Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 03.06.2015 on receiving DD No. 5A, Ex. PW-1/A regarding hitting of a Rickshaw puller near Barafkhana Chowk, PW-24/IO SI Yogender Kumar along with Ct. Fakir Chand went to the spot of incident i.e. Barafkhana at the corner of Kamla Nehru Park, where one blood stained cycle rickshaw was found and blood was also found scattered on the footpath. Thereafter, HC Gyanender and Ct. Bijender also met the IO at the spot and produced accused Ajay and one eyewitness namely Mohd. Irshad. Thereafter PW-24/IO SI Yogender Kumar recorded statement of eyewitness Mohd. Irshad, Ex. PW-4/D and he along with Ct. Fakir Chand went to Susuruta Trauma Centre after leaving behind Ct. Bijender, HC Gayanender and accused Ajay at the spot, where he collected MLC No. 205719, Ex. PW-7/A of injured, who was found unconscious as he had sustained multiple injuries. Thereafter IO returned to the spot of incident where he made endorsement on the statement of Mohd. Irshad, Ex. PW-24/A, prepared rukka and got registered the present FIR under Sec. 393/397/307 IPC at PS Subzi Mandi through Ct. Fakir Chand. During investigation, IO got inspected the spot of incident through Crime Team and seized the exhibits i.e. blood lying on footpath and on rickshaw in gauze piece, blood stained footpath tiles, blood stained hexagonal tiles, blood FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 2 of 52 State Vs. Ajay stained raxin of rickshaw, footpath tiles without blood, keys of rickshaw lying beneath the seat and blood stained rickshaw, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. IO also prepared site plan of the spot of incident, Ex. PW-2/B at the instance of complainant. Thereafter IO interrogated accused Ajay and arrested him in the present case. He also conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. During investigation, at about 09:25 am, IO received information that the injured had succumbed to injuries during his treatment and thereafter further investigation of the present case was entrusted to PW-26 Inspector Anant Kiran.

7. PW-1 HC Karan Singh Yadav, was duty officer who proved copy of DD No. 5A, copy of present FIR, endorsement of rukka and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to the the above-said FIR as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW-1/D. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Ct. Fakir Chand left with copy of FIR and rukka at about 07:00 am from the PS.

8. PW-2 Ct. Bijender Singh, deposed that on the intervening night of 02-03.06.2015, he along with HC Gyanender was on patrolling on government motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SN-5374 and at about 03:35 pm (word 'pm' seems to be a clerical mistake as the witness has specifically deposed that it was the intervening night of 02/03.06.2025) when they reached at Baraf Khana Chowk, one unknown person stopped them and told them that somebody had hit a person with stone and caused injury and the injured was lying on the patri on Kamla Nehru FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 4 of 52 State Vs. Ajay Park. He further deposed that the abovesaid person disclosed his name as Mohd. Irshad and after receiving the said information, they immediately reached at the spot i.e. patri Kamla Nehru Park and found that a person was lying there in a pool of pillar and the blood was profusely bleeding from his head. He further deposed that they immediately informed to Sugar-I through wireless set and called the PCR. He also deposed that the abovesaid person, Mohd. Irshad came to them and told that the person who had caused the injury to the abovesaid injured with stone had gone towards Hindu Roa Pahadi and thereafter he immediately chased the abovesaid person and he apprehended him from the patri when he was trying to jump over the railing of Kamla Nehru Park. He further deposed that on interrogation, accused disclosed his name as Ajay and eyewitness Mohd. Irshad had identified accused Ajay at the spot and told them that accused Ajay was the same person who had caused injury to the abovesaid injured with stone. He further deposed that IO/SI Yogender reached at the spot and recorded statement of complainant Mohd. Irshad, prepared rukka on the basis of statement of complainant and got the present FIR registered at PS through Ct. Fakir Chand. He narrated about proceedings conducted by the IO viz. inspection of the spot of incident through Crime Team and seizure of the exhibits i.e. blood lying on footpath and on rickshaw in gauze piece, blood stained footpath tiles, blood stained hexagonal tiles, blood stained raxin of rickshaw, footpath tiles without blood, keys of rickshaw lying beneath the seat and blood stained rickshaw, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. He also narrated about FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 5 of 52 State Vs. Ajay preparation of site plan, Ex. PW-2/B by IO at the instance of complainant. He proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Ajay as Ex. PW-2/C to Ex. PW-2/E. This witness has correctly identified the accused and case properties during his deposition in the court. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that when they reached at the spot except the injured, they did not find any other person. He deposed that Irshad was standing in front of Barafkhana gate and there was distance of 20-30 feet between the place of incident and the place where Irshad was found standing. He also deposed that Mohd. Irshad remained at the spot when they had gone towards Pahadi Hindu Rao to apprehend the accused. He also deposed that IO had recorded the statement of complainant Irshad at the spot by using the motorcycle seat and site plan was prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that pullanda items identified by him were not lifted in his presence or that he had disclosed about the same only on seeing the noting on pullanda before opening of the same. He also deposed that no other public person except the complainant was present at the spot nor any other public person had been associated during the investigation at the spot. He also deposed that information of arrest of accused was given to his sister and he did not know who had identified the injured in the hospital.

10. PW-4 Mohd. Irshad was the sole eyewitness of the incident as well as complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 03.06.2015 at about 03:00-03:30 am, he was returning to his home after worshiping at the graveyard situated at Malkaganj near Subzi Mandi and when he reached Barafkhana Chowk on patri, Nehru Park, he saw that accused Ajay was searching a rickshaw puller who was sleeping on his rickshaw at the abovesaid patri. He further deposed that in the meantime, rickshaw puller woke up and thereafter accused started quarreling with the abovesaid rickshaw puller and during the said quarrel, accused lifted six corners tiles from the patri and hit the same on the head of the abovesaid rickshaw puller repeatedly. He further deposed that accused gave many blows of the abovesaid tiles on the head of rickshaw puller repeatedly and thereafter rickshaw puller fell down. He further deposed that he saw two police officials coming on bullet motorcycle and he told them about the said incident. He further deposed that accused started running from the spot towards Pahari Hindu Rao Hospital and FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 7 of 52 State Vs. Ajay park and both the abovesaid police officials chased the accused and after sometime, both the abovesaid police officials along with accused Ajay came back to the spot. He further deposed that thereafter police gypsy was called at the spot by the abovesaid police officials and police officials took the injured rickshaw puller to the hospital. He narrated about proceedings conducted by the IO at the spot i.e. seizure of exhibits i.e. six corner blood stained tiles, tiles from patri and blood from rickshaw and proved their seizure memo as Ex. PW-2/A. He also narrated about preparation of site plan, Ex. PW-2/B by IO at his instance and proved his statement, Ex. PW-4/D. He also proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Ajay as Ex. PW-2/C to Ex. PW-2/E. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which this witness was confronted with his statement recorded under Sec. 161, Ex. PW-4/P1 on various points regarding seizure of exhibits as well as case properties by the IO from the spot of incident. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that the abovesaid rickshaw puller was sleeping on rickshaw at a distance of around 20-25 feet from the place where he was standing for taking TSR. He denied the suggestion that there was dark at the spot at that time. He deposed that the road lights were on at that time. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused hitting or causing injuries to the deceased. He further deposed that he had not told both the abovesaid police officials that accused had run towards Pahari Hindu Rao Hospital. He denied the suggestion that police had not apprehended and arrested the FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 8 of 52 State Vs. Ajay accused in his presence. He also deposed that he had signed only one document at the spot and had signed the second document at PS. He also deposed that he had not read the contents of above said documents as he was illiterate. He also deposed that the said documents were not read over to him by the police. He denied the suggestion that he had earlier seen accused and he knew him prior to the incident in question. He admitted that exhibits lifted from the spot had not been sealed or kept in the envelopes in his presence, which was produced in the court on that day. He deposed that he had not stated in his statement, Ex. PW-4/D that the person who was taking the search of rickshaw puller had demanded the key of rickshaw from deceased or had said that otherwise he would kill him. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the abovesaid incident. He denied the suggestion that accused was not apprehended in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness of the police or that he had signed the abovesaid documents on the asking of police officials in PS.

48. PW-7 Dr. Girish Chandra Prabhat has proved the MLC of deceased, Ex. PW-7/A. He deposed that on 03.06.2015, one unknown injured male aged about 35 years was brought to the Casualty of Trauma Centre by PCR official Ct. Jagdish Prasad. PW-7 Dr. Girish Chandra Prabhat has mentioned number of injuries on the person of deceased Rakesh in the MLC, Ex. PW-7/A. In his cross-examination, he specifically deposed that the said injuries were caused by blunt object. He denied the suggestion that said injuries were possible by a danda. PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa has proved the postmortem report of deceased, Ex. PW-21/A. PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa has mentioned 14 different injuries on the person of deceased Rakesh. He further deposed that the cause of death in this case was 'cranio cerebral damage FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 36 of 52 State Vs. Ajay consequent upon heavy blunt force impact which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature'. Since the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the said injury has been caused by accused intentionally, the case of the prosecution falls within clause thirdly of Sec. 300 IPC. He has also proved his subsequent opinion report, Ex. PW-21/H about weapon of offence i.e. cemented brick/stone and has specifically deposed that he was of considerate opinion that 'cranio cerebral damage' has mentioned in the postmortem report was possible by the examined weapon. The said cemented brick/stone, Ex. P-5 in blood stained condition was seized by the PW-24 IO/SI Yogender Kumar from the spot of incident vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa has specifically deposed that sub-scalp bruise was present at frontal and bilateral parietal region depressed communicated fracture of right pariteo temporal bone and right frontal bone shown linear fracture and linear fracture of left temporal bone. He also deposed that base of the scalp was found fracture and interior cranial fossa and at left side of middle cranial fossa. In his cross- examination, PW-24 Dr. A. S. Bajwa has specifically denied the possibility of external injuries on the person of deceased Rakesh by falling towards face/mouth at his own. He also deposed that the injuries mentioned in the PM report were not possible by fall on hard surface as the pattern of injuries and severity of head injury with depressed communated fracture of right parieto temporal bone as mentioned in the PM report are possible by heavy weight thrown on the head and were not possible by FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 37 of 52 State Vs. Ajay simple fall on hard surface. Accused has not taken any defence with respect to the injuries caused to the person of deceased Rakesh in the cross-examination of PW-4/complainant Sh. Mohd. Irshad. However, in answer to question no. 33 put to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, accused was taken the defence that deceased was under influence of liquor and he had fallen on the heap of cemented tiles twice or thrice and had sustained injuries on his head and abrasions on other parts of body. PW-27 Dr. Savita Sinha has proved her viscera report, Ex. PW-27/A and has deposed that the Ex. 1C was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol 80.00 mg per 100 ml of blood. Thus, a part of defence taken by the accused that deceased was drunk is correct. PW-3 Ct. Irshad who was photographer at Mobile Crime Team has proved photographs Ex. PW-3/1 to Ex. PW-3/7 along with negatives Ex. PW-3/8 to Ex. PW-3/14. In the said photographs, one cycle rickshaw can be seen stationed on the clear footpath and the blood can be seen on the seat of rickshaw as well as all around on the footpath just below the said rickshaw which shows that the alleged incident had taken place on the rickshaw itself. In the photographs, no heap of cemented tile can be seen. Only three tiles Ex. P-3 to P-6 were found at the spot which were seized by the IO. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused is without any substance and hence cannot be relied upon. Moreover, as per the opinion of PW-7 Dr. Girish Chandra Prabhat and PW-21 Dr. A. S. Bajwa, the said injuries were not possible by falling and such multiple injuries were possible with the cemented brick/stone Ex. P-5. Thus, the prosecution has successfully FIR No. 264/2015, PS: Subzi Mandi, Page No. 38 of 52 State Vs. Ajay proved that the death of deceased Rakesh was caused by accused by using cemented brick/tile, Ex. P-5.