Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Page No. 3 of 25. State Vs. Rupinder Kumar & Another; FIR No. 25/09 of PS Dwarka North.

­ 4 ­

4. For   proving   its   case,   prosecution   has   produced   22 witnesses.

4.1 PW1, Abhishek, and PW3, Naveen Kalher, deposed that on 11.10.2009, accused Deepak Kumar had sold the mobile phone of make Sony Ericsson to PW1 for Rs. 4,500/­.

4.2 PW4,   Ram   Kishan,   and   PW21,   Sri   Bhagwan,   are material witnesses.   PW4 deposed on the lines of his statement Ex. PW4/G, on the basis of which FIR was registered.  Further, he   deposed   about   the   arrest   of   both   the   accused   persons   and recoveries   made   at   their   instance.  PW21   mentioned   that   on 04.10.2009,   his   brother   Jai   Bhagwan   had   requested   him   to accompany to Sonepat, but he refused.   Then Jai Bhagwan told him that he alongwith his friends Rupinder Kumar and Deepak Kumar   would   go   to   Sonepat   and   when   Jai   Bhagwan   did   not return till late night, he called on his mobile phone and then also Jai Bhagwan confirmed that he is with the accused persons and after some time both the mobiles of his brother were switched off. 4.3 PW5, Jagdish, mentioned that he is doctor by profession and knows accused Rupinder Kumar.  But he did not support the prosecution case on the aspect that few days before the incident, accused Rupinder Kumar had purchased some intoxicating pills Page No. 4 of 25. State Vs. Rupinder Kumar & Another; FIR No. 25/09 of PS Dwarka North.

­ 8 ­ customer interested in buying taxi and thereafter, secretly and wrongfully confined him in the moving van till his murder. It is pertinent to mention here that instead of Section 365 IPC, charge should have been framed under Section 364 IPC (abduction for murder).  To prove the allegations, the prosecution has produced PW4 Ram Kishan and PW21 Sri Bhagwan, who are father and brother   of   the   deceased   respectively.   Admittedly,   there   is   no direct   evidence   of   abduction.   As   far   as   testimony   of   PW4   is concerned, it is found to be of hearsay in nature qua the fact that the accused persons took Jai Bhagwan in their van.   He clearly deposed   in   his   cross   examination   that   his   son   Sri   Bhagwan (PW21) told him in the morning of 05.10.2009 that Jai Bhagwan had informed him on 04.10.2009 at about 10.30 pm on his mobile phone   that   he   is   with   the   accused   persons.   Further,   PW21 deposed that on 04.10.2009, both the accused persons called his brother on his mobile phone to accompany them to Sonepat and thereafter, his brother had requested him to accompany him to Sonepat, but he refused.  Thereafter, Jai Bhagwan told him that since  he  is   not   going with   him,  he would  go  with  the  accused persons.   He also testified that at 11.00 pm, on 04.10.2009, he had  given   a  call   to  his brother on  mobile number 9278159817 from his mobile number 9268348103 and then his brother stated Page No. 8 of 25. State Vs. Rupinder Kumar & Another; FIR No. 25/09 of PS Dwarka North.

­ 11 ­ come on Jai Bhagwan that he had run away with the said taxi.

12. To   prove   the   fact   that   Jai   Bhagwan   was   with   the accused persons on the intervening night of 04/05.10.2009, the prosecution case is largely based on the testimony of PW4 and PW21.  PW21 has mentioned that Jai Bhagwan informed him on 04.10.2009 that he would go to Sonepat with the accused persons and when Jai Bhagwan did not return home till late night, he made a call at about 10.30 pm to him and then also he confirmed that   he   is   going   to   Sonepat   in   a   van   with   both   the   accused persons.   PW4   has   deposed   that   on   next   day   i.e.   05.10.2009, PW21 had informed him that Jai Bhagwan had gone to Sonepat with the accused persons.   It is not disputed that neither PW4 nor   PW21   or   any   other   prosecution   witness   had   seen   Jai Bhagwan going with the accused persons in the said van at the relevant time.  Thus, the testimony of PW4 and PW21 qua the fact that Jai Bhagwan went with the accused persons to Sonepat, is   of   hearsay   nature.     But   ld.   Addl.   PP   had   argued   that   the information   given   by Jai Bhagwan,  who was murdered   by the accused persons, to his brother (PW21) on the fateful night that he is going to Sonepat with the accused persons, falls within the purview of Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act and thus, Page No. 11 of 25. State Vs. Rupinder Kumar & Another; FIR No. 25/09 of PS Dwarka North.

­ 17 ­ accused persons.   Further, he disclosed that when he called his brother Jai Bhagwan at about 11.15 pm, he informed that he is going to Sonepat with the accused persons and would return by 1.30 pm in the night and he had told his father in the morning of 05.10.2009 that his brother had gone to Sonepat with the accused persons   and   he   had   accompanied   his   father   to   the   house   of accused   Deepak   Kumar   at   Delhi   Cantt   and   to   the   house   of accused   Rupinder   Kumar   at   Nabha   House   to   inquire   on 05.10.2006.   Thus, it is clear that there is no consistency in the testimony of PW4 and PW21 as to when PW4 came to know that his   son   Jai   Bhagwan   had   gone   with   the   accused   persons   on 04.10.2009   and   as   to   when   they   had   gone   to   police   station   to lodge a report or to the house of the accused persons to make inquiries.