, owned a house No. H-3/79, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi which was constructed upto second floor (GF, FF and SF). That first floor of the said house was occupied by tenant accused Gulabo Devi, who is residing there alongwith her children ie. Radha, Geeta, Rakhi and Ravinder. Ravinder and Geeta. That Smt. Gulabo Devi was inducted as a tenant about 7-8 years ago from today. He further deposed that since the inception of tenancy, accused SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 29 of 54 Gulabo Devi was paying rent but after 3-4 years, she stopped paying the rent and his father deceased K.L. Sharma had filed a civil suit against Gulabo Devi which is still pending.
He further deposed that on 10.07.2011 he had gone to Chhatisgarh on his official tour. That on the same day at about 07.00 p.m, he received a call from his brother Ravinder Kumar Sharma who told him that their tenant had severally beaten his father who had received severe injury on his head. He further told him that father has been taken to Ambedkar Hospital, who has been referred to Shushrut Trauma Centre, near Majnu ka Tila. He further deposed that on the next day, he took a flight for Delhi from Chhatisgarh and from the Airport, he directly reached Trauma Centre at about 09.00 a.m. He met his brother there, who told him that somebody by the name of Ayub Khan called him by telephone and told him that their tenants had severally beaten their father.
He further deposed that Rakhi was also present at the spot at the time of quarrel. An FIR bearing no. 337/11 was lodged against his father which.
He further deposed that he alongwith his brother Sh. Ravinder Sharma went to Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, where their house is situated. That they met the neighbourers of accused persons namely Manpreet and Pawan Arora, who informed them that on 10.07.2011 his father Sh. K.L. Sharma was given beatings for causing internal injury on his head by the accused persons in their house. They also informed him that on 10.07.2011 they heard noise from the house of accused persons SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 30 of 54 where their father was beaten. Thereafter, they met one Ayub Khan, who used to supply building material and he informed them that his late father was sitting with him in his shop and at about 4/4.30 PM he received a telephone call from accused Gulabo Devi. That Ayub Khan also informed them that their late father informed him that Gulabo Devi is calling him at her house. He further deposed that his father was disturbed on the said day as informed to them by Ayub Khan. That Ayub Khan also informed them that his late father discussed with him that accused Gulabo Devi is not paying rent to his late father and not vacating the tenanted premises / house and used to quarrel with his late father. That Ayub Khan also informed them that his late father left his shop and went to the tenanted premises where accused persons including her daughter Rakhi gave beatings to his late father and causing internal injuries on the body of his father resulting his death.
He further deposed that he identified the dead body of his father vide his statement Ex. PW-4/A. That the postmortem on the body of his father was conducted in BSA Hospital and after the postmortem on the body of his father, the dead body was handed over to them vide dead body handing over memo Ex. PW-9/B. PW9 Ravinder Kumar He has deposed on the similar lines as his brother/PW4. He further deposed that on 10.07.2011 at about 6.45 p.m. he received a telephone call from HC Chhatar Pal, who informed him that his father had met with an accident and SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 31 of 54 admitted in Ambedkar Hospital. That he along with his relatives reached at Ambedkar Hospital in a case and in the hospital, found his late father in unconscious condition and he was being removed in an ambulance. He further deposed that the senior doctors of the hospital advised him to accompany his father in the ambulance. That he boarded the ambulance in which his father was shifted Trauma Centre, ISBT Delhi. He further deposed that in the ambulance, he made a call to his younger brother Parveen, who was attending his official tour at Chhatisgarh. He further deposed that he informed his brother that their father is in bad condition. He got admitted his father in Trauma Centre. He further deposed that senior doctors informed him that his father sustained a serious injury in his head and the said injury cannot be operated due to the old age of his father. That thereafter, he went to Rohini, Sector - 11 at the tenanted premises, where he met Manpreet Singh, who is the neighbour of the said house, informed him that he heard noise of his father from the tenanted house. He further deposed that Manpreet Singh and Pawan Arora also informed him that his father had been severally beaten and they also informed him that all accused persons and their other family members were present at their house and they all gave beatings to his father in the said house at Rohini.
He further deposed that two days since the admission of his father in Trauma Centre, Ayub Khan reached in the hospital and informed them that when my father went to his property, Rohini, Sector - 11, he has fear in his mind that some SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 32 of 54 incident may took place with him.
Both PW4 and PW9 deposed on similar lines. PW4 Praveen Kumar Sharma is merely a hearsay witness and was not present at the spot and was at Chhatisgarh at that time. He had named one Ayub Khan and that he and his brother Ravinder Sharma/PW9 met Ayub Khan, who used to supply building material and it is Ayub Khan who informed PW4 and PW9 that K.L. Sharma had left his shop and went to the tenanted premises where the accused persons including Rakhi gave beatings to their late father which resulted in his death.
At the very outset, it is pertinent to mentioned that said Rakhi has not been made an accused in the present case. Further, no complaint admittedly had been lodged by the said witness against Gulabo Devi or her family members prior to 10.07.2011 and infact he denied if he had any knowledge of any prior civil litigation filed by his father. He further stated that two three relative namely Anil and Ashu had accompanied her brother to the hospital but the said Anil and Ashu had not been made witnesses in the present case by the prosecution.
PW9 Ravinder Kumar, another son of deceased is again a hearsay witness and was not present at the spot at the time of incident and deposed that he infact received a call from HC Chattar Pal regarding the fact that his father met with an accident. This is completely off the prosecution story. There is no mention of alleged physical assault by the accused persons. Even, he testified on the lines of his brother/PW4 that they had met Ayub Khan, Manpreet Singh and Pawan Arora.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 33 of 54 Thus, from the testimonies both PW4 and PW9, nothing incriminating could be culled out against the accused persons.
16. Now, I proceed further to analyse the testimonies of other material public witnesses i.e. PW12 Ayub Khan, PW15 Pawan Arora and PW19 Manmeet Singh, who had been named by the sons of the deceased as having first hand information of incident.
PW12 Ayub Khan He has deposed that he was running business of building material and was known to K.L. Sharma (since deceased) for the last many years prior to his death as he used to purchase raw material from him. He further deposed that as and when deceased visited Sector - 11, he used to meet him and H.No. H-3/79, Sector 11, Rohini, belongs to Sh.K.L. Sharma. He further deposed that in the year 2011, deceased was residing at Narela along with his family and except the aforesaid facts, he do not know anything about this case.
PW15 Pawan Kumar Arora He has deposed that he was not an eye witness to the incident. He has deposed that on the date of incident, he had gone to his factory at 11.00 a.m. and when he returned home at about 8.00 p.m., he saw public persons had gathered there and police was also present there. He further deposed that he came to know that my neighbour Sh.K.L. Sharma had sustained injuries in a quarrel and he had been taken to hospital. He further stated that SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 34 of 54 he do not know anything about this case.
PW19 Manmeet @ Sunny He has deposed that in the month of March 2012, he along with his family were residing at H-3/78, Sector - 11, Rohini, Delhi, as a tenant. That they had shifted to aforesaid house in the month of November 2011. That accused persons were residing in his neighborhood as tenants. He further stated that he do not know anything about this case and except this do not want to say anything else in this case.
All the said independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and resiled from their earlier respective statements and despite a lengthy cross- examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, nothing incriminating could be culled out against the accused.
DELAY IN LODGING THE FIR
17. At this very outset, it is pertinent to discuss the case law on the point of delay in lodging the FIR.
In the case of Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379, it was observed as under:
"The FIR in a criminal case is vital and valuable piece of evidence, though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits, the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence.............. Undoubtedly, the SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 35 of 54 promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding the truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened and who was responsible for the offence in question".
In the case of Tulshidas Kanolkar Vs. State of Goa (2003) 8 SCC 590, it is observed as under:
Delay in lodging the first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula f or discarding the prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered, the court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not. In case if the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay, it is a relevant factor."
However, given the facts and circumstances of the present case where neither the manner of the offence nor the weapon if any recovered and the material public witnesses having not supported the case of the prosecution it becomes a suspicious factor as to why there was delay in lodging the FIR.
The incident allegedly happened on 10.07.2011 at about 5.00 p.m and FIR has been registered on the next day i.e. 11.07.2011 at late night at about 1'o clock and that too under Section 308/34 IPC and the injured died almost 10 days after the incident and only then Section 304 IPC was incorporated.
In the present case, thus, the prosecution has failed SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 36 of 54 to explain the delay in lodging the FIR, which although does not effect the merits of the case, however, puts the Court on guard and creates a grave doubt in prosecution story, especially in the wake of material prosecution witnesses not supporting the case of the prosecution.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE
18. PW14 Dr. Vijay Dhankar proved the PM report No. 300/2011 and proved the same as Ex.PW14/A. He has opined that death was due to cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head. All injuries are ante mortem and could be caused in a physical assault. The head injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
From the testimony of PW7 it transpires firstly that accused had been taken to the hospital but prosecution has failed to explain that how MLC of Gulabo Devi bearing no.5605 is subsequent to the MLC of K.L. Sharma bearing no. 5604 of the same hospital. That as per the version of the prosecution story K.L. Sharma himself refused to go to hospital and PW7 took Gulabo Devi for her medical examination.
Secondly, there was no apparent external injuries caused to the K.L. Sharma and he was very much conscious and talking and refused to go to the hospital for any medical examination. From the very examination in chief of PW7, it transpires that it was Gulabo Devi, who had infact sustained internal injuries/gum chot and wished to be taken to hospital for her medical examination.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 37 of 54 Even as per the postmortem report bearing no. 300/2011, Ex.PW14/A, no fresh external injuries were seen on the body of the deceased. Thus, the very basis of the prosecution story about a deadly physical assault by all the accused person upon K.L. Sharma comes under cloud.
PW7 is the person who first visited the spot on 10.07.2011, as per the prosecution story and admitted the fact in his cross-examination that he did not see any physical injury on the person of K.L. Sharma (since deceased).
There is no forensic evidence lifted from the crime scene which could suggest any signs of scuffle or struggle or that which has been sent for further investigation to the lab which could be incriminating against the accused persons.
WEAPON OF OFFENCE/MANNER OF CRIME
19. There is no weapon of offence seized whatsoever or manner in which the injury was inflicted and the prosecution has failed to prove that if at all the deceased had sustained injuries, they were caused by the accused persons.
Even as per the postmortem report bearing no. 300/2011, Ex.PW14/A, no fresh external injuries were seen on the body of the deceased. Thus, the very basis of the prosecution story about a deadly physical assault by all the accused person upon K.L. Sharma comes under cloud.
POLICE WITNESSES
20. Police witnesses merely deposed regarding the SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 38 of 54 manner of investigation.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
21. Accused Gulabo Devi examined herself as DW1. She has deposed that she, her son and daughter have been falsely implicated in the present case. She further deposed that in order to grab their property, the son of the deceased Ravinder Kumar had falsely implicated them in this FIR to put pressure. That thereafter, an amicable settlement had been arrived at between them and the complainant party regarding the said property vide settlement agreement dated 23.12.2022 which had been filed in the concerned court of Ld. ADJ-02, North West, Rohini and consequent to the settlement the civil litigation had been withdrawn. The copy of the said settlement is Ex.DW1/A. She further deposed that in the said settlement specifically in para No.I, the complainant/sons of the deceased had admitted that the accused persons (Gulabo Devi and her children) are not responsible for their father's death. The relevant portion of the agreement as reproduced herein:
"There have been litigations pending between the parties including case FIR No.333/2011 dated 11.07.2011 under Section 302/34 IPC, PS Prashant Vihar, New Delhi, in which FIR, charge sheet has been filed and in the said FIR, the Second Party has been one of the witness as he had believed that the First Party and her two children were responsible for the death of his father, however, during the pendency of the cases and especially after speaking to various witnesses who came to depose in the Court and following it up, the Second Party has realised that the First Party and her children were not responsible for the death of his father and consequently both the First Party and Second Party wish to put a quietus to all the litigations."
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 39 of 54
22. Another vital aspect to be looked into is that when PW7 had gone on the spot and inquired the deceased K.L. Sharma was conscious and there was no external injury which was visible on his person and he himself refused to go to the hospital. The said K.L. Sharma died after 09 days of the incident i.e. on 19.07.2011. The manner and specific role to each accused in the alleged physical assault has not been proved by the prosecution.
23. At this stage, it is imperative to note the relevant case law on the point of Section 302 IPC and the essential ingredients of intention or knowledge of the act to cause culpable homicide.
In the case titled as Mohd. Rafiq @ Kallu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 856/2021 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
11. The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC, or culpable homicide, of either description punishable under Section 304 IPC has engaged the attention of courts in this country for over one and a half century, since the enactment of the IPC; a welter of case law, on this aspect exists, including perhaps several hundred rulings by this court. The use of the term "likely" in several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person. Section 300 IPC which defines murder, however refrains from the use of the term likely, which reveals absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 40 of 54 The accused is for sure that his act will definitely cause death. It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes.
This difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a very wide variance of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crimes.
In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr 1977 AIR SC 45 notes the important distinction between the two provisions, and their differing, but subtle distinction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pertinently pointed out that:
"12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, "culpable homicide" is genus and "murder" its specie. All "murder" is "culpable homicide" but not vice- versa. Speaking generally, "culpable homicide"
sans "special characteristics of murder", is "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, "culpable homicide of the first degree". This is the greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as "murder". The second may be termed as "culpable homicide of the second degree". This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is "culpable homicide of the third degree". This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304..
13. The academic distinction between SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 41 of 54 "murder" and "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" has vexed the courts for more than a century. The confusion is caused, if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300."
13. The considerations that should weigh with courts, in discerning whether an act is punishable as murder, or culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, 1976 (4) SCC 382 were outlined in Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh. This court observed that:
"29. Therefore, the Court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 42 of 54 death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances; (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention."
In the case of N. Ram Kumar Vs. State decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. A. No. 2006/2023, it has been held as under:
14. The cause of death assigned in the post- mortem report as already noticed is "died of head injury". It is a trite law that "culpable homicide" is a genus and "murder" is its species and all "murders" are "culpable homicides, but all "culpable homicides" are not "murders" as held by this court in Rampal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 289. The intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of actual circumstances, but in the light of what is supposed to be the circumstances.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 43 of 54 In the case of Basdev Vs. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 at page 490 the following observations have been made:
"Of course, we have to distinguish between motive, intention and knowledge. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they connote different things. Even in some English decisions, the three ideas are used interchangeably and this has led to a certain amount of confusion."
From the aforesaid landmark judgments, it emerges that, it requires to be borne in mind that the test suggested in the aforesaid decisions and the fact that the legislature has used two different terminologies, 'intent' and 'knowledge' and separate punishments are provided for an act committed with an intent to cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death and for an act committed with a knowledge that his act is likely to cause death without intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it would be unsafe to treat 'intent' and 'knowledge' in equal terms.
Knowledge would be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or inferring the requisite intent. Where the evidence would not disclose that there was any intention to cause death of the deceased but it was clear SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 44 of 54 that the accused had knowledge that his acts were likely to cause death, the accused can be held guilty under second part of Section 304 IPC.
It is in this background that the expression used in Indian Penal Code namely "intention" and "knowledge" has to be seen as there being a thin line of distinction between these two expressions. The act to constitute murder, if in given facts and circumstances, would disclose that the ingredients of Section 300 are not satisfied and such act is one of extreme recklessness, it would not attract the said Section.
In order to bring a case within Part 3 of Section 300 IPC, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. In other words, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 3010 has further observed:
"Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 45 of 54 premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality.
At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section
302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances:
(i) nature of the weapon used;
(ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot;
(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury;
(v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation;
(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;
(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;
(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner;
(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 46 of 54 light on the question of intention. Be that as it may.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Singh @ Pikki v. State of Uttarakhand (2019) 7 SCC 424 had noticed that the deceased-victim had suffered total 11 injuries and had been convicted for offences under Section 304 Part- II/Section 34 IPC apart from other offences. It was noticed that some altercation took place and the groups entered into scuffle without any premeditation and convicted accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II/Section 34 IPC.
In the case of Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2018) 8 SCC 228 it came to be noticed by this Court that incident had taken place in the heat of the moment and the assault was by a single sword blow in the rib cage was without any premeditation and incident had occurred at the spur of the moment, and thus inferred there was no intention to kill and as such the offence was converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith by sentencing them to the period of conviction already undergone. It was held:
"7. On consideration of the entirety of the evidence, it can safely be concluded that the occurrence took place in the heat of the moment and the assault was made without premeditation on the spur of time. The fact that the appellant may have rushed to his house across the road and returned with a sword, is not sufficient to infer an intention to kill, both because of the genesis of the occurrence and the single assault by the appellant, coupled with the duration of the entire episode for SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 47 of 54 1½ to 2 minutes.
Had there been any intention to do away with the life of the deceased, nothing prevented the appellant from making a second assault to ensure his death, rather than to have run away. The intention appears more to have been to teach a lesson by the venting of ire by an irked neighbour, due to loud playing of the tape recorder. But in the nature of weapon used, the assault made in the rib-cage area, knowledge that death was likely to ensue will have to be attributed to the appellant.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Anbazhagan vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police in Criminal Appeal No.2043 of 2023 disposed of on 20.07.2023 has defined the context of the true test to be adopted to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act as under:
"60. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:
(1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused.
(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 48 of 54 in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC.
It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.
(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is 'guilty intention,' whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is 'guilty knowledge'.
(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder.
(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 49 of 54 the following classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death.
To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.
(6) The word 'likely' means probably and it is distinguished from more 'possibly'. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death.
(7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 50 of 54 unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.
But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC.
(8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence.
Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.
(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 51 of 54 (10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.
(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies. (12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC."
24. In the facts of case in hand, there appears to be no pre meditation or any common intention made at the spur of the moment by the accused persons to cause death of K.L. Sharma. The manner and specific role to each accused in the alleged physical assault has not been proved by the prosecution. There were no external injuries which were seen on the body of the SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 52 of 54 deceased at the time of postmortem as is reflected from the postmortem report relied by the prosecution itself Ex.PW14/A. If there was a physical assault, it is highly improbable that when allegedly about 03 accused persons were assaulting the deceased, he would not sustain any such injury. PW21 in his cross- examination has stated that "it is correct that no blood was found at the spot, when I went to the spot to prepare the site plan, hence no one could show me any wall or floor, where the scuffle could have taken place.......... I had visited the spot thrice, once at the time of incident and subsequently two more times. I had arrested accused Ravinder from his house on 13.07.2911 and had visited the spot at his instance. It is correct that I did not notice any blood stains on any wall at the spot.........
Que. Did you find any strand of human hair on the spot?
Ans. Since, the crime team was not called by me, I did not find any such strand of human hair on the spot".
25. As already discussed above, when police reached at the spot, it was accused Gulabo Devi, who was infact taken for her medical examination and the deceased was all sound and refused to go to the hospital. The deceased died about 9-10 days after the incident. There was no eye witness or any other independent public witness which have supported the case of the prosecution. No weapon of offence has been recovered.
There is no CCTV footage of the incident which has been proved by the prosecution.
SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 53 of 54 From the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused persons had the intention of causing murder of Sh.K.L. Sharma in the wake of the tests and guidelines as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case laws, discussed above.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused persons and accordingly accused persons namely Ravinder Kumar, Gulabo Devi and Geeta are acquitted against the charges levelled against them i.e. under Section 302/34 IPC, in the present case.
27. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
28. Needless to say, that in view of Section 357A Cr.P.C. the victim would be entitled to compensation even though the accused persons have been acquitted, if not awarded so far by the Delhi State Legal Authority, as may be permissible, as per subsisting rules and in accordance with law.
Dictated and announced in the open (Shefali Sharma) Court on 29.02.2024 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running into 54 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 58972/2016, FIR No. 333/2011, PS Prashant Vihar State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Etc. Page 54 of 54