State Vs Ravinder FIR No.

525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (PILOT COURT)
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI

SC No. 293/2018
FIR No. 525/2016
U/s. 302 IPC
P.S Anand Parbat

In the matter of :

State
Versus

Ravinder
S/o Chandra Shekhar Giri
R/o H. No. 2087/F-12/B,
Gali No.21, Prem Nagar,
Anand Parbat, New Delhi

Permanent Address:
Village & PS Angar Ghat,
District Samasti Pur, Bihar

Date of Institution : 15.03.2017

Date of reserving Judgment : 22.01.2014
Date of pronouncement : 05.02.2019

Appearances

For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar,

Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the accused : Mr. V.S. Aggarwal,
Advocate for accused

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 1/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

JUDGMENT

1. Accused namely Ravinder son of Chandra Shekhar Giri was

sent up for trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) upon conclusion of

investigation into First Information Report (FIR) No.525/2016

of police station (PS) Anand Parbat for offence punishable

under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

2. Prosecution Version

As per the prosecution story, on 04.12.2016 at 10.30 p.m vide

DD no. 31 A, a PCR call was received that a person was lying

unconscious at Nehru Nagar near Ramleela Ground, Anand

Parbat, Delhi. On receipt of the information, ASI Braham

Swaroop alongwith Ct. Dhirender reached the spot. At about

12.22 a.m vide DD no. 3A, a call was also received from Lady

Harding Medical College Hospital (LHMC Hospital) about

admission of one injured namely Ravinder son of Chandra

Shekhar aged 19 years R/o 2087/12A, Prem Nagar, Anand

Parbat, Delhi, which was also marked to ASI Braham

Swaroop. After reaching the place of incident, ASI Braham

Swaroop came to know that injured had been removed to

LHMC Hospital by the PCR van. They reached LHMC hospital

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 2/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

where Deepak son of Satish Chandra Sharma aged 24 years

R/o T-122, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar, Anand Parbat was

found to be admitted vide MLC No. 61058/16 in unconscious

stated with alleged history of assault, having severely

lacerated whole scalp. Injured was unfit for statement. Shri

Dinesh Sharma, elder brother of injured was present in the

hospital, who stated that he and his younger brother Deepak

had been working in Action Shoes Company, Inderlok. On

04.12.2016 at about 8.30 – 9.00 p.m, friends of his brother

Deepak, Rahul and Ravinder S/o Chander Shekhar Giri had

come, who accompanied Deepak for attending a marriage

function. After some time, one boy came to Dinesh Sharma

and informed that a quarrel had taken place between Deepak

and Ravinder and Ravinder had hit on the head of Deepak

with a brick and Deepak was lying at Nehru Park in injured

condition. Dinesh Sharma reached at the place of incident

where he found his brother Deepak having head injury. He

also saw Ravinder standing in the park, who upon seeing him

ran away. He took his brother Deepak to Lady Harding

Hospital with the help of PCR van. Dinesh Sharma stated that

Ravinder had tried to kill his brother and legal action be taken

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 3/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

against him. On the basis of above-said statement of Dinesh

Kumar, FIR u/s 307 IPC was registered. Crime team was

informed and the spot was got photographed. Exhibits were

lifted from the spot.

3. On 05.12.2016, Deepak expired during his treatment in the

LHMC hospital and FIR earlier registered under section 307

IPC was converted under section 302 IPC. The postmortem

examination of dead body was got conducted. During further

investigation, injured Ravinder was interrogated, who

confessed his guilt of committing murder of Deepak.

Accordingly, accused Ravinder was arrested in the present

case. IO collected the postmortem examination report in which

cause of death was opined to be cranio-cerebral damage

consequent upon blunt force impact over head. All injuries

were antemortem in nature. IO also sent the Exhibits to FSL.

As per the FSL report blood of the deceased was found on the

clothes of the accused seized at the hospital during his

treatment.

4. After conclusion of the investigation, the I.O came to the

conclusion that sufficient evidence were collected to establish

that accused Ravinder committed murder of Deepak

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 4/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

(deceased). Accordingly, chargesheet was filed in the court of

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who after complying with the

provisions stipulated under Section 207 Cr.P.C committed the

case to the Court of Session.

5. Charge

After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State and the learned counsel for the accused vide order

dated 27.04.2017, charge for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against

accused Ravinder to which the accused did not plead guilty

and claimed trial.

6. Prosecution Witnesses

To prove the afore-mentioned charge against the accused, the

prosecution examined 32 witnesses in all. For the sake of

convenience, a brief description of all the prosecution

witnesses as well as their testimonies and the documents

relied upon them is stated herein below, in tabular form :-

PW Name of EXIHIBIT DOCUMENTARY NATURE OF TESTIMONY

NO. PW EVIDENCE
PW-1 HC Siya PW-1/A Copy of DD entry Deposed about recording
Ram (OSR) no.31-A in DD register of DD No. 31-A on
04.12.2016 and proved
the same in the court.
PW-2 ASI Jaya PW- DD entry No. 2A dt. Deposed about recording
Chand 2/A(OSR) 05.12.16 of DD No. 2A, DD No. 3A

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 5/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

PW- DD entry no. 3 A dt. DD No. 4A and DD No. 5A

(Duty 2/B(OSR) 05.12.16 on 05.12.2016. He also
Officer) deposed about recording
PW-2/C FIR
of FIR No. 525/16 and
PW-2/D Certificate u/s 65 B proved the same.
Evidence Act
PW- Dd entry no. 4A dt.
2/E(OSR) 05.12.16
PW2/F Endorsememnt on
rukka
PW- DD entry no. 5A dt.
2/G(OSR) 05.12.16
PW-3 Harish PW-3/A Receipt of dead body Identified the dead body
Kumar of Deepak (deceased) in
PW-3/B Identification
the mortuary of Lady
statement of dead
(Cousin of Harding Medical College
body of deceased
deceased) Hospital on 05.12.2016.
PW-4 Inspector PW-4/A Crime team report Inspected the spot and
Rupesh prepared crime scene
Khatri report.

(Incharge
Mobile
Crime
Team)
PW-5 Dr. Gaurav PW-5/A The clinical notes on He being the Senior
Kumar MLC of injured Deepak Resident, ENT LHMC
Hospital examined
Deepak (deceased) on
04.12.2016 and prepared
his MLC and proved the
same in the court.
PW-6 Rahul He was cited by
prosecutiion as eye
witness of the altercation
between Devender and
accused that took place
before the actual incident
in which deceased
received fatal injuries.
However, he did not
support prosecution
story.
PW-7 Dr. Raj PW-7/A Filled death form Filled up death form and
prepared death summary
PW-7/B Death summary
of Deepak on 04.12.2016

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 6/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

and proved the same.

PW-8 Jai Singh Made 100 number call on
04.12.2016 regarding the
fact that deceased was
lying in injured condition
in the park.
PW-9 Sh. Dinesh PW-9/A Statement before Deposed about the
Sharma police incident. Also identified
(complain- the dead body of his
PW-9/B Identification
ant) brother after postmortem
statement of dead
(Brother of examination.
body of deceased
deceased)
PW-10 Dr. PW-10/A The clinical notes of Proved the clinical notes
Bimlesh Dr. Ankur on MLC of and MLC prepared by Dr.
Thakur injured Deepak Ankur.
PW-10/B Clinical report on MLC
of accused ravinder
PW-11 Deepak PW-11/A Statement u/s 161 Cr. Deposed about the
P.C altercation between
deceased and accused
before the actual
incident.
PW-12 Suraj PW-12/A Statement u/s 161 Cr. Deposed about the
P.C altercation between
deceased and accused
before the actual
incident.
PW-13 W/Ct Deposed about receiving
Rakhi call regarding a person
lying unconscious at
(CPCR Police Control Room.
Operator)
PW-14 SI Gayatri PW-14/A Delhi police control Proved the form
Daspa room form containing the PCR call
details dated 04.12.2016.
PW-14/B Certificate u/s 65 B
Indian Evidence Act
PW-15 Ct. Yogesh PW-15/A- Negatives of the Took the photographs,
Kumar 1 TO PW- photographs of the proved the same as well
15/A-11 crime spot as the negatives thereof.
(Photogra
PW-15/B- Photographs of the
pher)
1 TO PW- crime spot
15/B-11
PW-15/D- Confronted with this
1 statement under

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 7/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

Section 161 Cr. P.C.

PW-16 Dr. Nidhi PW-16/A MLC no. 61058 Proved MLCs of Deepak,
pertaining to injured Ravinder and Rahul
(Senior Deepak prepared by Dr. Prem
Resident, Kishore.
PW-16/B MLC of accused
LHMC)
Ravinder
PW-16/C MLC of Rahul
PW-17 Dr. Sachin PW-17/A Medico legal post- Performed postmortem
Mittal mortem report examination on the dead
body of the deceased,
PW-17/B Death report
(CMO RML prepared the postmortem
(COLLY)
Hospital) examination report and
PW-17/C Subsequent opinion proved the same. He also
PW-17/D Examination report of proved the subsequent
alleged weapon of opinion regarding
offence i.e. brick consistency of weapon
with injuries found on the
deceased.
PW-18 Ct. Ravi Remained present in the
Kumar motuary of LHMC
hospital to safeguard
dead body of deceased.
PW-19 ASI Sanjay PW-19/A Entry no. 3126 in Deposed about deposit of
Kumar (OSR) register no. 19 exhibits and entry in
connected with DD no. register no.19 in this
MHC(M) 31A dt. 04.12.16 regard.
PW-19/B Entry no. 3127 in
(OSR) register no. 19
connected with FIR no.
525/16 dt. 05/12/16
PW-19/C Entry no. 3128 in
(OSR) register no. 19
connected with FIR no.
525/16 dt. 05/12/16
PW-19/D Copy of RC no. 1/21/17
(OSR)
PW-19/E Copy of RC no.
(OSR) 2/21/17
PW-19/F Copy of RC no.
(OSR) 13/21/17
PW-19/G Copy of FSL
(OSR) acknoledgment on
09.01.17
PW-19/H Copy of FSL

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 8/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

(OSR) acknoledgment on
01.02.17
PW-20 SI PW-20/A Seizure memo of Accompanied IO to the
Vidyakar exhibits mortuary of LHMC on
Pathak 05.12.2016 and 07.12.2016
PW-21 Ct. Naveen Deposited the sealed
Kumar parcel with FSL Rohini on
the direction of the IO.
PW-22 HC Anand Deposited one viscera
Singh box with FSL Rohini on
the direction of the IO.
PW-23 SI Sudesh Took one sealed pullanda
kumar alongwith photocopies of
PM report and seizure
memo and request letter
of IO to Department of
Forensic Medicine, LHMC
hospital.
PW-24 HC Took request of IO to
Sailesh Department of Forensic
Medicine, LHMC hospital
brought back one sealed
pullanda and subsequent
opinion to PS Anand
Parbat.
PW-25 Inspector PW-25/A Scaled site plan Prepared scaled site plan
Manohar and proved the same.
Lal

(Draughts
man)
PW-26 Ct. PW-26/A Seizure memo of On 04.12.2016, he
Dhirender articles i.e. Nail alongwith ASI
clipping, blood sample Bhramswaroop reached
and blood stained the place of incident and
clothes of accused thereafter to LHMC
ravinder hospital. He took the
original rukka to the the
police station for
registration of FIR. In his
presence, doctor had
taken the nail cllipping,
blood sample and blood
stained clothes of
accused Ravinder.
PW-27 Ct. PW-27/A Seizure memo of blood Deposed regarding

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 9/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

Sandeep stained and mud seizure of exhibits lifted

stained stone from the spot during the
investigation.
PW-27/B Seizure memo of blood
stained half piece of
brick
PW-27/C Seizure memo of blood
in guaze
PW-27/D Seizure memo of brain
matter lying on the
ground
PW-27/E Seizure memo of earth
control from the spot
PW-28 Inspector Got conducted the
Malkiat postmortem examination
Singh of deceased on
05.12.2016. He also
seized three sealed
parcels received from the
autopsy surgeon, LHMC
mortuary stated to be
containing viscera,
clothes and blood gauze
of deceased and
deposited the same in
Malkhana.
PW-29 L. Babyto PW-29/A FSL result Prepared the biological
Devi report, DNA report and
proved the same.
FSL
(Biology)
PW-30 SI Manish PW-30/A Arrest memo of Deposed about the
Kumar accused Ravinder investigation with
regards to arrest,
PW-30/B Personal search
personal search,
memo of accused
disclosure statement and
Ravinder
pointing out of place of
PW-30/C Age memo of accused occurrence by accused
Ravinder Ravinder on 05.12.2016.
PW-30/D Discloser statement of
accused Ravinder
PW-30/E Pointing out memo by
accused Ravinder of
crime spot
PW-31 ASI PW-31/A Site plan without scale Deposed about the initial
Braham investigation conducted

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 10/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

Swaroop by him.
PW-32 Inspector PW-32/A Request letter for Deposed about the
Darshan postmortem of investigation conducted
Lal deceased by him.
PW-32/B Statement u/s 161 Cr.
(Investigat
P.C
ing
Officer) PW-32/C Certified copy of
(COLLY) ossification test report
of accused Ravinder to
ascertain his actual
age
PW-32/D Certified copy of order
dt. 20.01.2017 passed
by Sh. Deepak Dabas
Ld. ACMM
PW-32/E Appliation regarding
submission of FSL
result vide no. FSL-
2017/B-710, Bio no.
0228/17 dt. 15/05/17
PW-32/F Appliation regarding
submission of FSL
result vide no. FSL-
2017/C-0193/4400 J dt.
09.03.2017

7. Statement of Accused
After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the

accused Ravinder under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on

15.05.2018 wherein the accused denied the correctness of all

the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence

against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in

the case. Accused stated “Deepak (since deceased) used to

quarrel with many persons and there were cases against him

also. The deceased Deepak was much healthier to me and I

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 11/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

could not have quarrelled with him. I have been falsely

implicated in the present case at the instance of his brother

and other relatives”.

8. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.

9. Final Arguments

9.1. Arguments were advanced by Shri Santosh Kumar,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri

V.S Aggarwal, learned counsel for accused Ravinder.

9.2. Learned Additional PP submitted that the prosecution

has proved that it was the accused only who committed

murder of deceased Deepak as the prosecution proved that

he was present at the spot where the deceased was found

in injured condition, that he had altercation with the

deceased just before deceased was found in injured

condition at the park, that he also had injuries on his body,

that his clothes had blood stains of blood of deceased upon

them and that the deceased before his death made dying

declaration to his brother that it was accused who hit him.

9.3. Learned defence counsel on the other hand

submitted:-

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 12/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

a) That there is no eye witness of the alleged incident.

The case is based on circumstantial evidence and the

prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances that

establish the guilt of accused. Learned counsel relied

upon judgment titled Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs. State

of Assam 2017 AIAR (Crl.)754.

b) that PCR call was made that a person was lying

unconscious in the park and even as per MLC the

deceased was admitted in unconscious state, but

despite being unconscious throughout, PW-9 Dinesh

(brother of deceased), testified that the deceased told

him that the accused had hit him with a stone.

c) That in his complaint PW-9 Dinesh stated that accused

told him that he had quarrel with the accused, but in his

testimony he stated that deceased told him that accused

hit him with a stone.

d) That PW-9 Dinesh further stated that he saw the

accused at the hospital itself, but he raised no hue and

cry at that time, though police was present there and the

accused could have been easily apprehended at the

hospital itself.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 13/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

e) That PW-9 Dinesh testified that when he tried to lift the

head of deceased, his hand went inside the head of

deceased, but despite such serious injury to head,

alleged dying declaration was made by deceased, which

is just not possible. In this regard learned defence

counsel relied upon judgment titled Rajesh vs. State

(Delhi High Court) dated 19.09.2017 in Crl. L.P.

267/16.

f) That though PW-9 Dinesh claim that he had

accompanied the injured to the hospital, but his clothes

were not seized. In this regard learned defence counsel

relies upon judgment titled S. Subhulaxmi Vs.

Kumaraswamy AIR 2017 SC 2322 (Para 25).

g) That HC Mahinder of the PCR Van was not examined

though he was an important witness to prove dying

declaration and other facts.

h) That even though at the time of medical examination of

deceased at the hospital, PW-9 Dinesh was present, but

he did not disclose to examining doctor the name of

culprit as Ravinder despite the fact that Ravinder was

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 14/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

also present there and was examined by same doctor

(Dr. Prem Kishore) who examined the deceased.

i) That in the MLC of deceased Ex. PW 16/A there is

interpolation of time, both on the front and back side,

which remains unexplained.

j) That in the statement of Dinesh Ex. PW 9/A the name of

accused and witness Rahul is mentioned with parentage

and address, whereas PW-9 Dinesh admitted in his

cross examination that he never told parentage and

address of said persons to the police.

k) That the FIR after being recorded was not sent to area

Magistrate, as is required under law. Learned counsel

relied upon judgment titled Shyam Sunder Vs. State

1996 JCC 35 (DHC) (Para 19).

l) That the star witness of prosecution PW-6 Rahul turned

hostile and specifically stated that the deceased was

consuming liquor with some other boys and that he had

fight with some other boys.

m) That even PW-12 Suraj stated in his testimony

that accused and deceased went in different directions,

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 15/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

which shows that the accused had left the spot and

could not have inflicted injuries upon deceased.

n) That PW-8 Jai Singh and PW-9 Dinesh also did not

testify about the presence of each other at the spot in

their testimonies.

o) That the prosecution heavily relied upon the presence of

blood of deceased on clothes of accused, but the

clothes of accused were seized before his arrest at the

hospital without any reason for such seizure and also

without any application of the IO in this regard and

without any mention of said fact in the MLC of accused.

Neither the seizure memo bears signature of the doctor

nor the said doctor was examined to prove the seizure

of clothes. PW-31 ASI Braham Swaroop testified that

the clothes seized vide memo Ex. PW 26/A were that of

injured / deceased Deepak, whereas the seizure memo

says something else.

p) Further the seizure memo does not mention the fact that

the clothes seized were blood stained and it mentions at

the the top DD No.31-A dated 04.12.2016. PS Anand

Parvat,which shows that the seizure was made before

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 16/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

registration of FIR and also before statement of PW-9

Dinesh was recorded, because, if the clothes had been

seized after statement of PW-9 Dinesh, then the

accused would have been arrested in the hospital itself

and not subsequently on the pointing out of secret

informer as alleged.

9.4. In rebuttal learned Additional PP as regards dying

declaration relied upon judgment titled Prakash Vs. State

of MP AIR 1993 SC65. As regards that seen evidence he

relied upon judgment titled Satpal Vs. State of Haryana

dated 01.05.2018 in Cr. Appeal 1892/2017 (Apex Court).

JUDICIAL RESOLUTION

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

submissions of both the sides and have perused the record.

Law - i.e. Sections in which accused is charged

11. In the present case, accused has been charged for

commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The

said Section is reproduced as under:

[Link] for Murder- Whoever commits murder

shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and
shall also be liable to fine.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 17/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

The relevant portion of Section 300 IPC which defines 'Murder'

reads as follows:-

300. Murder- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,

culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or -
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is caused , or -
Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or
Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk
of causing death or such injury is aforesaid.
Further, the relevant portion of Section 299 IPC which defines

“Culpable homicide”, having reference in the definition of

'Murder' reads as follows:

299. Culpable homicide- Whoever causes death by doing

an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Appreciation of evidence
12. In order to connect the accused with the offence of

murder and prove the ingredients of the aforementioned

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 18/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

sections, the prosecution has relied upon and tried to prove

the following facts/circumstances in prosecution evidence:-

12.1. Fact 1: The altercation/scuffle between the

accused and the deceased prior to the incident on the
same day, during which the deceased had slapped the
accused, in order to prove motive.
12.2. Fact 2: The dying declaration made by deceased
to his brother PW-9 Dinesh Sharma.
12.3. Fact 3: The presence of accused at the spot
where deceased was found in injured condition by PW-
9 Dinesh Sharma.
12.4. Fact 4: The conduct of accused Ravinder of
running away from the spot on seeing PW-9 Dinesh
Sharma.
12.5. Fact 5: The injuries received by accused
Ravinder on the date of incident, which he failed to
explain.
12.6. Fact 6: The blood stained clothes of accused,
seized during his medical examination, which were
found to be having blood of deceased upon them.
12.7. Fact 7: The injuries caused to the deceased and
medical opinion as regards cause of death.
13. Motive (Fact 1):-

13.1. As per the story of the prosecution the accused and

the deceased had fight before the incident took place and

this fight during which the deceased slapped the accused,

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 19/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

is the reason behind the incident or the motive behind the

murder.

13.2. In order to prove the said motive, the investigating

agency cited three witnesses i.e. Rahul, Deepak s/o Phool

Singh and Suraj who have been examined as PW-6, PW-7

and PW-13 respectively.

13.3. PW-7 Rahul as per his statement under Section 161

Cr. P.C. Ex. PW 32/B is star witness of the prosecution,

who had seen the quarrel between the accused and the

deceased as well as the slapping of accused by deceased.

In his testimony before the court, he did not support the

prosecution story and stated:-

“In the evening, I alongwith the accused who is present

in the court today namely Ravider (correctly identified)
and Deepak whose cousin brother was to be married on
that day, went to Tikona park in the evening. We saw
that the deceased Deepak was consuming liquor
alongwith 3-4 other persons. A quarrel was taking place
between deceased Deepak and some boys. We ran
away from there. I do not know what happened
thereafter. I do not know anything else about this case.“
13.4. This witness was cross examined at length by the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in which he denied

the suggestions regarding involvement of the accused in

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 20/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

the offence alleged and regarding the fight between the

accused and the deceased. However, he testified

regarding his mental and physical condition on 04.12.2016

and 05.12.2016 as under:-

“Police had not recorded my statement in the present

case………...”
“……………….I know accused Ravinder as he lives in
the same street in which I live . He is unmarried. I do not
know about the family members of accused Ravinder.
There are 7-8 houses in between my house and house
of accused. I did not visit house of accused Ravinder
either prior to the incident or afterwards. It is wrong to
suggest that I know the family members of the accused
very well and due to being won over from the side of the
accused, I am stating falsely that I did not visit the
house of accused Ravinder and that I do not know
about the family members of accused.
I do not know if on 05.12.2016 police had recorded my
statement in this case. Vol. I was under the influence of
liquor. I had taken liquor on 04.12.2016 prior to the time
when I alongwith accused Ravinder had gone to Tikona
Park. I remained under the influence of liquor
throughout the day on 05.12.2016. I do not remember if
police had recorded my statement on 05.12.2016 as I
was heavily drunk. It is correct that on 04.12.2016, I
was heavily drunk. Vol. I do not remember what I saw
on 04.12.2016 evening.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 21/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

…………...I had not sustained any injury on 4.12.2016.

It is wrong to suggest that I was got medically examined
at LHMC hospital by the I.O who had sent a constable
with me to the hospital.
At this stage, the witness is shown MLC number
125497 in the name of Rahul son of Ben Bahadur, aged
24 years, Male, dated 5.12.2016 having thumb
impression at point A and B. The MLC is marked as
Mark PW-6/B. I cannot say if I had put the said thumb
impression on the MLC. Vol. I may have been taken to
the hospital by the police. It is wrong to suggest that I
am deposing falsely in this regard. It is wrong to
suggest that in my statement Mark PW-6/A I had stated
to the IO that I was called in the P.S for inquiry and was
got medically examined at LHMC Hospital vide MLC
No. 125497. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated this
fact to the police in my statement [Link]-6/A from point
F to F where the said fact is recorded but witness
denies.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in order
to save the accused from punishment being won over
by him. It is wrong to suggest that I was not under the
influence of liquor on 5.12.2016…...”
13.5. From the above reproduced testimony of PW-7

Rahul, following points can be culled out:-

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 22/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

a) PW-7 Rahul knew accused and they were going

together to attend the marriage of cousin brother of

Deepak s/o Phool Singh.

b) Accused Ravinder resides in the same street in which

this witness resides, at a distance of 7 to 8 houses.

c) PW-7 Rahul was under influence of liquor on

04.12.2016 and 05.12.2016.

d) PW-7 Rahul testified once that his statement was not

recorded by police, but thereafter stated that he did not

knew whether his statement was recorded by police or

not.

e) PW-7 after testifying about what happened on

04.12.2016 in his examination in chief stated in his

cross examination that he was heavily drunk on

04.12.2016 and did not remember what he saw on

04.12.2016.

f) PW-7 deposed that he had not sustained any injury on

04.12.2016 and was not taken to Lady Harding Hospital

by the police, but immediately thereafter when he was

shown the MLC Ex. PW 16/C dated 05.12.2016, he

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 23/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

testified that he may have been taken to the hospital by

the police.

13.6. Though this witness did not support the story of

prosecution as far as the quarrel between the deceased

and accused is concerned and as regards slapping of

accused by the deceased, but the reason for not doing so

seems to be the fact that PW-7 and accused Ravinder

were known to each other even prior to the incident and the

fact that they were going together to attend the marriage

shows that they were friends. The denial of PW-7 of having

made any statement to police and of having been medically

examined at Lady Harding Hospital at the first instance and

thereafter vaguely stating that he may have given the

statement or may have been medically examined, shows

that this witness at the first instance tried to deny whatever

was put to him by the prosecution, but, thereafter

recovered from the said denial and introduced a new fact

that he was heavily drunk on 04.12.2016 as well as on

05.12.2016 and for that reason he did not remember what

happened on those days. The statement of PW-6 can not

be relied upon as proof of the motive behind the incident,

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 24/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

because he did not testify regarding any quarrel between

the accused and the deceased, but because of the

somersautls that he made during his testimony, his

testimony can also not be relied upon as evidence of the

fact that the deceased was consuming liquor alongwith 3-4

other persons in Tikona Park and the deceased was

quarreling with some boys (other than accused).

13.7. PW-11 Deepak testified regarding the quarrel

between the accused and the deceased as under:-

“On 04.12.2016, it was marriage of son of my Bua

namely Dinesh Kumar. I have invited my friend namely
Rahul in order to attend the marriage ceremony. My
friend Raul brought with him his friend namely Deepak.
At about 7:00-08:00 pm, we were all singing and
dancing on the road when accused Ravinder also came
there near Ambedkar Park. Accused Ravinder is
present in the court today (correctly identified by the
witness). Deepak who is now deceased caught hold of
accused Ravinder and started slapping him. I
intervened and got them separated but in the meantime,
both of them started throwing stones on each other. I
left from there in order to attend the Barat which had
reached up to the Mandir by that time.”
13.8. Though the reason / cause of the fight could not

come further in his testimony, but he testified about the fact

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 25/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

that there was a quarrel in which deceased slapped the

accused .

13.9. The witness was cross examined by learned

Additional PP, with the permission of the court, in which he

reiterated that deceased had slapped the accused on some

issue, but what was the said issue could not be brought on

record even in the said cross examination.

13.10. The relevant portion of cross examination by learned

Additional PP is reproduced as under:-

“It is correct that on 06.12.2016, IO had recorded my

statement after making inquires from me. It is wrong to
suggest that on 04.12.2016, besides my friend Rahul I
had also invited deceased Deepak Sharma to attend
the marriage. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated
this fact to the IO in my statement Ex. PW 11/A.
At this stage, witness is confronted with statement Ex.
PW 11/A from point A to A where it is so recorded but
the witness denies.
It is correct that accused Ravinder had come behind
Rahul and Deepak Sharma (deceased). It is correct
that accused Ravinder Giri was wearing the factory
clothes which he used to wear at his work place and
was under influence of liquor and I had also given 1-2
peg of liquor to Rahul and Deepak to celebrate the
marriage.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 26/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

It is correct that Ravinder Giri was moving here and

there and on some issue altercation between him and
Deepak Sharma took place in which Deepak slapped
accused Ravinder.
It is correct that after that I and Rahul got Ravinder
pacified and asked accused Ravinder to leave the said
place. It is correct that in my examination in chief, I had
stated that after both of them started throwing stones on
each other I had left them. I had stated this fact
regarding the incident which had taken place at the
slope of the road whereas the second incident of
slapping had taken place about half km away from the
slope of the road. Firstly, I had left accused Ravinder
and deceased Deepak when they were throwing stones
on each other and went to the Barat procession but
when we were at the slope of the road accused
Ravinder again came there while we were dancing in
the Barat and at that time, Deepak had given a slap to
accused Ravinder.
It is correct that later on I came to know from Rahul that
a quarrel had taken place again in between deceased
Deepak and accused Ravinder near tikona park when I
and Rahul had gone to with the Barat at Harijan Basti
Sarai Rohella. I also came to know later on that in the
Ramleela Park accused Ravinder had hit half brick
piece on the head of Deepak Sharma due to which
Deepak Sharma had got injured and died during his

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 27/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

treatment in LHMC hospital (objected to on the ground

hear say evidence).”

13.11. In State v. Sonu Panjabi (2014) 146 DRJ 37 ,

honourable Delhi High Court disapproved the aforesaid

manner of recording the cross examination of a hostile

prosecution witness by the public prosecutor. The court

observed as under:-

“78. Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (EA)

states that leading questions may not be put in
examination-in-chief except with permission of the
Court. As noted above, the learned APP sought
permission of the trial Court under Section 142 of the EA
to put leading questions and permission was declined.
The learned AAP did not seek permission of the trial
Court to declare PW-27 hostile and to cross-examine
her. This was an important aspect of the matter since
the record in fact showed that the APP maintained at
this stage that “the witness has substantially deposed
the incident but she is forgetting the details”. Therefore,
from the point of view of the APP, the witness had not
turned hostile and that is why he sought to ask leading
questions under Section 142 EA.
79. Section 154 of the EA talks of permission being
granted by the court in its discretion to the party who
calls a witness, in this case the prosecution, to put
questions to such a witness ‘which might be put in
cross-examination by the adverse party’. In Sat Paul v.
Delhi Administration 1976 Cri LJ 295, the Supreme
Court observed that the words “hostile” and “adverse” in
fact restrict the discretion of the court “and that it is to be
liberally exercised whenever the court from the
witnesses’ demeanour, temper, attitude, bearing, or the
Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 28/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

tenor and tendency of his answers, or from a perusal of

his previous inconsistent statement, or otherwise, thinks
that the grant of such permission is expedient to extract
the truth and to do justice.” The Supreme Court in Sat
Paul drew a distinction between the English law and the
Indian law and observed that “faultiness of the memory
in the case of such a witness would be another object of
cross-examining and contradicting him by a party calling
the witness”. However, the Supreme Court did not
dispense with the requirement of the party having to
seek permission of the Court to put leading questions in
the cross-examination of such witness. In Sri. Rabindra
Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 233, the
Supreme Court explained in what circumstances
Section 154 EA could be invoked by the prosecution:-
“10….. Thus it is clear that before a witness can be
declared hostile and the party examining the witness
is allowed to cross-examine him, there must be some
material to show that the witness is not speaking the
truth or has exhibited an element of hostility to the
party for whom he is deposing. Merely because a
witness in an unguarded moment speaks the truth
which may not suit the prosecution or which may be
favourable to the accused, the discretion to allow the
party concerned to cross-examine its own witnesses
cannot be allowed. In other words a witness should
be regarded as adverse and liable to be cross-
examined by the party calling him only when the
Court is satisfied that the witness bears hostile
animus against the party for whom he is deposing or
that he does not appear to be willing to tell the truth.
In order to ascertain the intention of the witness or
his conduct, the judge concerned may look into the
statements made by the witness before the
Investigating Officer or the previous authorities to
find out as to whether or not there is any indication of
the witness making a statement inconsistent on a
Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 29/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

most material point with the one which he gave

before the previous authorities. The Court must,
however, distinguish between a statement made by
the witness by way of an unfriendly act and one
which lets out the truth without any hostile intention.”
(emphasis supplied)
81. The above position was reiterated in Gura Singh v.
State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205 as under:
“Section 142 requires that leading question cannot
be put to the witness in examination-in-chief or in
reexamination except with the permission of the
Court. The Court can, however, permit leading
question as to the matters which are introductory or
undisputed or which have, in its opinion, already
been sufficiently proved. Section 154 authorises the
Court in its discretion to permit the person who calls
a witness to put any question to him which might be
put in cross-examination by the adverse party. The
Courts are, therefore, under a legal obligation to
exercise the discretion vesting in them in a judicious
manner by proper application of mind and keeping in
view the attending circumstances. Permission for
cross-examination in terms of Section 154 of the
Evidence Act cannot and should not be granted at
the mere asking of the party calling the witness.”
82. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala 1993 Supp (3)
SCC 745 : AIR 1993 SC 1892, in the context of Section
142 EA the Supreme Court held that the prosecution
should not allowed to put leading questions so as to
lead the witness to say that what the prosecution
intends. The Court observed:
“The attention of the witness cannot be directed in
Chief examination to the subject of the enquiry/trial.
The Court may permit leading question to draw the
attention of the witness which cannot otherwise by
called to the matter under enquiry, trial or
investigation. The discretion of the court must only
Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 30/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

be controlled towards that end but a question which

suggest to the witness, the answer the prosecutor
expects must not be allowed unless the witness, with
the permission of the court, is declared hostile and
cross-examination is directed thereafter in that
behalf. Therefore, as soon as the witness has been
conducted to the material portion of his examination,
it is generally the duty of the prosecutor to ask the
witness to state the facts or to give his own account
of the matter making him to speak as to what he had
seen. The prosecutor will not be allowed to frame his
questions in such a manner that the witness by
answering merely “yes” or “no” will give the evidence
which the prosecutor wishes to elicit. The witness
must account for what he himself had seen. Sections
145 and 154 of the Evidence Act are intended to
provide for cases to contradict the previous
statement of the witnesses called by the prosecution.
Sections 143 and 154 provides the right to cross-
examination of the witnesses by the adverse party
even by leading questions to contradict answers
given by the witnesses or to test the veracity or to
drag the truth of the statement made by him. Therein
the adverse party is entitled to put leading questions
but Section 142 does not give such power to the
prosecutor to put leading questions on the material
part of the evidence which the witnesses intends to
speak against the accused and the prosecutor shall
not be allowed to frame questions in such a manner
which the witness by answering merely yes or no but
he shall be directed to give evidence which he
witnessed.” (emphasis supplied)
83. Before proceeding to examine the position in the
case at hand, the law explained in the above decisions
of the Supreme Court may be summarized thus:
(i) Under Section 142 EA, the permission by the Court to
a party to put leading questions to its witness has to be
Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 31/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

liberally exercised where the court thinks that the grant

of such permission is expedient to extract the truth and
to do justice.
(ii) Under Section 142 EA, the Court can permit leading
question as to the matters which are introductory or
undisputed or which have, in its opinion, already been
sufficiently proved. However, Section 142 EA does not
give power to the prosecutor to put leading questions on
the material part of the evidence. The prosecutor shall
not be allowed to frame questions in such a manner
which the witness can answer merely by stating yes or
no but he shall be directed to give evidence which he
witnessed.
(iii) Section 154 EA gives discretion to the Court to
permit the person calling a witness to put any question
to him which might be put in cross-examination by the
adverse party. However, such permission for cross-
examination cannot and should not be granted at the
mere asking of the party calling the witness.
(iv) For the purposes of Section 154 EA, a witness
should be regarded as adverse and liable to be cross-
examined by the party calling him “only when the Court
is satisfied that the witness bears hostile animus against
the party for whom he is deposing or that he does not
appear to be willing to tell the truth.”
13.12. The said judgment was relied upon in judgment titled

Umesh Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi 2017 SCC

Online Del 11490. Para 25 of the said judgment is

reproduced as under:-

“25. It may be recalled that the Addl. PP was permitted

to cross examine PW9 only because he was, in his
examination-in-chief, resiling from the statement given
by him previously to the police. The transcript of
evidence thereafter had to record the fact that a
Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 32/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

particular sentence in the previous statement

(Ex.PW9/B) was shown to the witness and asked
whether in fact he had stated so earlier. The answer to
such question in the affirmative or negative had to be
then recorded. Instead, the transcript shows that PW9
simply agreed to all the suggestions given to him by the
Addl. PP and his answers were recorded as his positive
statements rather than a response to whether he had
said so in his previous statement.”
13.13. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the positive

statements made by PW-11 Deepak in response to the

leading questions put to him by the Public Prosecutor on

material facts, cannot be heavily relied upon.

13.14. Coming to the cross examination of this witness by

learned defence counsel, in said cross examination he

testified as under:-

“My cousin brother namely Dinesh had distributed the

marriage invitation card himself. I had not given the
invitation card of marriage of Dinesh to deceased
Deepak. I had not disclosed to the police that at about
7:00-08:00 m when we all were signing and dancing on
the road accused Ravinder also came near Ambedkar
Park. I had seen Deepak in the Barat. It is wrong to
suggest that I am deposing falsely.”

13.15. Nothing material has come forth in his cross

examination to doubt his testimony.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 33/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

The testimony of this witness was put to the accused in

question No.4 of his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C.

The question and the reply is reproduced herein:-

“Q4. It is appearing in the evidence against you as

deposed by Deepak (PW-11) that he had given 1-2 peg
of liquor to Rahul and Deepak (deceased) to celebrate
the marriage and while you were moving here and
there, some altercation between you and Deepak (since
decased) took place, during which Deepak (since
deceased) slapped you. What you have to say?
Ans. Deepak (since deceased) had slapped me and
thereafter I had gone to my house.”
13.16. The accused admitted in his statement under Section

313 Cr. P.C. that Deepak had slapped him and the said fact

stands proved from the testimony of PW-11 Deepak.

13.17. Coming to the last witness of motive, PW-12 Suraj

testified about scuffle between the accused and the

deceased as under:-

“I worked at a printing press, situated at Anand Parvat.

Marriage of my cousin brother namely Dinesh Kumar
was performed on 04.12.2016. The Bharat procession
had started from the house of my Bua situated in front
of ambedkar Park. All the male members had gone in
the Barat and only ladies were left there. I was helping
the ladies to board cars for taking them to the marriage

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 34/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

venue, when I saw that the accused present in the court

today namely Ravinder and Deepak (now deceased)
were scuffling holding clothes of each other came near
the ladies. Both of them were raising fill the abuses to
each other. I objected as the ladies were there. Both of
them stopped the fight on seeing ladies and on my
intervention. Both of them went away in different
directions.”
13.18. This witness was also cross examined by learned

Additional PP, but nothing more come forth in the said

cross examination.

13.19. This witness was cross examined by learned defence

counsel, in which he reiterated that he had seen the

accused and the deceased scuffling with each other. His

cross examination is reproduced as under:-

”I had told the police that accused Ravinder and

Deepak (now deceased) were seen by me when they
came near ladies by scuffling and holding clothes of
each other and they were raising fill the abuses to each
other. I had also stated that I separated them as the
ladies were present there. The witness is confronted
the statement Ex. PW 12/A where the said facts are not
recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing
falsely.”
13.20. In his cross examination he was confronted with his

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW 12/A as

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 35/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

regards the fact that he did not mention in the said

statement that deceased and the accused were abusing

each other and that this witness separated them as ladies

were present there. However, the omission to mention the

said facts in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can not

be said to be such an omission which may fall within the

ambit of contradiction, in light of judgment titled Tahsildar

Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012. In the said

judgment Honourable Apex Court observed as under:-

“25. From the foregoing discussion the following

propositions emerge: (1) A statement in writing made by
a witness before a police officer in the course of
investigation can be used only to contradict his
statement in the witness box and for no other purpose;
(2) statements not reduced to writing by the police
officer cannot be used for contradiction; (3) though a
particular statement is not expressly recorded, a
statement that can be deemed to be part of that
expressly recorded can be used for contradiction, not
because it is an omission strictly so-called but because
it is deemed to form part of the recorded statement; (4)
such a fiction is permissible by construction only in the
following three cases: (i) when a recital is necessarily
implied from the recital or recitals found in the
statement; illustration: in the recorded statement before
the police the witness states that he saw A stabbing B at
a particular point of time, but in the witness box he says
that he saw A and C stabbing B at the same point of
time; in the statement before the police the word “only”
can be implied i.e. the witness saw A only stabbing B;

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 36/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

(ii) a negative aspect of a positive recital in a statement :

illustration in the recorded statement before the police
the witness says that a dark man stabbed B, but in the
witness box he says that a fair man stabbed B; the
earlier statement must be deemed to contain the recital
not only that the culprit was a dark complexioned man
but also that he was not of fair complexion; and (iii)
when the statement before the police and that before
the court cannot stand together: illustration: the witness
says in the recorded statement before the police that A
after stabbing B ran away by a northern lane, but in the
court he says that immediately after stabbing he ran
away towards the southern lane; as he could not have
run away immediately after the stabbing i.e. at the same
point of time, towards the northern lane as well as
towards the southern lane, if one statement is true, the
other must necessarily be false.
26. The aforesaid examples are not intended to be
exhaustive but only illustrative. The same instance may
fall under one or more heads. It is for the trial Judge to
decide in each case, after comparing the part or parts of
the statement recorded by the police with that made in
the witness box, to give a ruling, having regard to the
aforesaid principles, whether the recital intended to be
used for contradiction satisfies the requirements of law.”
13.21. From the testimonies of PW-6 Rahul, PW-11 Deepak

s/o Phool Singh and PW-12 Suraj, as well as statement

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused, it can be

concluded that the accused and the deceased were

present near the spot where the incident took place and

just before the incident there had been scuffle between the

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 37/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

accused and the deceased during which the deceased had

slapped the accused.

13.22. Thus, the motive to commit offence of murder stands

proved from the testimonies of these witnesses. However,

in order to prove whether accused Ravinder in furtherance

of the said motive committed the offence alleged or not is a

separate fact, which has been discussed separately.

14. Dying declaration, presence of accused at the spot

and subsequent conduct of accused (Fact 2, 3 & 4):-

14.1. In order to prove the dying declaration, the presence

of the accused at the spot and his conduct of running away

from the spot upon seeing the brother of deceased, the

prosecution examined brother of deceased namely Dinesh

Sharma as PW-9. The said witness, in his testimony,

testified that the deceased had left the house on

04.12.2016 alongwith accused Ravinder and his friend

Rahul for attending the marriage and at about 10 p.m on

that day, he was informed by 3-4 boys that the deceased

was lying in injured condition in the park and as soon as he

reached the park, he saw Ravinder standing near the

boundary wall of the park, who fled away from the spot

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 38/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

upon seeing the said witness. His examination-in-chief in

this regard is reproduced as under:

“On 04.12.2016, accused Ravinder, who is present

today in the court (correctly identified) and his friend
Rahul came to my house at about 5 p.m and Accused
Ravinder and Rahul asked my brother namely, Deepak
(since deceased) to come with them for attending the
marriage of one common friend, at that time my wife
and children were present. On their asking, my brother
Deepak left the house with accused Ravinder and his
friend Rahul for attending the marriage.
On the same day, after taking dinner at around 10 p.m, I
was walking outside the Nehru Nagar park. 3-4 boys
met me and told that my brother Deepak was lying in
injured condition in the park. After knowing the said fact,
I went inside the park and saw that accused Ravinder
was standing near the grill on the boundary wall of the
park. I called accused Ravinder but he fled away from
there. I also noticed that the blood stains were on the
wearing clothes of accused Ravinder. I further saw that
my brother was in the pool of blood and while I was
trying to lift his head, all the fingers of my palm entered
into his head. Simultaneously, PCR van came there and
with the help of the police officials, I shifted my brother
in PCR van. I also sat in the PCR van. I shook my
brother and asked him as to what had happened. He
told me that accused Ravinder had hit him with a stone.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 39/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

My brother was taken to Lady Harding hospital where

my brother got treatment for sometime. In the
meantime, my other relatives including my mother came
there. Police recorded my statement [Link]-9/A bearing
my signatures at point A. In the same night, my brother
expired.”
14.2. In the afore-said examination in chief, the witness

has also stated that when the injured was being shifted to

the hospital in PCR van, he also sat in the said van and he

shook his brother and asked him as to what had happened

upon which his brother / deceased informed him that

accused Ravinder had hit him with a stone.

14.3. The said witness therefore, testified as regards the

abovesaid three facts in his examination in chief and he

was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Defence counsel.

Important points which came in cross-examination of this

witness and which were highlighted by the Ld. Defence

counsel, can be summed up as under:-

a) That the deceased was healthier than accused

Ravinder.

b) That the said witness in his complaint [Link]-9/A stated

that he and his brother/deceased were working in

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 40/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

Action Shoes Company at Inderlok whereas in his

cross-examination he denied that he had stated the said

facts to the police and voluntarily testified that the

deceased was working in the same area but in some

other company situated in front of his company.

c) That this witness never mentioned the parentage and

addresses of Rahul and accused Ravinder to the police

but in his complaint [Link]-9/A, the parentage and

addresses of both Rahul and Ravinder have been

mentioned.

d) That the said witness in his complaint [Link]-9/A

mentioned that on 04.12.2016, the deceased had left

the house alongwith Rahul and Ravinder to attend a

marriage, however, in his cross-examination he

categorically denied that he had stated the said fact to

the police.

e) That this witness informed about the fact that his brother

was lying in the park in injured condition by 3-4 boys but

he failed to disclose the name and identity of any of

them and none of the said boys was examined during

prosecution evidence.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 41/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

f) In his examination in chief he stated that when he

reached the spot he found Ravinder standing near the

grill on the boundary wall of the park, however in his

statement [Link]-9/A he did not specifically mention

that Ravinder was standing near the grill on the

boundary wall of the park.

g) That this witness stated that his clothes were also

stained with the blood of his brother while he helped in

shifting him to the hospital but the said clothes were

never seized by the police.

h) That the said witness testified in his examination in chief

that when he tried to lift the head of the deceased, all

the fingers of his palm entered into his head which

means that the brain matter was out and the injuries

were so serious that the deceased could not have made

a dying declaration as stated by this witness.

i) That in his complaint [Link]-9/A, the witness mentioned

that in the PCR on the way from the spot to the hospital,

the deceased informed the witness about quarrel with

Ravinder, whereas in his testimony before the court the

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 42/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

witness stated that the deceased told him that Ravinder

had hit him with a stone.

j) That in this regard when specific question was also put

to the witness, he categorically stated that he had told

the police that his brother/deceased had told the him

that he was hit by Ravinder.

k) That this witness also failed to disclose as to who where

the PCR officials who had taken the deceased to the

hospital.

l) That witness identified the clothes of accused Ravinder

which he was wearing on the date of incident as Ex.P-

9B, but the description of the said clothes was neither

given in the complaint [Link]-9/A, nor in his

examination in chief.

m) Last but not the least, the witness stated in his

cross-examination that when he reached the hospital

alongwith his injured brother, he saw accused Ravinder

in the hospital, but at that stage, he did not raise any

alarm and did not point out to the PCR/police officials

that the assailant was very much present in the hospital

so that he could be apprehended in the hospital itself.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 43/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

14.4. In light of the aforesaid points highlighted by learned

defence counsel, this court is to decide whether this

witness is reliable and credible witness and that how much

of his testimony can be safely relied upon against the

accused.

14.5. It may be noted that as a matter of fact the statement

of this witness was recorded at about 11:30 PM on

04.12.2016 at Lady Harding Hospital, where his brother /

deceased was admitted in very serious condition, having

several deep wounds on his head, to the extent that brain

matter was coming out. In these circumstances, this

witness made statement Ex. PW 9/A and as such minor

contradictions as to the place of work of the deceased does

not affect the credibility of this witness.

14.6. Even as regards dying declaration, in his complaint

Ex. PW 9/A the witness stated that his brother (deceased)

told him about his quarrel with the accused in PCR Van,

which shows that there was no time and opportunity for this

witness to cook up a false story of dying declaration that

too in the circumstances, where his brother was on death

bed.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 44/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

14.7. As regards dying declaration in serious medical

condition, learned defence counsel relied upon judgment

titled Rajesh Vs. State dated 19.09.2017 in Crl. L.P.

267/2016. However, in the said case there were multiple

fire wounds and even otherwise the medical condition of

the victim is different in each case and in the present case.

PW-17 Dr. Sachin Mittal in his cross examination stated

that the deceased survived post incident for a period of

about two hours. During those two hours the possibility of

the deceased regaining consciousness and disclosing the

name of culprit to his brother / PW-9 Dinesh can not be

absolutely ruled out. It may be noted that in the present

case the dying declaration is mentioned in the FIR itself

which was recorded at 12:30 AM on 05.12.2016 i.e. just 2.5

hours after the first information was received in Police

Control Room. It is quite impossible that in such short

duration and during such tense moments, PW-9 Dinesh

concocted a false dying declaration so as to implicate

Ravinder with whom he had no previous enmity.

14.8. Thus, the dying declaration made by deceased to his

brother PW-9 Dinesh can be relied upon, moreso, as the

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 45/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

said dying declaration corroborates the testimony of PW-11

Deepak and PW-12 Suraj regarding quarrel between

accused and deceased and also corroborates the

testimony of PW-9 Dinesh, who saw the accused present in

the same park where deceased was lying injured.

14.9. It may be noted that it is not the story of the

prosecution or of the defence that PW-11 Deepak and PW-

12 Suraj were present in the hospital, and if they were not

in the hospital, then unless and until the deceased himself

told PW-9 Dinesh about quarrel between him and accused

and unless PW-9 Dinesh had himself seen the accused in

the park, there was no reason for him (PW-9) to name

Ravinder as assailant.

14.10. Thus, the evidence of PW-9 Dinesh, as regards

dying declaration, as regards presence of accused at the

spot and as regards the conduct of accused of running

away from the spot (instead of helping the deceased, if he

was not the assailant) is reliable piece of evidence, as

proof of the fact that it was accused Ravinder and none

else who committed the offence alleged i.e. who hit the

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 46/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

deceased with brick in his head which resulted into his

death.

14.11. The argument, that PW-9 Dinesh should have

pointed towards the accused in hospital itself, has been

dealt with in the point relating to blood spots found on

clothes of accused i.e. Fact No.6.

15. Injuries received by accused Ravinder on 04.12.2016

(Fact 5):-

15.1. The accused went for his treatment to Lady Harding

Hospital on 04.12.2016 at 11:30 PM alongwith his brother

Arvind and there he was examined by Dr Prem Kishore

vide MLC No.61059/2016 Ex. PW 16/B, and he mentioned

the particulars of injuries / symptoms as under:-

“Conscious oriented
Alcohol smell+ve
OE – Swelling and laceration over
Lt eye brow
Swelling over upper lip
Pain over Lt. Side lower chest.”
15.2. The same injuries were also reported by Dr. Ankur of

Department of Surgery overleaf the MLC as Ex. PW 10/A.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 47/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

15.3. The MLC stands proved from the testimony of PW-16

Dr. Nidhi and PW-10 Dr. Bimlesh Thakur, who identified the

writings of examining doctor. Further, when the accused

was questioned as regards his medical examination vide

MLC Ex. PW 16/B, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.

P.C., he admitted the same to be correct and clarified that

he was taken to the hospital by his brother Arvind as

deceased had given beatings to him on which he had

suffered injuries. The said question 26 and answer thereto

is reproduced as under:-

“Q.26 It is appearing in the evidence against you that on

04.12.2016 at about 11:30 p.m., you were medically
examined at Lady Harding Medical College vide your
MLC [Link]-16/B. What you have to say?
Ans. It is correct. I was taken to the hospital by my
brother Arvind as Deepak (since deceased) had given
beatings to me on which I had suffered injuries.”
15.4. Thus, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused was medically examined on 04.12.2016 at

11:30 PM vide MLC Ex. PW 16/B and that he received the

injuries mentioned in MLC (as reproduced above) during

fight / quarrel with deceased Deepak. The said medical

evidence is consistent with and corroborates the

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 48/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

testimonies of PW-11 Deepak and PW-12 Suraj, who had

also testified regarding quarrel / fight between the accused

and the deceased .

15.5. At the same time the said medical evidence also

establishes that PW-7 Rahul deposed falsely as he stated

that deceased had quarreled with other boys, when he,

accused and PW-11 Deepak saw the deceased on

04.12.2016 and that they instead of intervening in the said

quarrel, ran away from there. If PW-7 Rahul had run away

from the spot alongwith PW-11 Deepak and the accused,

then how come there was a quarrel / fight between the

deceased and accused in which accused suffered injuries

(as mentioned in Ex. PW-16/B).

15.6. The injuries received by accused, the time when he

received the said injuries and the fact that he had

consumed alcohol at that time, are consistent with the story

of prosecution and corroborate other evidence against the

accused.

16. Clothes of accused stained with blood of deceased

(Fact-6):-

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 49/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

16.1. In order to prove that the clothes that the accused

was wearing on 04.12.2016 were stained with blood of

deceased, the prosecution examined following witnesses:-

a) PW-9 Dinesh Sharma (brother of deceased).

b) PW-19 ASI Sanjay Kumar MHC (M).

c) PW-20 SI Vidyakar Pathak.

d) PW-21 Constable Naveen Kumar.

e) PW-23 SI Sudesh Kumar.

f) PW-24 HC Sailesh.

g) PW-26 Constable Dhirender.

h) PW-27 Ct. Sandeep.

i) PW-28 Inspector Malkiat Singh.

j) PW-29 L. Babyto Devi, Assistant Director (Biology),

FSL, Rohini.

k) PW-31 ASI Braham Swaroop.

16.2. Of the aforesaid 11 witnesses, the star witness of the

prosecution is PW-31 ASI Braham Swaroop and PW-26

Constable Dhirender as the clothes and the nail clippings of

the accused were seized by the said officials vide memo

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 50/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

Ex. PW 26/A at Lady Harding Hospital upon the production

of the same by Dr. Prem Kishore.

16.3. PW-31 ASI Braham Swaroop upon receiving DD

No.31A dated 04.12.2016 left the police station for the spot

alongwith PW-26 Constable Dhirender, where they met

PW-27 Constable Sandeep. However, as injured had

already been removed to hospital by PCR Van, hence, PW-

31 left PW-27 at the spot and went to lady Harding Hospital

with PW-26.

16.4. As per PW-2 ASI Jai Chand (Duty Officer), he

recorded DD No.3A dated 05.12.2016 at 12:22 AM upon

receiving information from Constable Rajesh from Lady

Harding Hospital that accused Ravinder was brought to

hospital by Arvind after getting injured in a quarrel. The

said information was conveyed by PW-2 ASI Jai Chand to

PW-31 ASI Braham Swaroop on telephone for necessary

action.

However, interestingly PW-31 ASI Braham Swaroop did not

testify in his examination in chief that he also received

information regarding DD No.3A dated 05.12.2016,

regarding admission of Ravinder in Lady Harding Hospital.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 51/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

16.5. PW-31 ASI Braham Swaroop testified as under

regarding his visit to Lady Harding Hospital on 04.12.2016:-

“………..I left him at the spot and went to LHMC

alongwith Ct. Dhirender from where I obtained MLC of
the injured. The doctor handed over three sealed
parcels containing the nails, blood sample and clothes
respectively of the injured Deepak alongwith sample
seal of CMO LHMC. I took into possession of the same
vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 26/A bearing my
signature at point B. Dinesh Sharma, brother of injured
Deepak met me at the hospital. I recorded his
statement, prepared the rukka and handed over the
same to Ct. Dhirender for registration of FIR…………...”
16.6. He stated that he seized the clothes of injured

Deepak vide memo Ex. PW 26/A, whereas as per the

contents of memo Ex. PW 26/A, the clothes were that of

accused Ravinder and not that of Deepak. No clarification

in this regard was sought by the learned Additional PP in

the testimony of this witness.

16.7. In his cross examination he stated that he received

DD No.31A at the police station, which was regarding the

fact that the deceased was lying in injured condition at

Nehru Nagar, Near Ram Leela Ground, Anand Pravat.

Even in his cross examination the said witness never

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 52/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

stated that he received DD No.3A dated 05.12.2016

regarding admission of the deceased, but without receiving

the said DD and without having recorded the statement of

complainant PW-9 Dinesh, the clothes of the accused were

seized vide memo Ex. PW 26/A in DD No.31A dated

04.12.2016 and not under DD No.3A dated 05.12.2016.

16.8. This witness failed to explain as to why the nail

clippings, blood samples and clothes of the accused were

seized under DD No.31 A dated 04.12.2016 vide memo Ex.

PW 26/A, when the said police officials at that time of

seizure of the clothes were not even aware of the

involvement of the accused in the present case. It may be

noted that in the endorsement made on the complaint Ex.

PW 9/A there is no mention that the accused was found

admitted in the hospital and that his clothes were seized in

DD No.31A dated 04.12.2016 as PW-9 had mentioned in

his complaint Ex. PW 9/A that the accused was the

assailant who had injured his brother / deceased. In the

said endorsement PW-31 mentioned that from the

allegations made in the statement by PW-9 Dinesh Sharma

offence under Section 307 IPC is made out and that FIR be

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 53/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

registered and the complaint was sent through PW-26

Constable Dhirender to the police station for registration of

FIR. If PW-26 Constable Dhirender had already left for the

registration of FIR, then there was no occasion for the

seizure of the clothes vide memo Ex. PW 26/A in DD No.

31A dated 04.12.2016 in his presence AND if the clothes

were seized before PW-26 had left the hospital with the

rukka, then the said fact should have been mentioned in

the rukka itself and then there was no occasion for the

arrest of the accused on the pointing out of any secret

informer on the next day i.e. 05.12.2016 at 8:00 AM from

near Coal Depot, Anand Parvat.

16.9. PW-26 Constable Dhirender in his testimony in chief

has categorically stated that the nail clipping, blood sample

and clothes of accused were seized before he left for the

police station with rukka. The said testimony is reproduced

as under:-

“Before going to the police station with rukka, in the

hospital accused Ravinder was also present in the

hospital and the examining doctor had taken the nail

clipping, blood sample and blood stained clothes of

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 54/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

accused Ravinder. The said articles were given by the

said doctor in sealed condition. ASI Braham Swaroop

seized the said sealed articles vide seizure memo Ex.

PW 26/A bearing my signature at point A.”

16.10. From the testimony of the said witness, it becomes

absolutely clear that the statement of complainant PW-9

Dinesh was recorded by ASI Braham Swaroop upon which

he made endorsement (rukka) and before the rukka was

sent to the police station through this witness (PW-26), the

nail clipping, blood sample and blood stained clothes of

accused Ravinder were seized vide memo Ex. PW 26/A

and the only reason as to why the said exhibits were

sealed by the examining doctor and seized by PW-31, in

the opinion of the court is the fact that at the time of said

seizure vide memo Ex. PW 26/A, PW-26 and PW-31 were

aware that the accused Ravinder was the same person

whom PW-9 Dinesh has mentioned as the assailant in his

complaint Ex. PW 9/A. If in the opinion of the said police

officials, accused Ravinder at that point of time had no

connection with DD No.31A dated 04.12.2016 (with respect

to the injuries to the deceased), then the said police

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 55/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

officials would not have seized the nail clipping, blood

sample and blood stained clothes of accused in DD No.31A

dated 04.12.2016 vide memo Ex. PW 26/A.

16.11. From the evidence of PW-26 and PW-31 it seems

that the said police officials were aware of the involvement

of accused in the offence under Section 307 IPC at the

time of seizure of the aforesaid article vide memo Ex. PW

26/A and for reasons best known to the said police officials

despite the said knowledge the accused was not arrested

in the hospital, rather he shown to have been arrested

subsequently on the pointing out of secret informer.

16.12. At this stage, the court would like to refer to question

No.27 in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. of the

accused, in which the accused has specifically stated

“……..I was apprehended by the police after my discharge

in the hospital”. In answer to question No.50, the accused

reiterated that “I was taken to the police station Anand

Parvat from the hospital by the police officials.”

16.13. From the evidence that has come on record it seems

that accused is truly stating in his statement under Section

313 Cr. P.C. that he was apprehended upon his discharge

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 56/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

from the hospital itself and that he was not arrested from

near Coal Depot, Anand Parvat, which fact is in line with

the seizure memo Ex. PW 26/A.

16.14. However, as the investigating agency has very

carelessly seized the nail clippings, blood samples and

clothes of the accused vide memo Ex. PW 26/A under DD

No. 31A dated 04.12.2016 despite being aware of the

involvement of the accused at the time of said seizure,

hence, because of the faulty investigation the seizure

memo Ex. PW 26/A, which do not bear signature of Doctor

Prem Kishore, can not be strongly relied upon.

16.15. In order to prove that the clothes which were seized

vide memo Ex. PW 26/A were the same clothes which the

accused was wearing at the time of commission of offence,

the prosecution relied upon the statement of brother of

deceased i.e. PW-9 Dinesh Sharma, who in his statement

dated 20.03.2018 identified the clothes of the accused as

Ex. P-9B. As regards the said identification, the witness

was asked in his cross-examination as to whether he had

stated the description of the clothes in his statement dated

04.12.2016 Ex. PW 9/A and he admitted that he had not

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 57/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

mentioned the description of clothes of accused or even

that of the deceased in the said statement. It may be noted

that the said identification of clothes by the brother of the

deceased is to be seen in light of another fact that the

prosecution did not show the said clothes to PW-11

Deepak and PW-12 Suraj who had also seen the accused

on the date of incident and who could have easily identified

the seized clothes to be that of Ravinder. However, it

seems that the said clothes were not shown to PW-11

Deepak and PW-12 Suraj because the prosecution

apprehended that the said witnesses may not be able to

identify the said clothes, whereas, the possibility of such

identification by the brother of deceased, being the

aggrieved party in the present matter was comparatively

high. Thus, the identification of the clothes of accused

Ravinder as Ex. P-9B in his testimony without there being

any testimony with respect to description of the said clothes

can not be relied of as proof of the fact that the said clothes

are of accused Ravinder.

16.16. Lastly coming to the opinion given by PW-29 L.

Babyto Devi, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Delhi she in

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 58/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

her report Ex. PW 29/A has categorically mentioned that in

Parcel No.3 bearing the seal of LHMC SSK HOSPITAL

CMO [Link], one jeans pant and shirt having brown

stains found which were exhibited as Ex. 3a and Ex. 3b

and from the same mixed DNA profile was generated. The

said mixed DNA profile was compared with the DNA profile

generated from the blood in gauze of deceased i.e. Exhibit

10 and the same was accounted in the mixed DNA profile

generated from the source of Exhibits 3a and 3b. Thus, as

per the said report the blood of the deceased was found on

the clothes Exhibit 3a and 3b, but there is no opinion as to

whether the said clothes Exhibits 3a and 3b were also

having the blood of the accused, as found in his nail

clipping Exhibit 1 and in the blood sample vile Exhibit 2.

It has not been mentioned in the report Ex. PW 29/A that

the DNA profile generated from source from Exhibit 3a and

3b is similar with the DNA profile generated from the source

of Exhibit 1 and 2. Therefore, from the report Ex. PW

29/A, it can not be said the clothes Exhibit 3a and 3b which

were subsequently exhibited as Ex. P9B in the testimony

of PW-9 were the clothes of the accused as they

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 59/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

had blood stains of blood of the accused on the same.

Accordingly, Fact No.6 can not be said to have proved

beyond reasonable doubt and the reason for the same is

primarily the faulty and casual investigation.

17. Injuries caused to deceased and medical opinion

(Fact-7):-

17.1. The injured was taken to Lady Harding Medical

College Hospital by PCR Van and in the MLC Ex. PW 16/A,

the examining doctor Dr. Prem Kishore, mentioned the

medical status of injured / deceased as under:-

“Unconscious
OE- Severaly lacerated whole scalp
with swelling over face and nose
with active bleeding
difficulty in breathing.”
17.2. Even in the death summary Ex. PW 7/B the injuries

as mentioned as:-

“Multiple lacerated wounds over head.”

17.3. PW-7 Dr. Raj and PW-16 Dr. Nidhi who proved the

death summary (Ex. PW 7/B) and MLC (Ex. PW 16/A) of

the deceased were not cross examined by learned defence

counsel, despite opportunity being given and the injuries as

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 60/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

mentioned in MLC therefore stands proved. The same is

further corroborated by the testimonies of PW-5 Dr. Gaurav

Kumar and PW-10 Dr. Bimlesh Thakur, who proved the

observations regarding medical conditions of the deceased

made on the back side of MLC (Ex. PW 16/A) as Ex. PW

5/A and Ex. PW 10/A respectively.

17.4. The injuries received by the deceased have been

mentioned at length in the postmortem report Ex. PW 17/A.

Total 14 injuries have been reported in the postmortem

report as under:-

“EXTERNAL INJURIES:-

Right temporal parietal and occipital area was shaved off

completely.
a) Lacerated wound of size 2.8 cm x 1.2 cm x bone deep
present over Right parietal area of scalp, 7cm lateral to
midline and 9 cm above the tragus of Right ear. On
dissection, underlying soft tissue were ecchymosed, the
margins of the wound are found irregular. On
exploration, curvilinear fracture of length 9 cm involving
right temporal and occipital bone is seen with
extravasation of blood in surrounding tissue. On
opening of the skull, extra dural haemorrhage is seen
over Right Parieto-occipito and temporal regions. The
dura mater was found lacerated below the fractured

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 61/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

bone, thick layer of sub-dural haemorrhage is found

over parietal temporal and occipital lobe of Right
cerebral hemisphere. This layer of sub-arachnoid
haemorrhage is found over both occipital lobe of
cerebral hemisphere. On removal of brain matter and
dura, the middle cranial fossa of skull shows a linear
fracture (Hinge) involving both right and left with
extravasation of blood in surrounding tissue
b) Lacerated wound of size 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep
present over right parietal area 1 cm below the centre of
1st wound as explained above on further dissection, the
underlying tissue were found ecchymosed.
c) Lacerated wound of size 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm x bone deep
present over right occipital area of scalp 1.5 cm lateral
and 0.5 cm below the centre of 1st wound as explained
above. On further dissection, the underlying tissue are
found ecchymosed.
d) Lacerated wound of size 1 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep
present over right occipital area of scalp 1.5 cm below
the 3rd wound as explained above on further dissection,
the underlying tissue are found ecchymosed.
e) Lacerated wound of size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bond deep
present over right temporal region of scalp, 5cm below
the centre of 1st wound and 2.5 cm above the right
mastoid process on further dissection, the underlying
tissue are found ecchymosed.
f) Lacerated wound of size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep
present over right occipital area of scalp, 5 cm below
Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 62/71
 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

and 2 cm medial to 1st wound and 4.5 cm above the

right mastoid process. On further dissection, the
underlying tissue are found ecchymosed.
g) Lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm x bond deep.
Vertically placed is present over occipital area of right
side of scalp, 5 cm lateral to occipital protuberance and
9 cm above the right tragus.
h) Contusion, reddish in colour of size 13 cm x 9 cm is
found over Right paveto, temporal and occipital area of
scalp. 1 cm lateral to midline and 2 cm above the
tragues of right ear.
i) Lacerated wound of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle
deep, going through and through over medial aspect of
middle part of Right pinna.
j) Abraded contusion, reddish in color of size
5.5cmx5.0cm is present over right side of face 9.5cm
lateral to midline and 5cm in front of tragues of Right
ear.
k) Lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm x skin deep
present over left side of forehead, just above the lateral
margin of left eyebrow, and 6 cm lateral to midline on
left side.
l) Linear scratch abrasion of length 6 cm x 0.3 cm size,
reddish in color, obliquely placed over lateral aspect of
left side of neith, 6 cm lateral to midline on left side and
8 cm below the left mastoid process.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 63/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

m) Scratch abrassion of size 2.1 cm x 0.4 cm

obliquely placed is seen over front of chest, 1 cm lateral
to midline on right side and 2cm below the supra-sternal
notch.”
17.5. After mentioning the injuries in detail, the cause of

death is mentioned on page 6 of the report Ex. PW 17/A as

under:-

“OPINION
Cause of death: Cranio-cerebral damage consequent
upon blunt force impact over Head, however routine
viscera has been preserved to rule out intoxicants
especially alcohol. All injuries described are ante-
mortem in origin.”

17.6. Subsequent opinion as regards the weapon of

offence (brick) and the injuries was also obtained from PW-

17, who gave the said opinion as Ex. PW 17/C and Ex. PW

17/D. PW-17 opined in Ex. PW 17/C that “ the injuries

described in postmortem report No.756/2016 dated

05.12.2016 could be produced by this or similar type of

weapons.”

17.7. PW-17 Dr. Sachin Mittal reiterated the opinion given

by him in Ex. PW 17/A and Ex. PW 17/C in his examination

in chief.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 64/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

17.8. The said witness was recalled for cross examination

on application under Section 311 Cr. P.C. moved on behalf

of accused and in his cross examination dated 10.10.2018,

he testified as under:-

“Q. I put it to you that the 14 injuries on the person of

the deceased can not be caused by a single person,
unless the victim is held by one or two more persons?
Ans. I can not answer this question specifically, as if a
person is intoxicated or has been made unconscious by
hitting on head can be overpowered by a single person.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in this
regard.
Q. Whether the injuries on the face and skull as
such, it may cause instant death?
Ans. It could be possible in case of sever damage
when a person may die instantaneously if the injury has
involved vital centers present in brain. Vol. In this case
the deceased has survived post incident for a period of
about two hours. He has been brought to emergency
department of LHMC and Smt. S.K. Hospital in gasping
stage and has been attended by the doctor present in
emergency due to which efforts were put by them to
save the life. In the absence of such medical
intervention, might be possible that the deceased could
not have survive even for two hours.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 65/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

Q. whether a person after receiving the injuries as

reported by you can go into coma?
Ans. Possibility of a person suffering sever damage to
cranio cerberal region loosing consciousness and
subsequently going into coma can not be ruled out and
in this particular case the person was brought
unconscious to the emergency department for LHMC &
Smt. S.K. Hospital.
I have seen FSL report of VISCERA of the deceased,
which is now exhibited as Ex. PW 17/X, as per which on
chemical microscopic and TLC examination, metallic
poisons, ethyl, methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide,
alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides
could not be detected in exhibits.
It is correct that there is no injury on the limbs as per my
report.”
17.9. In his cross examination there is no suggestion that

the injuries mentioned in postmortem report Ex. PW 17/A

could not be caused by the brick, with respect to which he

gave subsequent opinion Ex. PW 17/C.

17.10. It was suggested to PW-17 that the injuries

mentioned in Ex. PW 17/A could not have been caused by

a single person, unless the victim is held by one or two

more persons. However, as per PW-17 the said injuries

could have been caused by single person if the injured was

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 66/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

intoxicated or had lost consciousness upon being hit on the

head.

17.11. Therefore, from the testimonies of PW-5, PW-7, PW-

10, PW-16 and PW-17, the court can conclude without

doubt that the deceased expired on 05.12.2016 at 12:15

AM because of the cranio cerebral damage consequent

upon blunt force impact over head as a result of the injuries

mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. PW 17/A and that

the said injuries are consistent with the weapon of offence

i.e. the brick Ex. P-27 B.

18. Conclusion

18.1. Before concluding, the court would like to deal with

the arguments of learned defence counsel that the FIR of

the present case was not sent to the learned Area MM,

which is a serious lapse on the part of the investigating

agency.

In this regard, the court relies upon Punjab Police Rules

and the relevant rule is reproduced as under:

24.5 First Information Report Register.

(1) * * *

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 67/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

The original copy shall be a permanent record in the

police station. The other three copies shall be submitted
as follows:
(a) One to the Superintendent of Police or other
gazetted officer nominated by him.
(b) One to the Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance of the offence as is required by Section 157,
Criminal Procedure Code. In murder cases, the
following procedure shall be followed: -
(i) The F.I.R. shall be sent to the Magistrate concerned
immediately in his Court during Court hours and at his
residence thereafter.
(ii) In case the Magistrate concerned is out of station,
the F.I.R. shall be submitted to the Duty Magistrate.
(iii) If the Magistrate is not available after Court hours,
the copy of the F.I.R. shall be left at his house by the
messenger noting the date and hour of delivery on the
cover with the contents.
(iv) If on account of difficulties of communication or other
causes the delivery is delayed, the reasons and delay
shall be noted on the cover.
(v) As soon as F.I.R. is received by a Magistrate he shall
affix his initials therefore and note thereon the date and
hour at which the report has been received by him. In
the case of a delayed F.I.R. if he disagrees with the
reasons given by the Police Officer for such delay, he
shall also give his own reason for the same, if any.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 68/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

18.2. As per the aforesaid rule the FIR is to be sent to

learned Area MM only in murder cases and as the present

case was registered under Section 307 IPC, hence, the fact

that the same was not sent to the learned Area MM can not

be said to be violation of the aforesaid rule.

18.3. From the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of the

court the prosecution has successfully proved the following

circumstantial facts:-

a) The fact that altercation/scuffle took place between the

accused and the deceased prior to the incident on the

same day, during which the deceased had slapped the

accused, which is the motive behind the offence.

b) The fact that dying declaration made by deceased to his

brother PW-9 Dinesh Sharma while he was being

shifted in PCR to Lady Harding Hospital.

c) The fact that accused was present at the spot where

deceased was found in injured condition by PW-9

Dinesh Sharma.

d) The fact that accused Ravinder ran away from the spot

on seeing PW-9 Dinesh Sharma.

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 69/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

e) The fact that injuries were received by accused

Ravinder on the date of incident, which he failed to

explain.

f) The fact that the injuries were caused to the deceased,

on his head by blunt object that is the brick because of

which he expired.

18.4. From the aforesaid proved facts, it can be inferred

without doubt that it was the accused and none else who in

view of the altercation / quarrel with the deceased and

offended by the slap given by the deceased, had murdered

the deceased by hitting his head with bricks with the

intention of causing sever head injuries which he knew to

be likely to cause death and which otherwise is sufficient in

the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

18.5. Thus, the prosecution has proved that it was the

accused, who committed murder of the deceased and as

such all the ingredients to make out offence under Section

302 IPC stand proved and the accused is liable to be

convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC.

19. Conviction Order

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 70/71

 State Vs Ravinder FIR No.525/2016 PS Anand Parbat U/s 302 IPC

19.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, accused

Ravinder son of Sh. Chandra Shekhar Giri is held guilty for

commission of offence of murder of deceased Deepak son

of Sh. Satish Chand, punishable under section 302 IPC

and the accused is convicted under Section 302 IPC

19.2. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence.

SAURABH PARTAP Digitally signed by
(Pronounced in the open SINGH LALER
SAURABH PARTAP
SINGH LALER

Court on 05.02.2019) (S.P.S Laler)

Additional Sessions Judge (Pilot Court)
West:Court No. 33: Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi

Sessions Case No.293/2018 Page 71/71