Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned counsel for Sunil and Sudhir contends that a perusal of the PCR entries and the place of occurrence show that there were two distinct incidents. As per the first PCR call, the incident was allegedly at the house of the Complainant whereas the son of the Complainant died in front of Shiv Mandir. The gap between the two incidents shows that they were two distinct incidents and material facts have been concealed by the prosecution. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was given knife blows however, as per the postmortem report and the MLC there is no injury by knife on the deceased. Hence, the eye witnesses are planted witnesses. Neeru and „N‟ reached the hospital later and thus they were not the eye witnesses. Further the factum of Sunil being admitted in the hospital was sought to be concealed by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer PW-28 Inspector Yashpal Singh has deposed falsely when he stated that he did not know as to where Sunil had gone. There is no explanation to the injuries on Sunil. From the MLC, it is clear that the injuries to Sunil were from knife. The finding of the learned Trial Court that Sunil got injured due to the fall on the glass pieces is unfounded as no blood stains were found on the glass pieces recovered. Though Sunil was fit for statement however, his statement was not recorded by the investigating officer. The plea of alibi of Sunil has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. The witnesses stated that all the accused ran away after the incident however, as per the MLC Sunil was admitted by ASI Rawal Singh in the hospital. Hence the version of the eye witnesses is incorrect. From the site plan and the seizure memo it is evident that four baseball bats were at the spot. This is contrary to the version of the eye witnesses. There are contradictions in the testimony of police witnesses. PW-21 Constable Rupesh has stated that the knife was blood stained however, Inspector Yashpal Singh stated that the knife was not blood stained. Though it is alleged that there was recovery at the instance of Sudhir however, his disclosure statement was recorded later on.

12. The two other eye witnesses who were injured as well PW-23 Naresh and PW-12 Mohd. Samir @ kale have turned hostile. As per the MLC Ex.PW- 4/A of Mohd. Samir, he reached the hospital at 12.35 AM and the investigating officer‟s name mentioned in the MLC is ASI Rawal Singh of PS Sultanpuri. Ex.PW4/A shows two sharp incised wounds on Samir at the chin and left lumbar region. Similarly, Ex.PW-4/D MLC of Naresh also shows the name of investigating officer as Rawal Singh of PS Sultanpuri. Ex.PW4/D shows two sharp incised wounds on Naresh at the right hand and left side lower chest besides tenderness at the parietal region. Even though Naresh and Mohd. Samir have turned hostile, the fact that they were present at the spot, were injured in the incident and taken to the hospital is sufficient to corroborate the version of Neeru and „N‟.

20. „N‟ has stated that she was given beatings by Sudhir by iron rod when she went after her brother. This witness was medically examined and PW-4 Dr. Binay Kumar, proved her MLC Ex.PW4/B. As per the MLC, she suffered fresh injuries in the form of abrasions over left side of frontal region of scalp. Dr. Binay Kumar in cross examination also clarified that the injury on the person of „N‟ could be caused by the iron pipe or a blunt object. The witness being an injured witness, her presence at the spot cannot be doubted. Further, the version of this witness is also corroborated from the PCR record. The PCR received the information at 23.56 hrs on 20 th July, 2009 vide Ex. PW6/A. After the PCR reached on the spot it noted that 3 men have received knife injuries and the quarrel was on teasing a girl. This noting is made at 00.36 hrs. on 21st July 2009 and by that time four persons namely Mohd. Samir, Subhash, Naresh and Sunil had been sent to the hospital. A perusal of the MLC of Mohd. Samir Ex PW4/A shows sharp incised wound. Even MLC of Naresh Ex. PW4/D shows sharp incised wound. MLC of Sunil also shows incised wound vide ExPW28/D. Merely because post mortem report of Subhash shows that there was no incised wound, the same would not belie the version of the prosecution witnesses, who have stated that one of the accused was armed with knife as knife injuries have been received by two other witnesses i.e. Mohd. Samir and Naresh though they may have turned hostile. However, this Court can look into their MLCs to find corroboration to the version of Neeru and „N‟. PW-7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra in his testimony has stated that injuries to Mohd. Samir, Naresh and Sunil were possible with broken glasses and the knife corroborating the version of the eye witnesses. The contention of defence is that Neeru is not a truthful witness as she stated that Sunil fell down on the broken pieces of glasses and sustained injuries, however the broken glass pieces were not blood stained. This contention is contrary to the evidence on record. Dr. Manoj Dhingra noticed the glass pieces to be blood stained. Even as per FSL report Ex.PX and Ex.PY the broken glass piece was stained with human blood.

The MLCs

51. The MLC of PW-23 (Ex. PW4/D) showed that he was brought to the SGMH at 1 a.m. on 21st July 2009. The MLC of Md. Samir (PW-12) (Ex. PW4/A) showed that he was brought to the SGMH at 12.35 a.m., on 21st July 2009. The MLC of PW-23 showed that he had a sharp incised wound. The MLC of PW-12 revealed that he too had sharp incised wounds on the lumbar region. All these MLCs noted the alleged history of physical assault.