Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Rahul @ Puneet @ Philip S/O. Sh. ... on 4 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE: 01(EAST) : KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SC No. 13/2009
FIR No. 507/08
PS. Anand Vihar
US. 307/302/324/34 IPC
Instituted on 05.02.09
Argued on 29.02.2012
Decided on 30.03.2012
State Vs. 1. Rahul @ Puneet @ Philip S/o. Sh. Rajinder
R/o. C/o. House of Bhanwar Singh Gurjar, Village Kondli,
MayurVihar-III, Delhi.
2. Pankaj Kumar S/o. Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o. B-2/427, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi
3. Sandeep S/o. Sh Ved Prakash Sharma
R/o. C-250, Gali No. 9, Ganga Vihar, Delhi
4. Chet Ram @ Ravi S/o. Sh. Chajju Ram
R/o. Jhuggi E-73/A-409, Sanjay Colony, Gokal Puri,
Delhi
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that 11.10.08 on receiving DD NO. 32A ASI Yashpal reached Zaika Restaurant FIR No. 507/08 1 page of 40 Karkardooma Community Centre. Outside the restaurant Ct. Lalit and Ct. Dinesh met him who had caught hold one assailant Rahul. A loaded katta and one live cartridge stated to have been recovered from the possession of accused was handed over to him by Ct. Lalit. He inspected spot i.e. First Floor of the restaurant. Injured were reported to have been taken to Shanti Mukand Hospital. Leaving Ct. Dinesh and Ct. Lalit, ASI Yashpal reached Shanti Mukand Hospital. Ther Mohit was found admitted. Other injured were found to be admitted in Max Balaji Hosital Patparganj, Delhi. He reached Max Balaji Hospital. There he found Shahid, Pappu and Mohd. Jafar admitted and all three were declared unfit for statement. He recorded statement of Raju, prepared rukka and got FIR registered under Section 324/307/34IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act.
2. Complainant Raju mentioned in his complaint that he is working as Waiter in Zaika Bar and Restaurant Community Centre Karkardooma. At about 10 PM he along with other staff was present in the Bar. At table No. 16 in th bar four boys were standing namely Kaku @ Sandeep, Pankaj and Rahul. They often used to come to their bar and he properly identifies them. They were calling their fourth associates as Chet Ram. Those boys ordered him for whiskey and some eatable. After drinking liquor they demanded 'Papad' and he put this order in the kitchen. When Papad did not reach to those boys within 5-7 minutes, all the four boys got angry. After some time Kaku @ Sandeep and Rahul entered in the kitchen of the restaurant demanding Papad and they were sent outside the kitchen by Mohit( son of the owner) and other staff. Both the boys being agitated went to the bar and FIR No. 507/08 2 page of 40 told their associates Chet Ram and Pankaj that they have been insulted by not giving Papad on time and they were sent outside the kitchen. Thereafter all the four reached in the kitchen. Accused Rahul took out a knife from his pant. He also reached kitchen. These four boys threatened Shekh Pappu, Mohd. Jafar, Shahid and Mohit stating that by not giving papad to them, they have been insulted and they will be taught a lesson. On exhortation of Rahul, Chet Ram caught hold Shahid, Pankaj caught hold Mohd. Jafar, Kaku caught hold Pappu and Rahul stabbed all three in their stomach. Mohit tried to catch hold Rahul but Rahul stabbed Mohit on his foot. Thereafter all the boys tried to run away. Knife fell down on the stairs from the hand of Rahul. Chet Ram took that knife and thereafter all the boys ran away. Rahul tried to start his car No. DL-3CM-7755 standing in the parking but it did not start. On hearing commotion Ct. Lalit and Ct. Dinesh reached at the spot. Rahul seeing the police tried to run away leaving his car behind but he was apprehended by both these constables. Other accused ran away from there taking benefit of darkness. During personal search of accused Rahul, one deshi Katta and one live cartridge were recovered from his possession. A live cartridge was also found in the katta.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation was taken over by Inspector Bageshwar Kaushik. He interrogated accused, who made disclosure statement naming other three accused as their associates in the crime. Accused Rahul was arrested. Injured Shahid succumbed to the injuries. IO Inspector Bagehswar Kaushik reached at Subzi Mandi Mortuary and did inquest proceedings . During investigation, other FIR No. 507/08 3 page of 40 three accused were also arrested. After investigation police filed chargesheet against accused persons under Section 307/302/324/34 IPC and 25Arms Act.
4. Charge under Section 307/324/302/34 IPC was given to all the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. A separate charge under Section 25 Arms Act was given to accused Rahul @ Puneet @ Philip, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution examined 20 witnesses to prove its case. PW4 Sheikh Pappu, PW5 Mohd. Jafar adn PW19 Mohit are three injured and eyewitness to this incident. PW8 Ct. Lalit is another important witness as he being Beat Constable reached at the spot along with Ct. Dinesh and apprehended accused Rahul @ Puneet who was running from the spot. He proved sketch of katta and two live cartridges recovered from the possession of accused as Ex. PW8/A, seizure memo of this ammunition Ex.PW8/B, seizure memo of T-shirt of accused Ex.PW8/C, seizure memo of Maruti car Ex. PW8/D, pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Pankaj Ex.PW8/E, pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Ex.PW8/F.
6. PW1 Rajender Kumar was duty officer, he proved DD No. 32A Ex. PW1/A, FIR Ex.PW1/B, endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/C and DD No. 17B Ex.PW1/D. PW2 Ct. Sonu Kaushik, Assistant Draughtsman proved scaled site plan Ex.PW2/A. PW3 ASI Gurmeet Singh of Mobile Crime Team reached at the spot and proved scene of crime report Ex. PW3/A. PW6 Dr. S.K. Tiwari, Max Balaji Hospital proved MLC of patient Pappu as Mark A and patient Mohd. Jafar as Mark B. PW7 Dr. Basharat Mujtaba, Shanti Mukand Hospital proved MLC of injured FIR No. 507/08 4 page of 40 Mohit as Ex. PW7/A. PW9 Dr. S. Lal, Specialist Forensic Medicine, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital proved postmortem report Ex.PW9/A of Shahid, sketch of weapon of offence Ex.PW9/B and his subsequent opinion Ex.PW9/C. PW10 Ct. Vinod accompanied IO on 27.10.08 and proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Sandeep Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C. PW11 Ct. Avinash Kumar joined investigation with IO on 23.10.08. He proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Pankaj Ex. PW11/A to Ex.PW11/C. PW12 ASI Yashpal is first IO, he prepared rukka and reached at the spot. He seized blood stained clothes of victim at Max Balaji Hospital vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A, statement of Raju Ex.PW12/B, rukka Ex.PW12/C, seizure memo of blood sample lifted from the kitchen Ex. PW12/D and disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW12/E. PW13 Ct. Bharat Lal is a formal witness who accompanied IO on 23.10.08 when accused Pankaj was formally arrested. PW14 HC Lokender on 26.12.08 took two sealed pulandas from Malkhana to FSL Rohini. He deposited sealed pulanda containing Katta but other exhibits could not be deposited. PW15 SI Rupesh Khatri joined investigation with IO on 17.11.08 when accused Chet Ram was arrested. He proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Chet Ram as Ex. PW15/A to E x. PW15/C. PW16 Ct. Bijender Singh joined investigation with IO on 03.11.2008. He proved pointing out memo of place of the incident prepared at the instance of accused Sandeep as Ex.PW16/A, site plan Ex. PW16/B, sketch of knife Ex. PW16/C and seizure memo of knife Ex.PW16/D. PW17 ASI Subhash Chand arrested accused Pankaj and FIR No. 507/08 5 page of 40 Sandeep in FIR No. 285/08 of PS Gokalpuri, there both the accused made disclosure statements regarding their involvement in this case. He proved disclosure statements of accused Pankaj and Sandeep Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B. PW18 HC Akhilesh Kumar was MHCM of PS Anand Vihar. He proved relevant entries of Register No. 19 pertaining to this case as Ex. PW18/A to Ex.PW18/D. PW20 Inspector Bageshwar Kaushik is IO. He proved arrest memo and personal search of accused Rahul Ex. PW20/A and Ex.PW20/B, inquest proceedings Ex.PW20/C, Ex. PW20/D and D1, statement regarding the identification of dead body Ex. PW20/E and PW20/F, handing over memo of dead body Ex. PW20/G, seizure memo of pulanda handed over to him by doctor in the mortuary Ex. PW20/H, supplementary disclosure statement of accused Rahul Ex.PW20/I, application for interrogation of accused Pankaj Ex. PW20/J, his application for custody remand of accused Pankaj Ex PW20/L, an application for interrogation of accused Sandeep Ex.PW20/M and application for production of accused Chet Ram Ex. PW20/O.
7. All the accused admitted under Section 294 Cr. PC sanction given by Addl. DCP O. P Mishra ( same is Ex. PA1), MLC of deceased, Injured PW4 and PW5( same are Ex.PA2 PA4), FSL report given by ballistic Expert (same is Ex. PA5) and their TIPs ( same are Ex.PA6 to PA8).
8. On the basis of incriminating evidence against the accused persons, their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC were recorded. All the accused denied the entire prosecution evidence against them. They took the defence of false implication in this case. Accused Pankaj FIR No. 507/08 6 page of 40 stated that he was lifted by the police officials of PS Gokalpuri on 13.10.08 and was falsely implicated in FIR No. 285/08 and was falsely implicated by police of PS Anand Vihar in the present case. He was kept un-muffled and he was shown to the public persons in the PS and his photographers were also obtained by the police. Accused Sandeep took the same defence as taken by accused Pankaj. He further stated that he is not known as Kaku. Initially police of PS Anand Vihar lifted one Kaku who was son of Sub Inspector and was let off and in his place he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused Chet Ram also took the defence of false implication by SHO V.S.Malik.
9. Accused Rahul and Sandeep opted to lead defence evidence. Accused Sandeep examined Ved Prakash Sharma as DW1. Accused also examined DW2 HC Dinesh who proved case details of FIR No. 268/08 and FIR No. 285/08 of PS Gokal Puri as Ex. DW2/A and Ex.DW2/B.
10. I have heard arguments of Ld. APP Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sh. Hanif Mohd along with Sh. Madhur Dhingara, Ld. Counsel for the injured wintesses, Sh. Pradeep Tyagi, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Rahul, Sh. Mukesh Vats, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Pankaj, Sh. S.K. Raizada, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Sandeep and Sh. A.K. Bali, Ld. Legal Aid counsel for accused Chet Ram and have also gone through the case file.
11. Ld. APP submitted that statements of injured PW4, PW5 and PW19 are consistent, all the witnesses have correctly identified all the accused and specifically deposed about the role played by each of the accused in the assault. It is stated that PW8 Ct. Lalit had apprehended FIR No. 507/08 7 page of 40 accused Rahul at the spot and this accused in his disclosure statement, recorded same day, has named other three accused as his associates. It is stated that non examination of complainant Raju does not affect the prosecution case in any manner as other injured witnesses have supported the prosecution on all the important aspects of the case. It is stated that all the accused refused to participate in TIP which is another evidence against them.
12. Sh. Pradeep Tyagi, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Rahul submitted that complainant Raju has not been examined which causes dent in the prosecution. It is stated that as per prosecution case, katta was recovered from him but why he did not use this katta in the alleged assault is not understandable, which shows that he was falsely implicated. It is stated that PW4 and PW5 have nowhere stated in their statements recorded by the police that they can identify accused persons. It is stated that though PW19 who is son of owner of the restaurant was oriented and conscious on the day of the incident, but there is huge delay in recording his statement which is not explained by the prosecution. Ld. Defence counsel for accused Rahul also relied upon following judgments:-
1. 1996 JCC 35 Shyam Sunder & Raj Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
2. 1998 [1] JCC [SC] 219 State of Maharashtra V. Madhukar Govind Pakhare
3. 1197 JCC 637 Sita Ram Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
4. 1979 CRI. L. J 1167 Jai Prakash V. State
5. (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 490, Rabindra Kumar Pal @ FIR No. 507/08 8 page of 40 Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India.
6. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj AIR 1999 SC 3916
7. AIR 1982 SC 839 Mohan Lal Vs. State of Maharashtra (8.(2010) SC Cases Mulla and another Vs. State of UP.
13. Sh Mukesh Vats, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Pankaj submitted that as per prosecution case, accused Rahul was arrested at the spot but he has not named this accused in his disclosure. It is stated that complainant Raju who lodged FIR has not been examined but it is strange that he named all the accused persons in his complaint and the same is not believable and it establishes that all the documents including complaint were noted down at the later stage to falsely implicate this accused and others in this case. It is stated that deceased Shahid has received multiple wounds but none of the prosecution witnesses has stated that Shahid was repeatedly stabbed which is serious contradiction in the prosecution case. It is stated that injuries received by witnesses show use of different weapons which is contradictory to the prosecution story. It is stated that statements of PW4 and PW5 are contradictory to the prosecution case and PW5 has wrongly involved accused Pankaj. It is stated that statement of PW19 was recorded after 10 days of the incident which renders his testimony unsafe to rely upon. It is stated that width of blade of knife i.e. alleged weapon of offence is 2.6 cms and with same weapon wound 4.5 cms x 3.2 cms as mentioned in the P/M report cannot be caused.
14. Sh. S. K. Raizada Ld. Defence counsel for accused Sandeep submitted that PW5 is a tutored witness and he is identifying this accused at the instance of IO. It is stated that PW16 and PW20 are FIR No. 507/08 9 page of 40 witnesses of recovery of knife from this accused but their statements are contradictory and are not reliable. It is stated that the knife was planted upon this accused and despite availability no public person was joined.
15. Sh. A. K. Bali, Ld. Legal Aid counsel for accused Chet Ram urged that complainant Raju has not been examined. He being author of FIR his non examination is fatal for the prosecution case. It is stated that in the MLC of the deceased, assailants are shown as colleagues which establish the defence taken by this accused as well as other accused that a quarrel took place between staff members of the restaurant in which deceased suffered fatal injuries and other witnesses suffered injuries but this accused as well as other accused were falsely implicated. It is further stated that because of the delay in recording statement of PW19, his statement does not inspire confidence. It is stated that at the time of recovery of knife from the instance of accused Sandeep no public witness was joined which creates shadow of doubt on this recovery.
16. PW4, PW5, PW8 and PW19 are star prosecution witnesses. Out of them PW4, PW5 and PW19 are injured and eyewitnesses of the incident and PW8 is police official who happened to reach at the spot immediately after the incident had taken place along with Ct. Dinesh and apprehended accused Rahul @ Punit who was running away from there.
17. PW4 Sheikh Pappu deposed that he is working as a Cook in the restaurant. On 11.10.08 in the night he was working in the kitchen of the said restaurant with Jafar and Shahid along with Mohit. Two boys FIR No. 507/08 10 page of 40 came in the kitchen and demanded 'Papad'which was not supplied despite their demand. Mohit took them out. After about 5 minutes, four boys came into the kitchen. Out of them, three boys caught hold him, Shahid, Jaffar and fourth boy stabbed all three of them with a knife which he was holding in his hand. In the meanwhile Mohit came in the kitchen and tried to save them and also tried to stop the boy who was having knife but he stabbed Mohit as well. He became unconscious and regained consciousness in the hospital, where he came to know that Shahid expired because of stab injuries. His statement was recorded by the police. He identified all the accused persons specifically stating that accused Rahul has stabbed them while other three had caught hold him and others. After some days police had brought accused Sandeep in the restaurant and he had identified accused Sandeep as the same boy who had caught hold him.
18. PW5 Mohd. Jaffar and PW19 Mohit Dhingra have supported the statement of PW4 and made similar statements. In addition to statement of PW4, PW5 stated that after about 20-25 days of the incident, police brought accused Pankaj in the restaurant and he identified him as the same boy who had caught hold them whereas PW19 has specifically deposed that on 24.10.08 Inspector Bagehwar Kaushik brought accused Pankaj in the restaurant and he identified him as one of the four accused. He further stated that on 18.11.08 IO brought accused Chet Ram in the restaurant and he also identified him as one of the four accused.
19. PW8 Ct. Lalit Kumar deposed that on 11.10.08 being posted in PS Anand Vihar he was patrolling in the area with Ct. Dinesh, at about FIR No. 507/08 11 page of 40 10.45 PM they reached Community Centre near Zaika Restaurant Karkardooma . They heard noise of commotion and noticed that a while colour Maurti car bearing No. DL-3C-M-7755 parked about 30 meters ahead of the said restaurant. One boy was sitting in the car on the driver's seat and was trying to start the car but on seeing them he left the car and started running. He and Ct. Dinesh chased him and caught him. On checking one country made pistol was recovered from his right dub of the pant and one live cartridge was recovered from his right pant pocket. The name of that boy was revealed as Rahul @ Puneet @ Philip. In the meanwhile at around 11.30 AM ASI Yashpal and Ct. Rajpal reached there. He narrated the entire incident to ASI Yashpal. Leaving him outside the restaurant, ASI Yashpal and Ct. Rajpal went to hospital. When they returned at the spot, he handed over country made pistol to them and same was seized by ASI Yashpal. ASI Yashpal handed over rukka to him which he took to PS and got FIR registered. He returned at the spot with IO Inspector Bageshwar Kaushik.
20. PW12 ASI Yashpal was first police officer who reached at the spot after receiving DD No. 32A regarding the quarrel at Zaika restaurant . He has supported statement of PW8 and stated that from the spot, he reached at Shanti Mukand Hospital along with Ct. Rajpal, there PW19 Mohit was admitted. Though PW19 was declared fit for statement but since he was under treatment, due to this reason , his statement could not be recorded. Other injured persons were admitted in Max Balaji Hospital and he reached there. There PW4, PW5 and deceased Shahid were admitted and all three were declared unfit for statement. Dr. handed over him three pulandas containing bloodstained FIR No. 507/08 12 page of 40 clothes of victim which were seized by him. He returned at the spot and recorded statement of Raju and prepared rukka Ex. PW12/C and got FIR registered through PW8 and met IO Bageshwar Kaushik and reached at the spot and further investigation was taken over by him.
21. IO PW20 supported the statement of PW12 and deposed that during interrogation accused Rahul made disclosure statement. Maruti car of accused was taken into possession. Accused Rahul led them to the area of PS Gokalpuri to trace other accused persons but other accused could not be traced. During interrogation accused Rahul made supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW20/I. Accused Pankaj was arrested in FIR No. 295/08 of PS Gokalpuri. On 23.10.08 he was arrested in this case. On 27.10.08 accused Sandeep was arrested. After his arrest during interrogation accused Sandeep made disclosure as Ex. PW10/C and led police party to Mangalam Road where he pointed out the place where he had kept the knife after committing the murder of Shahid and got the same recovered from bushes near the drain. Accused Chet Ram was interrogated in Tihar Jail where he was lodged being arrested in some other case. As per IO PW20, in pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Sandeep, knife ie. Weapon of offence was recovered. PW16 Ct Bijender Singh is another witness of recovery of this knife and he has supported statement of IO PW20 regarding this recovery.
22. Ex PW9/A is the postmortem report of the deceased as per which he sustained following injuries:-
1. Surgical laprotomy wound in middle abdomen from xiphi to paraumblicus region of size 21 x 0.1 cm with stitches and the drainage FIR No. 507/08 13 page of 40 wound on left side middle abdomen.
2. Stab incised wound surgically stitch, on opening the stitches the size of the wound is 4.5 x 0.2 cm X cavity deep, obliquely placed over left side upper abdomen. The lower outer angle of wound is acute and the other angle is blood. The wound is placed 5 cm away from midline and 16 cm below the left nipple. The wound enter the abdomen cavity in downward and backward direction by cutting lower inter costal cartilage and then given the nick in small intestine which is surgically repair in hospital. The total depth of the wound is approximate 14 cm.
3. Stab incised wound surgically stitched, on opening the stitches the size of the wound is 3.3 x 0.2 cm x cavity deep in left side upper abdomen, obliquely placed. The lower outer angle is acute and the other angle is blunt. The wound is placed 15 cm left to midline and 17 cm below the left nipple. The wound enter the abdomen cavity in downward and inward direction to cut the intestine where surgically repair seen. Total depth of the wound is about 13 cm.
4. Stab incised wound 0.9 x 0.2 cm x 1 cm deep present over left side lower chest over anterior axillary line, obliquely placed. The lower inner angle is acute and the other angle is blunt. The wound is placed 4 cm outer to injury No. 3.
5. Stab incised wound surgically altered by midline incision of size 1.6 x 0.2 cm x cavity deep over left side epigastric region, horizontally placed out angle is acute and the other angle is merged with the incision given in the midline. The wound is placed just outer to midline and 2 cm below the xiphi-stenum. The wound enter the FIR No. 507/08 14 page of 40 abdomen cavity and cut the distal part of greater curvature of stomach which is surgically repaired in hospital. The total depth of the wound is about 10 cm.
6. Incised wound surgically stitched of size 6 x 0.1 cms x muscle deep over left dorsum of lower one third of arm, obliquely placed and 4.5 cm above the knuckle of elbow.
Opinion The cause of death is hemmorahgic shock consequent upon stab injury on abdomen produced by single pointed sharp edged weapon and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
23. Ex. PW9/B is sketch of knife i.e weapon of offence prepared by PW9 Dr. S. Lal, Specialist Forensic Medicine. Ex. PW9/C is subsequent opinion given by doctor after examination of weapon of offence and clothes of the deceased. PW9 has specifically stated that on examination of clothes, the cut mark present over small check shirt and black sando baniyan could have been possible caused by weapon given for examination and no cut marks were present over pant and underwear.
24. Ex. PA2 is the MLC of PW4 as per which he suffered stab injuries on his upper abdomen and on his right arm. Injuries are opined to be dangerous. Ex. PA4 MLC of PW5 as per which he suffered injuries on linear horizontal wound upper abdomen. Injuries are opined to be dangerous.
25. Different contentions were raised by Ld Defence counsels assailing prosecution case. All the Ld. Defence counsels submitted that complainant Raju on whose complaint this FIR was lodged has not been FIR No. 507/08 15 page of 40 examined which causes dent to the prosecution case. Raju is complainant and is also very material witness for the purpose of this case. As per record, despite various efforts made by prosecution he remained untraceable. At the time of incident, he was working as a Waiter in the said restaurant but thereafter he was reported to have left service and his whereabouts could not be traced. Absence of Raju does not cause any dent or weakens prosecution case in any manner, since he was not a sole eyewitness to the incident. PW4, PW5 and PW19 are the other three eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution. Prosecution case has be to appreciated on the basis of evidence which has come before this court and cannot be depreciated for non examination of a witness who was one of the eyewitnesses to this incident.
26. It is also submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that in the complaint this Raju had named all the accused persons as if he was knowing all the accused persons. It is stated that it shows that to falsely implicate accused persons this complaint was fabricated impleading names of all four accused persons. It is relevant to mention here that except complainant, no other eyewitness either PW4, PW5 or PW19 had given the names of any of the accused persons as the assailants in their statements recorded by the police. As already discussed, this Raju was working as a waiter and he has specifically stated that accused Sandeep, Pankaj and Rahul regularly used to visit their restaurant and due to this reason he was knowing them by names. Regarding fourth accused Chet Ram, he has specifically stated that other accused persons were calling his name due to this reason he also came to know about the name of this fourth accused. It is relevant to mention here that FIR No. 507/08 16 page of 40 PW4 and PW5 were chefs in the restaurant and PW19 is the son of owner of this restaurant. Duty of a chef is in the kitchen and he does not come in direct contact with the customers. Probability of chef knowing his customer is very less. Similar is the position regarding the owner. The waiter is a person who directly comes in contact with customers. It is not strange if Raju had given names of all the accused persons stating that they regularly used to visit their restaurant.
27. Other contentions raised by Ld. Defence counsels is that though PW19 who is son of the owner of the restaurant was oriented and conscious on the day of the incident but there is a gap of 10 days in recording his statement. It is stated that prosecution has failed to explain that why so much delay took place in recording his statement when he was an eyewitness of this incident. It is stated that circumstances show that he is a planted witness and due to this very reason even during trial he was cross examined at later stage to cover up any lacuna which may occur in the statements of other eyewitnesses. As per record, PW19 was summoned earlier also by the Court but due to one reason or the other, his statement could not be recorded. Ex. PW7/A is the MLC of PW19 as per which he suffered deep incised wound near his left knee of about 2-3 cms. Injuries are opined to be simple in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon. He was conscious and oriented at the time of his admission in Shanti Mukand Hospital. Date of the incident is 11.10.08 and statement of PW19 was recorded by the police on 21.10.10. During his cross, PW19 has stated that he does not know if police officials came to his residence from day of his discharge till 21.10.10 for recording his statement, since he was in a state of shock FIR No. 507/08 17 page of 40 and his family members did not permit the police officials to meet him and he was not allowed to see TV, news channels and read newspaper. It is nowhere mentioned in Ex. PW19/DA statement of this witness recorded by the police that he was under state of shock and due to this reason his statement could not be recorded earlier. There is no doubt from the circumstances of this case that statement of PW19 could have been recorded earlier to 21.10.08. No explanation has come in the statement of IO PW20 that why so much delay took place in recording the statement of PW19 who is an important witness to the incident. Ld. APP has submitted that PW19 was an injured and had witnessed entire incident, due to this reason he was under shock and trauma because of that his statement was recorded by IO only on 21.10.08. No doubt, after witnessing such horrifying incident, a normal person certainly will come under shock but whether PW19 was shocked to the extent that it was not possible to record his statement is a question which needs consideration.
28. PW19 has stated that he was under the shock and his family members did not allow the police officials to meet him. To my mind, at the maximum it is deficiency on the part of the police that why his statement was not recorded earlier. Merely on this ground his entire testimony cannot be levelled as cooked up and he cannot be rendered unbelievable. As already discussed, this witness has been confronted during his cross examination with his statement Ex. PW19/DA but all these confrontations pointed out by Ld. Defence counsels are very minor in nature and not touching the root of the matter and deserves outright rejection. Moreover, statement of PW19 is found consistent FIR No. 507/08 18 page of 40 with statements of other eyewitnesses i.e PW4 and PW5. Though there is nothing on record to infer that police deliberately delayed in recording statement of PW19 but even if for the sake of arguments it be taken as case of defective investigation (to this extent only) law is settled that accused can not be acquitted solely on ground of defect in investigation. Reliance is placed upon Zahira Abdulla S. Sheikh Vs. State of Gujrat 2004 Crimila Law Journal 2050.
29. Now, contentions raised by different accused, are dealt with in following paras:-
Rahul
30. One of the main contentions raised by Sh. Pradeep Tyagi Ld. Defence counsel for accused is that as per prosecution case, a katta was recovered from him but why accused did not use this katta in the alleged assault is not understandable which shows that he was falsely implicated in this case. PW8 Ct Lalit Kumar is a witness of recovery of country made pistol from this accused. PW8 was patrolling the area with Ct. Dinesh, on hearing noise of commotion they reached there and apprehended this accused. On checking one country made pistol was recovered from the right dub of the pant of the accused and live cartridge was recovered from the right pocket of his pant. PW12 ASI Yashpal has also subsequently reached at the spot and same was handed over by PW8 to PW12.
31. Ex. PA5 is report of Sh. V. R. Anand, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistic), FSL Delhi as per which country made pistol and cartridge were fire arms/ ammunition as defined under Section 3 Arms Act, 1959. Ex. PA1 is sanction given by Sh. O.P. Mishra, Addl. DCP, East FIR No. 507/08 19 page of 40 District for prosecution of this accused under Section 39 Arms Act.
32. Coming back to this contention of Ld. Defence counsel, as per PW4, PW5 and PW19, deceased PW4 and PW15 were caught by other persons, this accused stabbed all of them with knife in his hand. From the facts of this case, immediately after the incident all the accused ran away from the spot while three managed to escape but this accused tried to start his Maruti car which did not start and by chance PW8 with other beat constable reached there and this accused was apprehended. Meaning thereby that at the time of this incident, this accused was in possession of a knife as well as a country made pistol. As posed by Ld. Defence counsel, question is that why this accused used knife for stabbing when he was in possession of country made pistol. Why accused used one weapon and did not use other, only he can answer it properly. As per prosecution case, accused were consuming liquor in the said restaurant and on the issue of non supply of "Papad" on time, this quarrel started. It is not a case where accused persons had reached in the restaurant with pre meditation. In such circumstances of sudden fight, accused must have used weapon which struck his mind at that very moment. Merely because accused did not use country made pistol which he was found in the possession, on this very ground we can not infer that he was falsely implicated in this case by the police.
33. Other contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel is that prosecution has failed to prove if any blood was recovered from the spot and hence place of occurrence becomes doubtful. To support his contention, Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon on decision of our FIR No. 507/08 20 page of 40 High Court in Shyam Sunder and Raj Kumar( Supra). PW12 ASI Yashpal who was first to reach at the spot on receipt of DD No. 32A has specifically stated that blood was lying in the kitchen. He further stated that he had lifted blood sample from the kitchen and after sealing it, took it into possession. FSL report given by Biology Division though not proved by prosecution but is admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr. PC. This report is inconclusive and is of no use to prosecution. Ex. PW4/DB is photograph put to PW4 to explain his position in the kitchen at the time of incident. Blood lying scattered on the floor is visible in this photograph. This photograph supports statements of PW4, PW5 and PW19 that incident took place in the kitchen as deposed by them.
34. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that no human blood was found on the knife hence it is doubtful that this weapon was used in the crime. In support of his contentions he relied upon Sita Ram (Supra). Though no exhibit was given to FSL report but this report is per se admissible in evidene under Section 293 Cr.PC. As per report of Biology (Division) no human blood was found on this knife. The knife was recovered after a gap of more than 20 days. If lying exposed on knife for so many days, human blood will definitely get putrified. It is not strange if no human blood could be detected on this knife. As already discussed doctor who conducted P/M report in his subsequent opinion Ex. PW9/C has specifically stated that this knife could have been a weapon of offence. I therefore do not agree with this contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel that since no human blood was found on it, it cannot be taken as a weapon of offence.
FIR No. 507/08 21 page of 40
35. Other contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel is that there was delay in conducting TIP which creates doubt on the prosecution case. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Mulla( Supra). This accused, since was arrested from the spot due to this reason he was not put to test of identification parade. In this case Apex Court has observed that the object of conducting a test identification parade is primarily for the investigation purpose. The circumstances as is evident in the statement of PW8, clearly establishes that accused Rahul was involved in this incident and to avoid being apprehended he first tried to run in his Maruti Car and thereafter he tried to ran away on his feet. Moreover, proposition of law is settled that if for the first time accused is identified by witnesses before the court without ever being put to TIP, his identity cannot be doubted simply on this ground. I therefore do not agree with this contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel for accused.
36. Ld. Defence counsel has filed various other judgments but ratio of these judgments is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
37. I do not find any substance in the various contentions raised by Ld. Defence counsel for this accused. To sum up evidence against this accused- all thee eyewitness i.e. PW4, PW5 and PW19 have identified him as one of the main assailants who sharing common intention with his associates stabbed deceased Shahid, PW4 and PW5. Since all the accused persons had come in Maruti car bearing No. DL-3CM-7755 , it was natural conduct of the accused to take away his car and ran away from the spot in the same car but since car did not start, PW8 being beat constable of the area reached there and he (Rahul) was apprehended outside the restaurant. Ex.PW12/E is the disclosure FIR No. 507/08 22 page of 40 statement of accused recorded by IO immediately after his arrest wherein he has named other accused as his associates in this crime.
Pankaj
38. Ld. Counsel Sh. Mukesh Vats submitted that as per prosecution case, accused Rahul was arrested at the spot but he has not named this accused in his disclosure statement. Ex. PW12/E is the disclosure statement of accused Rahul wherein he has named this accused, accused Sandeep and Chet Ram as his associates. Other contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel regarding non examination of complainant Raju has already been dealt earlier. Ld. Defence counsel has further urged that deceased Shahid has received multiple wounds but none of the prosecution witnesses has stated that Shahid was repeatedly stabbed and same is serious contradiction in the prosecution case, which creates doubt on the prosecution case and benefit of the same needs to be given to the accused persons. As per MLC Ex. PW9/A, deceased Shahid received six incised wounds. As per post mortem, Injury Nos, 2,3, 4 and 5 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually and collectively both. All three eyewitnesses ie. PW4, PW5 and PW19 have specifically stated that deceased Shahid, PW4 and PW5 were caught by other three accused and accused Rahul stabbed all of them with knife which he was holding in his hand. Apparently from the statements of these eyewitnesses, deceased as well as PW4 and PW5 were stabbed by accused Rahul only once. Incident took place on the spur of the moment as the assailants got enraged for non supply of Papad on time. Before deceased, PW4 and PW5 would have been stabbed, certainly FIR No. 507/08 23 page of 40 exchange of hot words and grappling must have taken place between them and accused persons. It is not like that while being caught by other accused, when accused Rahul was stabbing deceased , PW4 and PW5 one by one, others must have been waiting for their turn to be stabbed. As natural reaction, deceased, PW4 and PW5 must have tried to resist and escape from the attack. Everything happened in short duration of time. In this melee, it is not possible for a witness who is also injured in the incident to recollect facts with precision. Law is settled that such type of incidents have an element of surprise. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. Reliance in this regard is placed on Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217. Though there is a discrepancy in the prosecution case but in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a minor discrepancy. Over much importance cannot be attached to it.
39. Other contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel is that width of the blade of knife i.e. alleged weapon of offence, is, 2.6 cms and with same weapon wounds of 4.5 cms and 3.2 cms as mentioned in the P/M report cannot be caused. Weapon of offence was recovered on FIR No. 507/08 24 page of 40 03.11.08 on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused Sandeep. Recovery aspect of this weapon will be discussed later on while discussing the various contentions raised by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Sandeep. Ex. PW16/C is seizure memo of this weapon as per which length of blade of knife is 18 cms. The same knife was also produced before PW9 Dr. S Lal who prepared P/M report, to seek his subsequent opinion regarding this weapon could be weapon of offence. As per sketch Ex. PW9/B of this knife maximum width of the blade is 2.6 cms. Out of six incised wounds, found on the body of deceased Shahid, first wound was having dimension 21 x 0.1 cm, second wound was 4.5 x 0.2 cm X cavity deep, third wound was 3.2 x 0.2 cm x cavity deep, fourth wound was 0.9 x 0.2 x 1 cm , fifth was 1.6 x 0.2 x cavity deep and sixth was 6 x 0.1 cm x muscle deep. I do not agree with the submissions made by Ld. Defence counsel that knife having blade 2.6 cms in width will only pierce the skin by 2.6 cm in length. It is true if with accuracy and precision knife blow is given straight in the body and with the same accuracy it is taken out. As already discussed, every scuffle of this nature always has an element of grappling and efforts made by the victim in self defence. Under the circumstances in which deceased was assaulted, knife having width of blade 2.6 cms can cause injuries as found mentioned in the P/M report of the deceased Shahid. I therefore do not agree with this contention raised by Ld. Defence Counsel.
40. Other contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel regarding weapon of offence is that injuries received by other witnesses show use of different weapons which is contradictory to the prosecution FIR No. 507/08 25 page of 40 story. As per MLC Ex. PA2, Ex. PA4 and Ex. PW7/A injuries sustained by PW4, PW5 and PW19 are stab injuries. Dimension of injuries on MLC of PW4 and PW5 are not mentioned whereas as per Ex.PW7/A, PW19 sustained incised wounds 2-3 cms near his left knee. Common factor in the injuries sustained by deceased, PW4, PW5 and PW19 is that all are stab injuries. There is nothing to infer on perusal of P/M report and three MLCs that different weapon was used in causing these injuries. Circumstances show that main thrust of the attack was borne by the deceased Shahid.
41. Ex. PA7 is the TIP of this accused wherein he has admitted that he was present at the site at the time of incident but he challenges the role assigned by the police to him. He refused to participate in TIP as witness including Mohd. Jaffar (PW5) were known to him well before the date of the incident. Ld. APP submitted that this statement of accused proves his presence at the time of the incident. Ld. Defence counsel opposed this contention of Ld. APP submitting that prosecution has to stand on its legs and cannot take benefit of any statement made by accused during TIP. I agree with Ld. Defence counsel to the extent that prosecution has to stand on its legs to prove its case against the accused but I do not agree with this contention that statement of this witness has no relevancy and need not be considered at all. As already discussed, there eyewitnesses have clearly identified this accused as one of the assailants. He with accused Sandeep and Chet Ram caught hold them and accused Rahul stabbed all of them including deceased Shahid. This statement further proves that PW5 knew him but how PW5 knew him has nowhere been explained by him.
FIR No. 507/08 26 page of 40 Probably it supports the prosecution case that accused persons were routine visitors to this restaurants due to this reason their names were mentioned in the complaint. Further refusal on the part of this accused to participate in TIP without any reasonable excuse, certainly draws adverse inference against him.
Sandeep
42. Sh. S. K. Raizada Ld. Defence counsel for accused Sandeep submitted that PW5 is a tutored witness and he is identifying this accused at the instance of IO. As already discussed, PW5 has supported statement of PW4 and PW19. During his cross examination he has specifically stated that he was caught hold from behind by this accused. During his cross this witness was confronted by Ld. Defence counsel on some points with his statement Ex. PW5/DA but these contradictions are minor in nature and not affecting the credibility of this witness in any manner. I find no reason to believe this contention of Ld. Defence counsel that PW5 is a tutored witness. PW4 and PW19 have also deposed about his presence at the spot and I find no reason to doubt his presence at the spot.
43. Other contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel is that PW16 and PW20 are two witnesses of recovery of knife from this accused but their statements are contradictory and are not reliable. It is further stated that the knife was planted upon this accused and due to this reason there is no public witness despite the place of recovery being thickly populated. PW20 is the IO. As per him, on 3.11.08 this accused was taken on police custody remand. Accused led police to Manglam Road where he had pointed out the place where he had kept FIR No. 507/08 27 page of 40 knife after committing murder. Thereafter accused got recovered knife from the bushes. PW16 Ct. Bijender Singh who was accompanying IO has also supported his statement. During his cross PW16 stated that the knife was recovered from the bushes which were of 4-5 feet in height, knife was not visible from a distance and it was taken out by IO. PW20 has stated that he made efforts to join independent persons while affecting recovery but they refused to join the proceedings; Mangalm road was surrounded by houses khokhas and shops and height of bushes was 2½-3 feet. Statements of both PW16 and PW20 are consistent regarding the manner and place of recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of this accused in pursuance to his disclosure statement. Merely because no public person was joined during the recovery of this knife, solely on this ground, recovery cannot be doubted. Reliance is placed upon State of NCT Vs. Sunil and Others 2000 VIII AD(SC) 613 wherein Apex court has observed that if any such statement of accused leads to the recovery of any article, it is open to the Investigating Officer to take signatures of any persons present at that time on document prepared for such recovery but if no witness is present or if no person agreed to affix signatures on document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that documents prepared by the police officers must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence is unreliable.
44. Other contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel is that accused was falsely arrested in FIR Nos. 268/08 and 285/08 of PS Gokalpuri and thereafter he was falsely implicated in the present case. To prove his defence, accused examined his father Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma as FIR No. 507/08 28 page of 40 DW1. DW1 deposed that on 09.10.08 at about 4 PM a constable came to his house and inquired about Sandeep stating that SHO PS Gokalpuri has called him. Next day he went to PS and there SHO told him that he had to interrogate Sandeep. SHO demanded Rs. 1 lac or Sandeep will be implicated in a murder, which took place on 30.09.08. On 13.10.08 one ASI and two constables took away his son with them. As per IO PW120 on 14.10.08 he received information from PS that two accused namely Pankaj and Sandeep were arrested in FIR No. 285/08 of PS. Gokalpuri and they had made disclosure statements regarding their involvement in this case. Thereafter he made an application and arrested this accused as well as accused Pankaj in this case. DW1 being father of accused his statement that his son was falsely implicated in this case is without any basis and does not inspire confidence.
45. Ex. PA6 is the TIP of this accused. He has refused to join TIP stating that he was shown to the witnesses by IO in PS Gokalpuri. There is nothing on record to infer if this accused was shown to any of the witness by the police in PS Gokalpuri. Therefore, adverse inference needs to be drawn against this accused for his refusal to participate in TIP.
Chet Ram
46. Ld. Legal Aid counsel Sh. A.K. Bali for accused submitted that this accused as well as other three accused were falsely implicated to cover up fight which took place among deceased Shahid, PW4 and PW5 and other employees of the restaurant. It is stated that MLC of the deceased supports his contention as there it is mentioned that Shahid FIR No. 507/08 29 page of 40 was stabbed by colleagues and thereafter after cutting "colleague", "unknown person" was mentioned. Ex. PA3 is the MLC of the deceased where in history it is mentioned that stab injury across the abdomen around 11.00 PM at Zaika Restaurant Hargovind Enclave( Community Centre) by colleague (cutting) unknown person. Cutting on the MLC was done by the same person. It appears by mistake it was mentioned by Treating doctor as colleague instead of unknown person, he was justified in rectifying his mistake. As per this MLC when deceased was taken to hospital at 11.30 PM he was unconscious and not responding to the commands. It is not mentioned in this MLC that who told this history to the doctor but certainly it was not told by deceased himself. This contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel is found without any basis.
47. Other contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel is regarding delay in recording statement of PW19. Same has already been discussed at length in earlier paras and for the sake of brevity it is not discussed again. The other contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel is that no public witness was jointed at the time of recovery of the knife allegedly at the instance of accused Sandeep. This contention has already been dealt at length and it is not discussed again.
48. Ex. PA8 is the TIP of this accused. He refused to participate in TIP stating that he was shown to the witnesses in PS. Refusal of this accused to participate in TIP without any justifiable reasons, attracts adverse inference against him.
FINDINGS
49. As already discussed statements of PW4, PW5 and PW19 who FIR No. 507/08 30 page of 40 are three injured and ocular witness to the incident are consistent and credit worthy. PW4 and PW5 being chefs in the restaurant their presence in the kitchen at the time of incident was quite natural. PW19 being son of the owner, his presence in the restaurant and reaching at the spot is also justified. MLC of these injured persons further support their version of the incident. All these witnesses have identified all the accused persons and have also assigned specific roles played by them in the incident.
50. In view of the aforesaid discussions it is held that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the four accused persons were present at Zaika Restaurant and on account of non supply of 'Papad' on time they got enraged, a scuffle happened between them and employees of the restaurant. It further stands established that acting under common intention, accused Pankaj, Sandeep and Chet Ram caught hold deceased, PW4 and PW5 and accused Rahul holding knife in his hand stabbed all of them . It further stands established that deceased Shahid working as a chef in the restaurant suffered multiple stab wounds given by accused Rahul sharing common intention with other accused persons and these injuries proved fatal. Prosecution has also been able to prove that all the accused persons sharing common intention attacked PW4 and PW5, causing them stab injuries with common intention to kill them. It further stands established that all the accused sharing common intention caused simple injuries to PW19 with knife. It further stands established that country-made pistol and two live cartridges being fire arms/ammunitions were recovered from the possession of accused FIR No. 507/08 31 page of 40 Rahul.
51. Accordingly all the four accused are held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302/307/324/34 IPC. Accused Rahul is also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. All the accused persons are convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open Court ( SANJAY GARG )
on 30.03.12012 Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 507/08 32 page of 40
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY GARG : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (EAST) :KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI SC No. 13/2009 FIR No. 507/08 PS. Anand Vihar US. 302/307/324/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act State Vs. Rahul @ Puneet @ Philip S/o. Sh. Rajinder R/o. C/o. House of Bhanwar Singh Gurjar, Village Kondli, Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi.
ORDER ON QUANTUM
1. I have heard argument of Sh. Mukul Kumar , Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Haneef Mohammad and Sh. Madhur Dhingra, Ld. Counsels for the complainant and Sh. Pradeep Tyagi Ld. Defence Counsel for convict on quantum.
2. Ld. APP submits that keeping in view gravity of the offences maximum punishment i.e capital punishment be awarded to the convict. It is stated that the convict with his associates had ruthlessly murdered a young boy.
3. Ld. Defence counsel for convict submits that the convict is first offender, not involved in other criminal case. It is stated that he is young age of 24 years. It is stated the since beginning he is in J/C. It is stated that he has a family constituting his parents and young brother who were dependent upon him for their livelihood. It is request the lenient view be taken against him.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it does not fall in the category of "rarest of the rare cases". The only other punishment provided under Section 302 IPC is imprisonment for life.
FIR No. 507/08 33 page of 40 For the offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.
1000/- in default to undergo SI for one month. For the offence punishable u/s.
307/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo SI for one month. For the offence punishable u/s.
324/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo SI for 15 days. For the offence punishable u/s. 25 Arms Act he is sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo SI for 15 days. All the sentences to run concurrently.
5. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the accused. Copy of judgment and this order be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( SANJAY GARG )
on 04.04.2012 Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 507/08 34 page of 40
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY GARG : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (EAST) :KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI SC No. 13/2009 FIR No. 507/08 PS. Anand Vihar US. 302/307/324/34 IPC State Vs. Pankaj Kumar S/o. Sh. Raj Kumar R/o. B-2/427, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi ORDER ON QUANTUM
1. I have heard argument of Sh. Mukul Kumar , Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Haneef Mohammad and Sh. Madhur Dhingra, Ld. Counsels for the complainant and Sh. Vijay Verma Ld. Defence Counsel for convict on quantum.
2. Ld. APP submits that keeping in view gravity of the offences maximum punishment i.e capital punishment be awarded to the convict. It is stated that the convict with his associates had ruthlessly murdered a young boy.
3. Ld. Defence counsel for convict submits that the convict is first offender, not involved in other criminal case. It is stated that he is young age of 24 years. It is stated the since beginning he is in J/C. It is stated that he has a family constituting his parents and his young brother who were dependent upon him for their livelihood. It is requested that lenient view be taken against him.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it does not fall in the category of "rarest of the rare cases". The only other punishment provided under Section 302 IPC is imprisonment for life.
FIR No. 507/08 35 page of 40 For the offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.
1000/- in default to undergo SI for one month. For the offence punishable u/s.
307/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo SI for one month. For the offence punishable u/s.
324/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo SI for 15 days. All the sentences to run concurrently.
5. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the accused. Copy of judgment and this order be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( SANJAY GARG )
on 04.04.2012 Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 507/08 36 page of 40
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY GARG : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (EAST) :KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI SC No. 13/2009 FIR No. 507/08 PS. Anand Vihar US. 302/307/324/34 IPC State Vs. Sandeep S/o. Sh Ved Prakash Sharma R/o. C-250, Gali No. 9, Ganga Vihar, Delhi ORDER ON QUANTUM
1. I have heard argument of Sh. Mukul Kumar , Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Haneef Mohammad and Sh. Madhur Dhingra, Ld. Counsels for the complainant and Sh. S. K. Raizada Ld. Defence Counsel for convict on quantum.
2. Ld. APP submits that keeping in view gravity of the offences maximum punishment i.e capital punishment be awarded to the convict. It is stated that the convict with his associates had ruthlessly murdered a young boy.
3. Ld. Defence counsel for convict submits that the convict is first offender, not involved in other criminal case. It is stated that he is young age of 24 years. It is stated the since beginning he is in J/C. It is stated that he has a family constituting his old sick parents, three younger brother and one sister who were dependent upon him for their livelihood. It is requested that lenient view be taken against him.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it does not fall in the category of "rarest of the rare cases". The only other punishment provided under Section 302 IPC is imprisonment for life.
FIR No. 507/08 37 page of 40 For the offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.
1000/- in default to undergo SI for one month. For the offence punishable u/s.
307/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo SI for one month. For the offence punishable u/s.
324/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo SI for 15 days. All the sentences to run concurrently.
5. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the accused. Copy of judgment and this order be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( SANJAY GARG )
on 04.04.2012 Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 507/08 38 page of 40
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY GARG : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (EAST) :KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI SC No. 13/2009 FIR No. 507/08 PS. Anand Vihar US. 302/307/324/34 IPC State Vs. Chet Ram @ Ravi S/o. Sh. Chajju Ram R/o. Jhuggi E-73/A-409, Sanjay Colony, Gokal Puri, Delhi ORDER ON QUANTUM
1. I have heard argument of Sh. Mukul Kumar , Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Haneef Mohammad and Sh. Madhur Dhingra, Ld. Counsels for the complainant and Sh. A. K. Bali, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for convict on quantum.
2. Ld. APP submits that keeping in view gravity of the offences maximum punishment i.e capital punishment be awarded to the convict. It is stated that the convict with his associates had ruthlessly murdered a young boy.
3. Ld. Defence counsel for convict submits that the convict is first offender, not involved in other criminal case. It is stated that he is young age of 26 years. It is stated the since beginning he is in J/C. It is stated that he has a family constituting his one elder brother and two sisters . It is requested the lenient view be taken against him.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it does not fall in the category of "rarest of the rare cases". The only other punishment provided under Section 302 IPC is imprisonment for life.
FIR No. 507/08 39 page of 40 For the offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.
1000/- in default to undergo SI for one month. For the offence punishable u/s.
307/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo SI for one month. For the offence punishable u/s.
324/34 IPC he is sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo SI for 15 days. All the sentences to run concurrently.
5. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the accused. Copy of judgment and this order be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( SANJAY GARG )
on 04.04.2012 Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 507/08 40 page of 40