Appeal against conviction for murder. Challenges to the sole eye-witness account of the deceased's father, the recoveries made without public witnesses, delay in the FIR and alleged contradictions in the police testimony were all rejected; the medical and forensic evidence corroborated the ocular account and common intention was inferred.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
+ CRL.A. 482/2003
Reserved on: 21.1.2019 Date of decision: 11.3.2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
HIMMAT SINGH & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Pradeep Chowdhary and Mr. Vikrant Chowdhary, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State. SI Suresh Kumar, P.S. Inderpuri.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
HIMA KOHLI, J.
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 1 of 34
Page 2 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
Prosecution Witnesses
Page 3 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
Ocular Evidence
Page 4 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
the said date, at about 7.15 A.M., when he was working in his beat area, near a dispensary of the MCD in C-Block, J.J. Colony, Inderpuri alongwith his son, Satbir, who was sweeping at a distance of about 20 steps away from him, he heard a noise. On turning back towards his son, PW-2 saw that the three appellants alongwith a fourth accused, S (JCL) were hitting Satbir on his head with an iron rod. Appellants No.1 to 3 were wielding knives and stabbing Satbir. Accused No.4, S (JCL) who had a rod in his hand, had held his son down on the ground, while the rest of the accused were stabbing him and hitting him; that someone called the police and a PCR van arrived at the spot and removed Satbir to RML hospital. The statement of PW-2 (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded by the police at the hospital. He identified the dead body of his son vide Ex.PW2/B and received the same vide Ex.PW2/C. He specifically stated that he knew the accused persons who lived in the neighbourhood and that he had told the police about the place of the incident. He also stated that he was a witness to the recovery of the knife from the possession of the accused persons. PW-2 was extensively crossexamined on behalf of the appellants.
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 5 of 34
S (JCL) had caught hold of his legs while the appellant No.1, Himmat Singh @ Mangal had attacked him with a knife and appellant No.2, Rajesh had hit him with an iron rod. PW-3 also denied that he along with PW-2 had tried to save Satbir from the accused persons, who fled away from the spot.
Postmortem Report and FSL Report
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 6 of 34
observed seven incise wounds on the body of the deceased and proved the MLC prepared by him as Ex.PW-7/A. He stated that he had sealed three articles, a white shirt with stripes, a red T-Shirt and a black baniyan . The white shirt had blood stains and coinciding cut marks. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW-7 as to whether the cut marks on the shirt were by a single or double edged weapon, but he stated that he could not say so and nor could he comment as to whether the injuries present on the body of the deceased were possible with one kind of weapon or different kinds of weapon.
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 7 of 34
“ the injuries described in the said postmortem report could be caused by the weapon submitted ”.
Important Police Witnesses
Page 8 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
were taken into possession by PW-15, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW-15/F. The clothes of the appellant No.1, Himmat Singh were taken into possession, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW-15/G. PW-15 was extensively cross-examined by the defence counsel as to the manner in which the sequence of events had unfolded on 28.2.2002 from the early hours, i.e., from 7.30 AM onwards when he had reached the scene of crime, till the evening hours of 1.3.2002, when the appellants No.1 and 2 were arrested from Krishan Ganj Park. He deposed that he was also present with PW16 when the inquest proceedings were conducted on 01.3.2002 and they had remained at RML Hospital till the postmortem was over.
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 9 of 34
PW-16 had conducted his personal search (Ex.PW16/J). He proved the seizure memo in respect of the underwear of the deceased and the blood gauze taken into possession on 11.5.2002, vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/K). The reports submitted by the FSL, Delhi regarding the case material were proved by the IO as Ex.PW16/L, PW16/M and PW16N. PW-16 was also extensively cross-examined by the defence counsel with regard to the sequence of events that had unfolded on 28.2.2002 and 1.3.2002, on the same lines as PW-15 in an attempt to bring out the contradictions in his deposition vis-à-vis PW-15 and to assert that the said witness did not mention the presence of PW-2, father of the deceased at RML Hospital on 28.2.2002.
ARGUMENTS
(i) PW-2 (father of the deceased) was not an eye witness PW-2‟s presence at the spot is doubtful in the absence of any corroborative ocular or documentary evidence produced by the prosecutor, like the attendance register of the MCD etc.; that there is nothing to prove that he had accompanied Satbir to the hospital and in fact it was the PCR van that had taken the injured to the hospital; that if
Page 10 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
PW-2 was actually present at the spot and had accompanied his son to the hospital, his clothes should have been seized to show that they were bloodstained; that his presence has not been mentioned in the MLC report; that the rough site plan was not prepared at his pointing out; that there were material improvements in his statement, which can be seen from the fact that in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, he had stated that the appellant No.1, Himmat Singh had a knife but during his testimony, he claimed that all the three accused persons possessed knives and had stabbed his son.
(ii) The Weapon of offence- That there are contradictions in the description of the weapon of offence, the dagger inasmuch as PW-15 has described it as a double-edged weapon whereas, PW-5, the PMR doctor has opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased were caused by a single-edged weapon; that the subsequent opinion in respect of the weapon given by PW-5 includes the sketch of the weapon which states that one end is a sharp edge.
(iii) Contradictions in the testimony of PW-2, Munna Lal, PW-15, SI Rajesh and PW-16, Inspector M.L. Chander- That there are inconsistencies in the inter se statements of PW-2 and PW-15. While PW-15 has deposed that PW-2 was present at the hospital when Satbir was taken there, PW-2 stated that his statement was recorded at the Police Station at 12 noon; that the time of the arrest of the appellants No.1 and 2 is also doubtful as the arrest memos record that they were arrested on 1.3.2002, at 4.00 P.M. whereas PW-15 and PW-16 claim that at that time, they were present at the hospital where the autopsy on the
Page 11 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
body of the deceased had commenced at 3.00 P.M. and concluded at 4.00 P.M.
(iv) No public witnesses were associated for the recovery of the weapons of offence- That no public witness was joined at the time of arresting the accused and at the time of recovering the weapons of offence i.e., dagger and iron rod, except for police witnesses, making the said recoveries doubtful.
(v) PCR Form- That PW-9 was a witness only to Part-I of the PCR Form (EX.PW9/A) and having failed to summon an officer from the Communications Department of Delhi Police to prove Part-II of the said Form, the same was wrongly exhibited as Ex.PW9/B.
(vi) FIR- That there is a doubt as to the time of the registration of the FIR on 28.02.2002, recorded as 9.20 A.M., when the time of receiving the information of the crime was 7.25 A.M., more so when a copy of the FIR was delivered to the MM at 7.35 P.M.
(vii) FSL report- That the FSL report is in favour of the appellant No.1 as the serological analysis of his jeans records that human blood was detected, but there was no reaction to a particular blood group. That there is an unexplained delay of 3 months in sending the knife to the FSL for obtaining a report, which records that human blood was detected on it, but with no reaction as to the grouping of blood.
Page 12 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
not an eye witness to the crime or that his testimony was full of contradictions. Explaining the sequence of events that had occurred on the date of the incident, she asserted that it was on the disclosure statements made by the appellants No.1 and 2 that the weapons of offence were seized. Stating that as the conviction of the appellants is based upon the stellar testimony of an eye witness, PW-2, which stands duly supported by the medical evidence brought on record, the impugned judgment and order on sentence do not warrant any interference.
DISCUSSION
Page 13 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
alongwith his son, Satbir. Non-production of the attendance register of the MCD by the prosecution does not dent the testimony of the said witness. Nor does it lead to a conclusion that he was not present at the scene of the crime. The plea of the learned defence counsel that there were several shops at the scene of the crime, but no public witness had stepped forward, must be seen in the context of the timing of the incident that had taken place during the early morning, at 7.15AM. It is not expected that shops in the neighbourhood would have opened at such early hours. Even otherwise, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that mostly public witnesses are reluctant to get embroiled in such cases to avoid harassment and subsequent court appearances. Moreover, no effective cross-examination was conducted by the defence to prove that PW-2 or his son were not present at the spot. On the contrary, a simple suggestion was made to him by the defence counsel that the accused persons were not present at the scene of the crime. If the accused were raising the plea of alibi, then the same should have come out in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they ought to have proved their absence from the scene of crime. But that is not so. It is also noteworthy that though PW-3, cited by the prosecution as an eye witness to the incident, had turned hostile, no specific question was put to him by the defence with regard to the alleged absence of PW-2 at the scene of the crime.
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 14 of 34
relevant to refer to the PCR form that records in Part II that the PCR van had picked up the injured who was duly accompanied his father and had taken them to the hospital. The PCR record clearly notes the presence of PW-2 with his son while being transported to the hospital. The argument advanced by the learned defence counsel that PW-9, posted at the Police Control Room had only proved Part-I of the form as Ex.PW9/A and Part II of the Form has been wrongly exhibited as Ex.PW9/B, without it being formally proved, is meritless. There is no justification for disregarding Part-II of the PCR form that records the presence of PW-2 with the injured in the PCR van that had taken them to the hospital. PCR form is a part of the official record maintained by the Department in ordinary course of business and there is a presumption as to its correctness. There is no reason to doubt the said document particularly when it was not in the custody of the I.O., but maintained as a part of the record at the PHQ. Even the overwritings pointed out by the defence in the PCR Form, are in Part-I and not in Part-II. Further, learned APP has drawn our attention to the rukka , (Ex.PW1/A) that records the statement of PW2 to the effect that he had accompanied his injured son in the PCR van to RML Hospital where the doctor had declared him as brought dead. PW6, who was posted at the PCR van and had taken the injured to the hospital, may have missed stating so during his examination-in-chief, but in the tehrir (Ex.PW15/A), it was clearly recorded that PW-2 had accompanied the injured in the PCR van to the hospital.
Page 15 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
“20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on The Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of Madras and Anr. (AIR 1966 SC 1457) in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though-brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 16 of 34
excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the made of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons; firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court. ” (emphasis added)
Page 17 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
Page 18 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Laltu Ghose (supra) :-
“12. As regards the contention that the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well-settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an „interested‟ witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between ‘interested’ and ‘related’ witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki , (1981) 2 SCC 752; Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2012) 4 SCC 107; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy , (2013) 15 SCC 298). Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2018) 5 SCC 549, in the following terms, by referring to the three Judge bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (supra):
“14. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be “interested”...”
13. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab , 1954 SCR 145, wherein this Court observed:
Page 19 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
“26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person…”
14. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. We may refer to the observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry , (2010) 1 SCC 199:
“23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the Court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the Court while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim .” (emphasis added)
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 20 of 34
father of the deceased. He had nothing to gain by implicating the appellants. Nor has any motive, overt or covert been attributed to him for being inimically disposed towards the appellants. Even if the alleged improvements made by him in his testimony vis-à-vis his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are disregarded, it clearly emerges that the assailants had grabbed Satbir, held him down and given him multiple stab injuries with a knife, resulting in his death.
“10. There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however
Page 21 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinised and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness.
11. Observing that no infirmity is attached to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force and that conviction can be based on the testimony of police officials in Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 , it was held as under:-
“25. In our judgment, the above proposition does not lay down correct law on the point. It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of the complainant or a police official but it is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence.
26. It is not necessary to refer to various decisions on the point. We may, however, state that before more than half-a-century, in Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217 , Venkatarama Ayyar, J. stated:
Page 22 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
„40. … The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration.‟
27. In Tahir v. State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, Dr A.S. Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated:
„6. … Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case.” (emphasis added)
[Also refer: Pala Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 2679 ; Paras Ram vs. State of Haryana AIR 1993 SC 1212 ; Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930 ; Balbir Singh vs. State (1996) 11 SCC 139 ; Kalpnath Rai vs. State (Through CBI) AIR 1998 SC 201 and M. Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence AIR 2003 SC 4311 ].
Page 23 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
testimony of police witnesses and finds corroboration from other independent sources as well.
Page 24 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
rukka to him for registration of the FIR and he had remained there for one hour. Ct. Raj Kumar (PW-12) had then proceeded to the Police Station for getting the FIR registered and returned to the scene of crime and handed over the rukka and the copy of the FIR to PW-15. The above version of PW-15 regarding registration of the FIR also stands corroborated by the testimony of PW-12. In that view, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the prosecution case only because registration of the FIR was delayed by a couple of hours when the delay has been explained to our satisfaction. In our view, the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted on the ground of delay in registration of the FIR.
Page 25 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
Administration) and Ors. vs. Laxman Kumar and Ors. reported as AIR 1986 SC 250 :-
“43. ..... It is common human experience that different persons admittedly seeing an event, give varying accounts of the same. That is because the perceptiveness varies and a recount of the same incident is usually at variance to a considerable extent. Ordinarily, if several persons give the same account of an event, even with reference to minor details, the evidence is branded as parrot like and is considered to be the outcome of tutoring . Having read the evidence of these witnesses with great care, we are of the view that the same has the touch of intrinsic truth and the variations are within reasonable limits and the variations instead of providing the ground for rejection, add to the quality of being near to truth. .....” (emphasis added)
“19. We must observe that even if a witness is not reliable, he need not be false and even if the Police have trumped up one witness or two or has embroidered the story to give a credible look to their case that cannot defeat justice if there is clear and unimpeachable evidence making out the guilt of the accused. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between may be‟ and must be‟ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (emphasis added)
Page 26 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
“13. …. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. ....” (emphasis added)
To the same effect are the decisions in Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649 and Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 12 SCC 546 .
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 27 of 34
of the arrest of the accused or the time when the postmortem stood concluded on 01.03.2002, whereafter PW-15 and PW-16 had deposed that they left for the Police Station and from there, proceeded to the spot where the accused were arrested, are trivial in nature. Such variances in their testimony are not considered enough to shake their credibility. Nor are the minor contradictions/improvements in the statement of the said witnesses, as sought to be highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants, so material as to dilute the entire prosecution case. Had there been perfect consistency in their testimony, perhaps the Court would have been inclined to assume that it was a result of concerted tutoring. But that is not the case here. We are therefore of the view that the variations between the version of the PW-2 and PW-15 on one aspect and between PW-15 and PW-16 on the other aspect, are not so critical as to shake the prosecution case.
CRL.A.482/2003 Page 28 of 34
death was homicidal, caused by the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-
“EXTERNAL EXMN.
Injuries. Incised wound was present on left parietal region of scalp size was 5 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep, situated 9.5 cm above and middle to left ear margin and 9 cm lateral to mid skull line.
2 . Incise wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm present on left parietal region 8 cm medial and above left pinna.
3 . Stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm deep present on anterior axillery fold.
4 . Spindle shape stab wound 9 cm above and one right lateral margin of ilise criss on abdomen, laterally, 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.6 cm deep, one angle is acute and other is obtuse.
5 . Spindle shape wound on left side of chest at the level between 6th and 7th rib, obliqully placed, situated 5 cm below left nipple and 11 cm lateral to middle line, size was 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 10 cm deep. One angle is acute, the track was directed downwards meadally and backward.
6 . Stab wound spindle shape at left side of chest 0.5 x 0.5 x 6 cm deep, located 0.5 cm below the injury No.5. One angle was acute and other angle was obtuse, the track was directed downwards and medial.
7 . Incise wound on left side of chest 0.5 cm below injury No.5 size was 0.5 x 0.3 cms.
8 . Spindle shape stab wound on left side of chest 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm deep, 5 cm lateral to middle line. One angle was acute and other was obtuse.
9 . Stab wound on chest 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm deep located 1 cm below injury No.8.
10 . Stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm deep located 5 cm below left axila transversely placed.
11 . Stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2.5 cm deep situated below injury No.10.
12 . Stab wound on back 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm deep transversely placed located 11 cm below the angle of
Page 29 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
acapila on left side, the track was directed upwards and forwards.
13 . Stab wound 1.2 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm deep transversely placed on the back 2 cm below injury No.12. No defence wound were found on hands arms etc.
INTERNAL EXMN.
Scalp, skull and brain. Slight effusion of blood was seen in scalp. Skull valt and base were normal. Brain was paleon section.
NECK AND THYROID
Tracheas/neck structures all were intact. Chest wall showed multiple stab wound on chest involving left lung shows five no. of stab wounds corresponds with injury No.8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 with about 1.5 litre of blood in left chest cavity. Right lung was pale and intact. Heart was normal.
ABDOMEN AND PALLVIES
Stomach was empty. Liver showed puncture of right lob of liver. In abdomen cavity corresponds to injury No.4. Liver was pale and about 800 milliliter of blood was seen in abdomen cavity. Spleen and kidneys were pale. Bladder/pallvies were normal.”
Page 30 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
the delay on the part of the prosecution in taking steps to forward the knife recovered on the disclosure made by the appellant No.1 to the FSL for obtaining a report, as contended on behalf of the appellants.
Page 31 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
weapon, described as a dagger (Ex.5). Similarly, PW-5, the Doctor who had prepared the postmortem report as also given a subsequent opinion on the weapon of offence, has opined that the injuries described in the postmortem report could have been caused by the weapon examined by him. We do not find any inconsistency in the evidence relating to the weapon of offence, for coming to a different conclusion. Given the fact that PW-5 was shown the weapon in court and he clearly stated that the injuries present on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the same, we are of the opinion that not much would turn on the description of the weapon as a double-edged one by PW-15, SI Rajesh or in the FSL Report. Being an expert witness who had not only prepared the postmortem report but also given an opinion on the weapon of offence, the testimony of PW-5 would have to be given primacy over the testimony of PW-15 and the opinion given by the FSL.
CONCLUSION
Page 32 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
disabling him from saving himself and gave 13 stab injuries on the vital parts of his body, mostly in the chest region. In the absence of any evidence of a sudden quarrel, it can be safely presumed that the appellants came to the spot and participated in the joint act with prior concert and common intention. We are of the firm view that the testimony of PW-2, father of the deceased, who was an eye witness to the crime, is truthful and reliable. The said testimony read together with the clinching evidence in the shape of the post mortem report, is sufficient to inculpate the appellants.
Page 33 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
Trial court record be released forthwith alongwith a copy of the judgment.
(HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE
MARCH 11, 2019 NA/sk/ap/rkb
Page 34 of 34
CRL.A.482/2003
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the testimony of the deceased's father, the sole eye witness, could be accepted despite his relationship to the deceased and alleged improvements and contradictions.
Whether non-joining of public witnesses at the arrest of the appellants and recovery of the weapons of offence rendered the recoveries and the police testimony doubtful.
Whether the delay in registering and forwarding the FIR and the inter se contradictions in the testimonies of the eye witness and the police witnesses vitiated the prosecution case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Anr.Relied on¶21
2003(8) SCALE 474
Laltu Ghose vs. State of West BengalRelied on¶23
Crl.A.312/2010
Md. Rojali Ali & Ors. vs. The State of AssamReferred¶23
Crl.A.1839/2010
Rohtash Kumar vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶25
(2013) 14 SCC 434 · Who else cites this
Baldev Singh vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶26
(2015) 17 SCC 554 · Who else cites this
Pala Singh and Anr. vs. State of PunjabReferred¶26
AIR 1972 SC 2679 · Who else cites this
Paras Ram vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶26
AIR 1993 SC 1212 · Who else cites this
Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and Ors. vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶26
AIR 1995 SC 1930 · Who else cites this
Balbir Singh vs. StateReferred¶26
(1996) 11 SCC 139 · Who else cites this
Kalpnath Rai vs. State (Through CBI)Referred¶26
AIR 1998 SC 201 · Who else cites this
M. Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue IntelligenceReferred¶26
AIR 2003 SC 4311 · Who else cites this
Shanmugam and Ors. vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, T. NaduReferred¶28
(2013) 12 SCC 765 · Who else cites this
Kamal Kishore vs. State of DelhiReferred¶28
214 (2014) DLT 167 · Who else cites this
Jafel Biswas and Ors. vs. State of West BengalReferred¶30
2018(11) SCALE 341
State (Delhi Administration) and Ors. vs. Laxman Kumar and Ors.Referred¶32
AIR 1986 SC 250 · Who else cites this
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶33
AIR 1973 SC 2622 · Who else cites this
Balvir Singh vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶34
Crl. Appeal No.1115/2010
Appabhai and Another v. State of GujaratReferred¶34
1988 Supp SCC 241 · Who else cites this
Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P.Referred¶34
(1999) 8 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶34
(2009) 12 SCC 546 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Himmat Singh @ Mangal
Rajesh
Vinod
State (Govt of NCT)
Hima Kohli
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
