Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok Sehgal S /O Late Sh. Ramn A T H Sehgal on 22 February, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI. Case ID Number 02402R012 0 0 5 2 0 0 4 Session s Case Number 190 / 2 0 0 5 F.I.R. Number 157 / 2 0 0 4 Police Station Shak ar Pur Under Sectio n s 302 / 3 4 IPC Commi t t e d to Sessio n s on 31 st May 2004 Date of Decision 22 nd Febru ary 2007 In the matter of: State VERSUS 1.
Ashok Sehgal S /o Late Sh. Ramn a t h Sehgal, R/o 3 / 1 0 6, IInd Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092.
2. Rajiv Sehgal S /o Ashok Kumar Sehgal, R/o 3 / 1 0 6, IInd Floor, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092. ..... Accused persons J U D G M E N T A. Brief Facts :
1. Vide DD No. 38A dated 4.3.200 4, an information was received from HC Sures h No. 1866 / P CR in Police Station Shakar p u r that one Gurvinder Singh, aged 19 years was brought dead in Sha nti Muku n d Hospital. The information was passed on to SI Ram Chhail. SHO, Police Station Shaka rp u r also reached at Sha nti Muku n d Hospital and met SI Ram Chhail, who told him that he had obtained MLC No. 894 of Gurvinder Singh, on which the concerne d doctor had written that there was alleged history of Page 1 of 26 quarrel and he was ''brought dead''.
2. IO made enquiries from the people who had gathered at the hospital and he recorded state me n t of one Ajit Singh, grandfat her of the deceased. As per Ajit Singh, he was at home at about 8:30 PM when he heard noise from outside his house. When he came out, he saw that at some dista nce in the street, beating and shouti ng was going on and when he went near, he saw that his own grand so n Gurvinder Singh, aged about 19 years was lying on the ground and accused Karan Sehgal, his brother Rajeev Sehgal and his father Ashok Sehgal were beating him and Karan Sehgal was exhorting others that Gurvinder Singh was not to be spared. The complaina n t immediately intervened and shouted for help. On this, all three of them left his grand so n and ran away. He lifted his grand so n with the help of neighbour s and his younger son Arvinder Singh and took him to Sha nti Muku n d Hospital in a Car where doctor had declared him ''brought dead''. As per his version, Karan Sehgal had some grudge against his grandso n Gurvinder Singh and he prayed that legal action be taken against all of them.
3. On the basis of his stateme n t, FIR U/ s 302 / 3 4 IPC was registered on 5.3.200 4 at about 00:50 hours. Accused person s were arrested.
Spot was inspected. Rough site plan was prepared. State me n t s of the witnes se s were recorded and post mortem on the dead body was got conducte d. Disclos ure state me n t s of the accused person s were recorded. As accused Karan Sehgal was aged about 16 years, Page 2 of 26 his challan was sent to Juvenile Ju s tice Board and challan against other two co accused was forwarded to the court of Ld. Metropolita n Magistrate and the case was committed to Sessions, where charge U/ s 302 / 3 4 IPC was framed against two accused person s namely Ashok Sehgal and Rajeev Sehgal on 16.7.2004.
4. Prosecution examined 13 witnes se s in support of its case, out of which PW2 Ajit Singh is the complaina n t and PW3 Karandeep Singh and PW4 Mangal Singh are the eye witnesses. PW8 is the CMO of Shanti Muku n d Hospital where Gurvinder Singh was declared as brought dead, PW12 is Dr. Aakas h Jha nj hi, who had cond ucted post mortem on the body of the deceased and PW7 is Dr. Parmes h Shar m a , who had medically examined the accused person s. Remaining witnesse s are the police officials. Let us examine the stateme n t s of these three groups of witnesse s:
B. Complainan t & Eye Witnes s e s
5. PW2 Ajit Singh has reiterated the contents of his complaint in examina tion in chief and has further stated that police came to the hospital and recorded his stateme n t Ex.PW2 /A and he had signed the same. He identified the accuse d persons, present in the court. He led the police to the place of incident and site plan was prepared in his presence. Accused were appre he n d e d at his insta nce. In cross examin ation by Ms. Asha Rani, Counsel for the accused, PW2 states that he was at a dista nce of about 4 meters from Gurvinder when he raised alarm for help. 7 8 other person s had also Page 3 of 26 gathered at the spot, out of which, one Karan Singh is grand so n of PW2 and other person was one Mangal Singh. As per his version, Karandeep was also shouting for help when he had reached there but Karandeep himself could not do anything becau s e he was a young boy of 13 years. PW Mangal Singh did not either try to save Gurvinder or raise alarm. He was only watching the incident and when PW2 raised alarm for help, accuse d person s ran away from the spot. None of the neighbou r s / p a s s e r s by came to help. PW2 did not see any visible injury on the body of the deceased except his neck was hanging on one side but he could not tell whether the neck was hanging on the left side or right side. No visible injury could be seen from inside the torn shirt from front or back side. The pant was in perfect condition. Accused person s had given kick blows on the chest of the deceased and on the head from both the sides and blows were also given on the face of the deceased with fists. He reiterated that he had seen the occurre nce with his own eyes and he denied the suggestion that he had reached at the spot after the incident. The deceased was overpowered by all the accused person s and all the three accuse d were sitting on the chest of the deceased and accused Karan Sehgal was exhorting others to kill the grand so n of the complaina n t.
6. In further cross examina tion, PW2 states that there was a Gur udw a r a in the same vicinity but as per this witnes s, he did not remem ber whether or not some Kirtan function was going on in the Gur udw a r a or not at the time of incident. He denied that it was Page 4 of 26 impossible to hear any conversation when the louds pea ker s of the Gur udw a r a were on. Although there are four speaker s placed on the top of the Guru dw ar a but he states that these speakers were used only on special occasions and for norm al day to day Kirtan , these speakers are not used. He further denied that nobody could hear anything beca u se of the heavy traffic rus h on Vikas Marg. As per him, his state me n t was recorded by the police at the Police Station from 12:00 Midnight to 1:00 AM and thereafter no other stateme n t was recorded althoug h police met him in Shanti Muku n d Hospital where they had stayed for about 15 minute s.
7. PW2 further states in cross examina tion that accused persons were having grievance / e n m i ty with his grandso n and he had even tried to pacify accused Karan Sehgal prior to this occurre nce and the earlier incident had taken place about 10 15 days prior to this incident. No quarrel had taken place between the main incident and the earlier incident about 15 days back, however, Karan was having bitter relations with the deceased. No complaint of the earlier incident was made to the police as the deceased had not sust ai ne d any injury in the last incident and no report regarding strained relations between accused Karan and Gurvinder was also made but the whole family of the complaina n t knew about this. The scaled site plan was prepared after about a mont h. He did not remem ber whether IO had recorded his state me n t when the site plan was prepared or no other public persons had collected at the spot at that time or not. He did not remember whether he was Page 5 of 26 asked to sign the site plan. The second site plan was prepared by a Draftsm a n , who had accompa nied the IO but his stateme n t was not recorded for the second time. As per him, other accused except Karan had not exhorted but he had heard Karan shouting that 'Isse Chhodna Nahin, Jaan Se Marna Hai'. Accused Karan, Rajeev and Ashok Sehgal had given blows on the face and chest of the deceased while sitting.
8. In further cross examina tion by counsel for the accused on 13.12.200 4, PW2 states that he did not remem ber whether Karandeep was also shouting for help as he had reached before him. He admits that Karandeep did not try to save the deceased. From the hospital, this witness came to his house and then he reached the Police Station. Police did not accompa ny him to his hou se and they remained in the hospital. He had gone to the Police Station all alone at 11:30 PM and stayed there for about 45 min utes to one hour. His son Arvinder Singh had also accompa nied him. As per him, accused persons were not arrested in his presence, altho ug h they were arrested on the same day. When he had reached at the Police Station, accuse d person s were also present there between 12:00 Midnight to 1:00 AM but he had not seen accused Karan Sehgal at the Police Station. In further cross examin ation dated 18.5.200 5, this witness admits as correct that when he came out from his house, accuse d person s were beating the deceased with kick and fist blows. As per him, he had seen the incident not from outside his house but he had seen the Page 6 of 26 same when he actually reached at the spot. His own family member s did not come out, however, after the incident, they reached there. His stateme n t was recorded only once in the Police Station on 5.3.200 4 at 12:25 or 12:30 AM. He stayed in the Police Station for about 1 / 1 ½ hours. PW2 raised alarm by shouting 'Bachao Bachao' . He denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place in his presence. He further denied that the shirt of the deceased was not torn during the incident or that he had not witnessed the incident. The clothes of the deceased were shown to this witness, who identifies the same but admits that there was no shirt in the said parcel. Accused persons ran away before PW2 was able to physically intervene in the fight.
9. PW3 is Karandeep Singh. He also reiterates the story regarding hearing the noise and of fighting going on. He reached at the spot and saw that accuse d persons had climbed on the body of Gurvinder Singh and they were beating him brutally. He alongwith his grandfat her intervened and raised alarm for help and on this, all the three accus ed person s left Gurvinder after brutally beating him and disappe ared. Gurvinder Singh was taken to Shanti Muku n d Hospital. As per him, Karan Sehgal had inimical relation with his brother Gurvinder Singh. In cross examina tion, he states that apart from his grandfat her, one Mangal Singh was also present at the spot but he did not know the identity of other person s, who had gathered there. He and Mangal Singh had reached at the spot at the same time, however, Mangal Singh came from the other Gali Page 7 of 26 and there was a gap of about 2 minutes in their arrival. He denied the suggestion that when he had reached there, no quarrel was going on. He was at a dista nce of about 2 meters from the place where the beating was going on. Accused persons were giving fist and kick blows on the chest and head of the deceased and Gurvinder was shouting for help. The incident went on for about 4 5 minute s. When PW2 Ajit Singh shouted for help, accused person s left the deceased and fled away. There was no visible injury on the person of the deceased as all the accuse d were giving beatings to the deceased on his chest and head. He did no remem ber which of the accused was on the left side or right hand side at the time of assa ult. PW3 did not try to save the deceased from the clutches of the accused person s. This witness was apprehe n di ng danger to his life, so he did not intervene physically in the fight. It was his grandfat her, who had shouted for help and although Mangal Singh had also shouted for help but he did not try to save the deceased. He could not tell whether anybody else had accomp a nied his father and grandfat her to the hospital alongwith the deceased. During scuffle, Patka (headgear) of the deceased had fallen away and the shirt of the deceased was also torn but the Pant was alright. His stateme n t was recorded by the police at his house immediately after the incident and stateme n t of another PWs were not recorded in his presence. Police had arrived at the scene half an hour after the incident. Both the accused persons were arrested by the police in his presence. Accused were sitting inside their house. He could not tell the exact num ber of police officials, who visited the house of Page 8 of 26 accused but they did not try to run away from the house or to attack them at the time of arrest. He did not remem ber the time when accus ed persons were arrested.
10. PW3 further states that the earlier quarrel had taken place regarding playing of cricket. He could not tell how the quarrel had started as he had left the field after taking his turn for batting. He states that it was 8:30 PM when he was outside the house and heard 'Bachao Bachao' and the dista nce between the spot and his hou se was 30 45 meters. He also admits that heavy traffic passes from the main road from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM but denied the suggestion that due to this reason, nothing could be heard. Same is his reply regarding Guru dw ar a as the big loudspe a kers were used only occasionally. In his presence, photograp h s were taken and police had also prepared the site plan. Police had visited their hou se only once. No one else had collected at the spot altho ug h people were passing from the said street. He did not remem ber at what time, his father and grandfat her had retur ned from the hospital. There was no visible injury or blood injury on the head and face of the deceased. He also identified the clothes of the deceased but no torn shirt was found in the exhibits. He denied the suggestion that photograp h s of the dead body were taken inside their house or that no quarrel had taken place or accused persons had not assa ulted the deceased.
11. PW4 is Mangal Singh. He also states that when he was passing Page 9 of 26 through the Gurudw ar a Gali on 4.3.200 4 at about 8:30 PM, he heard some noise and stopped his scooter to see what was happe ni ng and found Gurvinder Singh, who was earlier known to him, was lying on the ground and the accused person s were beating him with fist blows and leg blows. Accused Karan Sehgal was exhorting other two co accuse d and when other persons tried to intervene, accused persons ran away after beating Gurvinder Singh. Injured was taken to hospital by Ajit Singh and his son and later on, he came to know that Gurvinder was declared brought dead in the hospital. He knew the accused person s as they were living in the same locality.
12. In cross examin ation, Mangal Singh admits that Ajit Singh was known to him for the last about 10 12 years. He knew about the entire family of the injured / victi m. He had stopped his two wheeler scooter at a dista nce of 5 10 paces from the place of incident and there was street light at the spot. When he took turn in the Gali, he saw that a num ber of public persons were present at the spot but he could not tell their name s but Karandeep had reached at the spot first and PW4 and Sardar Ajit Singh had reached simulta n eo u sly. Karandeep also tried to intervene. The uncle of Gurvinder had brought the Car at the spot to remove the injured to the hospital. Police had arrived at the spot at about 12:30 Midnight. He had seen accused Karan Sehgal giving beatings to the deceased on his head with fist blows. Accused person s were changing their position while beating the deceased but he did not Page 10 of 26 notice any injury on the person of the deceased nor he noticed any stains of blood on his body. When he had entered the crowd, he found Gurvinder being beaten by the accused persons and he was known to him earlier. He denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, no relative of the deceased Gurvinder was found present or that he had not seen the incident. Police had recorded his stateme n t on the same night at about 1:00 AM. He denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place in his presence or he had reached at the spot after the incident.
C. Medical Witness e s
13. PW7, PW8 and PW12 are the doctors. PW7 Dr. Parmes h Shar m a had only examined the accused persons after their arrest vide MLCs Ex.PW7 /A and Ex.PW7 / B . As per him, there was no evidence of any external or fresh injury on the person of both the accused.
14. PW8 Dr. Vijay Aggarwal is CMO of Shanti Muku n d Hospital where Gurvinder Singh was rus hed after the incident. As per him, the said patient was brought for medical examina tion at about 9:30 PM with alleged history of quarrel with somebody at arou n d 8:15 PM and after examina tion, he was declared as ''brought dead''. He proves MLC Ex.PW8 /A and further states that he had seen no external injury on the body. He also states that he had seen the Post Mortem Report and there are 14 injuries mentioned in it, however, he did not mention the same in the MLC as the patient was already dead. Moreover, he had not noticed any active Page 11 of 26 bleeding from the body and he had 3 4 other patient s waiting to examine, hence he had not minutely examined the dead body. In cross examin ation, he states that he tried for about 15 minute s to revive the patient by all possible mean s but he was not successf ul. He denied the suggestion that the patient was brought to him in perfect condition and he had subseq ue n tly died during his examina tion. He had given a DC shock of 200 joules which is minim u m and it does not leave any mark on the body. He had informed the police at about 9:30 PM throug h Reception Office and thereafter he again informed the police himself within 15 minute s. He admits that it was a brought dead case and he did not notice any active bleeding or external injury on the body. He did not remem ber if there were abrasion s on the face of the body. He further denied the suggestion that the patient died due to shock given by him. He further denied the suggestion that he had given DC shock of 400 joules which left mark on the body of the deceased on the left side.
15. PW12 Dr. Aakas h Jha njee had cond ucted post mortem on the body of Gurvinder Singh. He found the following injuries on the dead body:
1. Contusion swelling in area of 4 x3 cm over right parietal region of the head. 4.2 cm above the top of right ear pinna, reddish in colour.
2. Contusion reddish 5x4 cm over right side cheek region of the face. 1.2 cm in front of right ear opening, extending to the level just below the right eye outer angle.
3. Contusion reddish 4x3 cm over outer half right forehead just above the right eyebrow level.
4. Contusion reddish 4x4 cm over outer half of left forehead Page 12 of 26 just above and outer to left eyebrow outer in.
5. Contusion reddish 2x2 cm over left cheek region of the face just below an outer to left eye outer angle.
6. Abrasion reddish 1x1 cm over bridge of the nose 1.5 cm below the root level.
7. Abrasion contusion reddish 1.5x1 cm over left nostril opening fold. .5 cm above the outer border.
8. Lacerated woun d 1x06 cm into muscle deep over inner surface middle portion of lower lip, apposing teeth gums also found bruised.
9. Contusion reddish with swelling 1x1 cm over outer surface of left side lower lip touching the mid line level.
10. Abrasion reddish 1.5x1 cm over front of left knee region.
11. Abrasion reddish 1x1 cm over front of upper half left leg region.
12. Multiple small abrasions in area of 3x2 cm over back of left wrist region of the hand verying incise from 1x.5 cm to 0.5x0.3 cm reddish in colour.
13. Abrasion reddish 2x2 cm over back of left hand. 1.5 cm below injury no.12.
14. Contusion reddish 5x4 cm over under surface of middle portion left foot region.
16. He further states that on internal examin a tion in the head region, scalp tiss ues showed sub scalp bruising in and under ne a t h the scalp layers over right side of the head. Skull showed fissured fracture line reddis h in colour over right parietal bone extending from the level of right parietal eminence down with length of 4 cm to the right temporal bone with fracture ends bruised. Subd u r al haem a to m a in area of 4x4 cm seen over the outer and upper surface of right side parieto temporal lobe. Cont u sion laceration 2 cm in length present over the outer surface of right temporal lobe. Patchy subar ac h n oid haemorr h age seen over both sides of cerebral haemisp he res. Ventricles contained fluid blood. Other organs / s t r u c t u r e were normal. After completing post mortem, PW12 had given the cause of death as Cranio cerebral damage conseque n t to blunt force diverted upon the head and Post Mortem findings were consiste nt with severe ass a ult before death. All the Page 13 of 26 injuries were ante mortem in nat ure and caused by blunt force. Cranio cerebral damage was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nat u re. He proves his Post Mortem Report as Ex.PW12 /A.
17. In cross examina tion, PW12 states that the exact time of death cannot be worked out but in examin ation in chief, he had given time since death as arou n d 15 hours. He states that out of all the external injuries mentioned in the report, injury No. 1 was fatal one producing the intern al head damage. He denied the suggestion that the abrasion s mentioned in the post mortem report could have been caused by fall on the road or the deceased had suffered injuries due to fits. All the injuries mentioned in the Post Mortem Report were recent in duration, ante mortem in nat u re and there were no post mortem injury on the body of the deceased. He had gone through the docume n t s handed over by the IO before cond ucting the post mortem. He denied the suggestion that before starting the post mortem, the complaina n t was prese nt in the Mortuary and the report was prepared at his insta nce. He further denied the suggestion that he had not properly examined the dead body. He admits that all the injuries were visible on the body of the deceased as mentioned in the Post Mortem Report and apart from this, there was a head injury also. He further denied that there was no sign of injury, either external or internal on the body of the deceased or he had not given proper reason of deat h in the Post Mortem Report or he had prepared a false report on the lines of the Page 14 of 26 inquest papers without examining the dead body. D. Police / o f fi cial Witness e s
18. PW1 ASI Ram Praka s h was the Duty Officer, who had received the rukka sent by Inspector Ved Singh on 5.3.200 4 at about 12:50 in the night. He proved the FIR Ex.PW1 /A.
19. PW9 Ct. Sures h Kumar was posted in Police Control Room Headqu a r ter s on 4.3.200 4 where he received the information from Dr. Vijay of Shan ti Muku n d Hospital at 10:21 PM that Gurvinder Singh, aged 19 years was admitted in the hospital by his grandfat her and he was declared brought dead. On receiving this information, he flashed the message through wireless by filling the requisite form Ex.PW9 /A.
20. PW11 SI Ram Chhail had reached Sha nti Muku n d Hospital on receipt of wireless mess age vide DD No. 38A. In the meantime, Inspector Ved Singh had also reached there with staff and he gave MLC to him and joined the investigation with the SHO. Stateme n t of Ajit Singh was recorded, in which he had named Ashok Sehgal, Karan Sehgal and Rajiv Sehgal. Rukka was sent through Ct. Brij Mohan. From the hospital, they came to the spot. In his presence, accused persons alongwith juvenile Karan Sehgal were arrested and after post mortem, one envelope and one sample seal were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW11 / C . In cross examin ation, he states that the wireless message was received at about 8:30 PM Page 15 of 26 directing him to reach Sha nti Muku n d Hospital. He reached there at about 9:00 PM on 4.3.2004. Ct. Brij Mohan was sent with the rukka to get the case registered at about 10:30 PM, who came back at about 10:45 PM alongwith carbon copy of FIR and rukka. He had received the copy of MLC at about 9:05 PM and handed over the same to SHO. In his presence, stateme n t of Ajit Singh was recorded in the hospital and state me n t s of two witnesse s were recorded at the spot but he did not remem ber the exact time of recording of those two stateme n t s . At the time of arrest, accused person s did not try to escape as there was no place for escaping. The incident had taken place on a concrete road. He had accompa nied the Drafts m a n to the spot and pointed out the exact place and accuse d were arrested on being identified by the complaina n t. He did not remem ber whether shirt or pant were found on the person of the dead body. The occurrence had taken place at a dista nce of about1 0 0 150 paces away from the house of the complaina n t . He denied the suggestion that the occurrence had taken place just outside the house of the complaina n t.
21. PW6 Ct. Sonu Kaus hik was posted as Draftsm a n at Crime Branc h. On 29.4.200 4 he took rough notes and meas u re me n t s at the insta nce of complaina n t Ajit Singh and thereafter prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW6 /A. In cross examin ation, he states that he had not hande d over the rough notes and meas u re m e n t s to the IO and had destroyed the same after prepar ation of the scaled site plan. He had gone to the spot on receiving written request from Inspector Page 16 of 26 Ved Singh. He had reached at the spot at about 4:00 PM with IO via Police Station and complaina n t was found there as he was already informed. Complaina n t had also pointed out the place and about the positions of the accuse d persons and the deceased and there was no other public witness at the spot except Ajit Singh. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot and had prepared the scaled site plan at the insta nce of complaina n t in his office.
22. PW13 Inspector Ved Singh Malik was the SHO, Police Station Shak ar p u r . He was on patrolling duty with Driver Ct. Narender and Wireless Operator Ct. Narender. He received a PCR Call at about 10:30 PM regarding a person named Gurvinder Singh being brought to Sha nti Muku n d Hospital. He reached there and met PW11 SI Ram Chhail and PW10 Ct. Brij Mohan. SI Ram Chhail handed over the MLC of Gurvinder Singh to him. He made enquiries from the person s present in the hospital and met Ajit Singh, grandfat he r of Gurvinder Singh, who was stated to be an eye witness. He recorded his state me n t Ex.PW2 /A, attested the same at point 'B', wrote rukka Ex.PW13 /A and handed over the same to Ct. Brij Mohan for registration of the FIR. He received the dead body from Shanti Muku n d Hospital and sent the same to Mortuary, Subzi Mandi for post mortem. He left the hospital to the spot i.e. Lalita Park, Gali Guru dw ar a Road, Shakar Pur alongwith the complaina n t and inspected the spot at the insta nce of Ajit Singh and prepared site plan Ex.PW13 / B . He recorded the state me n t s of Page 17 of 26 witnesses and arrested the accuse d person s including one juvenile Karan Sehgal from their house at the insta nce of complaina n t . Accused persons made their disclos ure stateme n t s Ex.PW11 /A and B regarding commissio n of the offence. They were medically examined at the hospital. He prepared the inques t papers Ex.PW13 / C . The dead body was identified by Satn a m Singh and Lakhbir Singh vide memos Ex.PW13 / D and E. He made request for post mortem vide Ex.PW13 / F and after the post mortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives vide Ex.PW13 / G . Ct. Brij Mohan handed over one parcel, envelope and sample seal of ''KLS Subzi Mandi Mortua ry'' which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11 / C . On 22.3.200 4 he collected the Post Mortem Report. On 29.4.2004 he got the scaled site plan prepared from the Draftsm a n and after completion of investigation, he prepared the challan Ex.PW13 / H .
23. In cross examin ation, he states that he had reached at the hospital at about 10:45 PM. He met the eye witnesse s Mangal Singh and Karandeep Singh in the hospital but had recorded their stateme n t s at the spot. He left the hospital at about 12:45 AM in the night and then he remained at the spot till 6:00 AM. The eye witnesses were not produced by the complaina n t but they themselves met the IO in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he did not examine the neighbo ur s as they were not supporting the case. He further admits that there were two grocery shops near the spot and as the shopkeepers did not come forward Page 18 of 26 to depose, so he did not record their state me n t s . He had recorded the state me n t s of witnesses after the arrest of the accus ed persons . The Draftsm a n had prepared the site plan on the pointing out of complaina n t Ajit Singh. He had not seized the shoes of the accused person s and he saw only a pant on the body of the deceased. He did not remem ber whether witnesses informed him that accused person s had fled away from the spot and he volunteered to add that he had arrested the accu se d person s from their house. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited the spot or that he did not record the stateme n t s of witnesses at the spot or he had not investigated the case fairly and had falsely implicated the accused person s at the insta nce of the complaina n t or that accused person s had not inflicted any injury on the person of deceased or that witnesses were brought by the complaina n t .
24. PW5 Ct. Narender Kumar, Wireless Operator was with the IO/SHO Inspector Ved Singh Malik during investigation. In cross examina tion, this witness states that SHO had received the information at about 10:00 PM but he did not know the details of the same. Stateme n t of only Ajit Singh was recorded in his presence and accused persons were arrested at the insta nce of complaina n t Ajit Singh. He did not remem ber whether Ajit Singh had accompa nied them to the second floor of the house of the accused as he was outside when SHO had entered the house to arrest the accused persons. SHO had not recorded any other stateme n t in his presence and his own state me n t was recorded Page 19 of 26 after the arrest of accus ed person s in the Gali near their house. He did not remem ber whether Ct. Brij Mohan was also present there.
25. PW10 Ct. Brij Mohan had taken the Rukka for registration of the case from the hospital and then, he came back to the spot, handed over the copy of FIR and Rukka to the IO and in his presence, accused person s were arrested. When he had reached at the spot, there were 10 12 person s present and the accuse d person s were appre he n de d in his presence from Lalita Park. He did not remem ber the house nu m ber of the accused persons but states that they were residing on the second floor. Accused person s did not try to run away on seeing the police party. He also denied the suggestion that the injuries were cause d to the dead body at the time of its trans port ation from the hospital to the Mortuary, Subzi Mandi. He stayed in the Mortuary for about 10 minutes . In further cross examin ation, he states that he did not know if public person s namely Mangal Singh and Karandeep Singh were present in the hospital and he reiterates that accused person s were arrested in his prese nce.
26. After recording of prosecution evidence, stateme n t s of accused person s were recorded U/ s 313 Cr.PC wherein they denied the entire prosec ution story and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Thereafter argume n t s were heard and my considered view is as under:
Page 20 of 26
E. Discu s si o n on the eviden c e produced
27. The deceased was the grand so n of PW2 Ajit Singh and cousin brother of PW4 Karandeep Singh. PW4 Mangal Singh is an indepen de n t witness to the incident. All the three witnesse s have given a clear graphic description of the incident in which Gurvinder Singh had sust ai ne d injuries when he was beaten up by the accused person s and the juvenile Karandeep Sehgal. PW2 Ajit Singh has specifically stated that when he came out on hearing the noise at about 8:30 PM on 4.3.200 4, he saw that his grand so n Gurvinder Singh was lying on the ground at some distance from his hou se in the Gali and all the three accused persons were beating him brutally by climbing on his person. He immediately intervened and raised alarm and on this, all the three accuse d person s left his grand so n and disappe ared. As far as the motive is concerned, he states that juvenile Karan Sehgal had been keeping inimical terms with Gurvinder for some days. In cross examin a tion, he states that Karandeep was hardly aged 13 years and he could not help his brother Gurvinder and other eye witness namely Mangal Singh also did not try to save Gurvinder as he was only watching the incident. None of the neighbo ur or passers by came to help Gurvinder. Blood was not oozing out from the body of Gurvinder and as per him, accused persons had given kick blows on the chest and head of deceased on both sides and blows were also given on the face of the deceased with hand s.
Page 21 of 26
28. PW3 Karandeep Singh also reiterates the same. As per him, he and his grandfat her intervened and raised alarm for help on seeing his brother being beaten up by the accuse d persons and on this, all the three left Gurvinder and had gone away. He further states that all the three persons had murdered his brother Gurvinder after giving him brutal beatings and Karan Sehgal had inimical relation with his brother. In cross examin ation, he denied the suggestion that when he had reached at the spot, no quarrel was going on. Accused person s were giving fist and kick blows on the chest and head of the deceased and Gurvinder was shouti ng for help and he was trying to save himself. In his presence, the incident was going on for about 4 5 minute s when PW2 Ajit Singh shoute d for help. He also states that there was no visible injury on the deceased and all of them were giving beatings to the deceased on the chest and head. He did not try to save the deceased from the clutche s of the accused person s as he was apprehe n di ng danger to his own life, so he did not even raise alarm, however, his grandfat her shoute d for help and Mangal Singh also shoute d for help but he did not try to save the deceased. As per PW3 the earlier quarrel between the accused and the deceased was regarding cricket and he was also present at the time of that incident took place about 15 20 days prior to the main incident. As in the earlier incident, none had received injuries, so the matter was not reported to the police.
29. PW4 Mangal Singh has also supported the other two witnesses. As per him, he was passing through the Guru dw ar a Gali and he heard Page 22 of 26 some noise and stopped his two wheeler vehicle and found Gurvinder Singh, whom he knew earlier, was lying on the ground and the accused persons alongwith juvenile Karan Sehgal were giving fist and leg blows to him. When they tried to intervene, accused persons ran away. Gurvinder Singh was taken to hospital and he came to know that he was declared brought dead. He knew the accused person s as they were resident s of the same locality. In cross examin ation, he states that even Karandeep Singh tried to intervene. Other public person s also tried to intervene but he could not tell their name s. He had seen accused Karan Sehgal giving beating to the deceased on his head with fist blows and the accused person s were changing their positions while beating the deceased. He did not notice any injury on the person of the deceased nor he noticed any stains of blood from his body. He denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place in his presence.
30. Ld. Counsel for the accu sed has tried to attack the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that in the MLC, the quarrel was stated to be taken place with somebody whereas the complaina n t and other person s accomp a nying the victim were known to the accused earlier as all of them were living in the same colony and had the accused person s involved in the incident, their name s ought to have been mentioned in the MLC as assailan t s. This argu me n t s is without any force as at the time of getting the patient admitted in the hospital, the para mo u n t consideration is that the Page 23 of 26 patient gets proper treat me n t and the entire case history is not to be dictated to the doctor in detail at that time.
31. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also relied upon the PCR Call record of the PCR Ex.PW9 /A in which it has been specifically mentioned that on the body of the deceased, there was no sign of any injury. As per this docume n t, there was nothing like murder in this death. The PCR staff, who had written this docume n t Ex.PW9 /A are not the medical experts. The name of juvenile Karan Sehgal has been specifically mentioned in this docume n t. PW9 is not the qualified person, who can say whether it was a murder or not as it was the duty of the IO to state the same after investigation.
32. PW8 Dr. Vijay Aggarwal has also stated that there was no external injury mark on the body and when he was shown the Post Mortem Report, he states that he did not mention it in the MLC as the patient was already brought dead. He struck to his stan d that he had not noticed any active bleeding from the body and he was busy with other patient s, so he had not minutely examined the dead body. Accused person s cannot take any benefit of this stateme n t of Dr.Vijay Aggarwal as he has specifically stated that in view of the fact that the body of Gurvinder was brought dead in his hospital and he had other patient s to see, so he did not examine it minutely as the patient was already dead.
Page 24 of 26
33. PW12 Dr. Aakas h Jh a njee has specifically mentioned the external and intern al injuries found on the body of the deceased and as per him, injury No. 1 i.e. Contu sion swelling in area of 4 x 3 cm over right parietal region of the head, 4.2 cm above the top of right ear pinna, reddish in colour was sufficient to cause death in the nat ur al course as it had caused intern al damage. His finding is also that all the injuries were ante mortem and caused by blunt force and this finding tallies with the description of the incident given by the eye witnesses that accuse d persons were beating Gurvinder with fist and leg blows and he was lying on the ground. Moreover, accus ed person s have not given any plausible reason as to why an independe n t witness PW4 Mangal Singh, complaina n t and PW3 Karandeep Singh had deposed against them. There is no need for them to prove it by leading evidence but at least, some suggestion to this effect could have been given as to why these three eye witnes ses deposed against them.
34. IO Inspector Ved Singh Malik and other police officials have also corroborated the stateme n t s made by the eye witnesses and the medical evidence on record. PW12 Dr. Aakas h Jh a njee has specifically stated that all the injuries were ante mortem in natu re and not post mortem, so the stan d of the accuse d person s that the deceased had not suffered any injury in the incident and all the injuries found on his person were after his death, does not find support from anywhere. It has been also suggested to PW8 Dr. Vijay Aggarwal that Gurvinder had died due to the DC shock given Page 25 of 26 by him but Dr. Vijay Aggarwal has specifically stated that although the patient was brought dead but he tried all mea n s to revive him including giving him the minim u m DC shock of 200 joules and there was no mark left by the said treat me n t on the dead body. The police witnesse s including IO have corroborated and supported the version of the eye witnesse s. The detailed cross examin ation of all witnesses does not lead one to disbelieve the version of the prosec ution as discus s e d above. Minor contradictions do creep in due to pass age of time but the evidence is to be appreciated in its totality.
F. Conclusio n :
35. Hence in this case, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reason a ble doubt on the basis of the stateme n t s of eye witnes se s PW2 to PW4 corroborated by medical evidence of PW8 and PW12 and supported by the testimony of police witnesses including PW13 Inspector Ved Singh Malik and others, who had participated in the investigation or had completed other formalities like registration of the FIR. I hereby convict accused Ashok Sehgal and Rajiv Sehgal U/s 302 / 3 4 IPC. They be heard separa tely on the point of sente nce.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 20 0 7 .
(TALWANT SINGH) Additional Sessions Ju dge Karkardoom a Courts Delhi 110032.
Page 26 of 26