Mohd.Farukh vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 1799 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Decision : 7th April,2010

+                      CRL.A. 271/2010

        MOHD. FARUKH                               ..... Appellant
                          Through:      Mr.Deepak Vohra with
                                        Mr.Krishan Kumar, Advocates

                     versus


        STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                    ..... Respondent
                      Through:          Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                           Yes

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated

12.10.2009, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant

for the offence of having murdered his father Ali Sher.

2. The witnesses who have deposed against the

appellant were his brothers Mohd.Iqbal PW-2 and Jakir PW-4 as

also his brother-in-law Aas Mohammad PW-5. Besides the

deposition of the said three witness, the learned trial judge has

relied upon the testimony of Ct.Ramvilas PW-9 who had

apprehended the appellant soon after the crime was

committed, having notice blood on the clothes of the appellant

as also blood stained dagger in his hand when the appellant

was fleeing from the place where the crime was committed.

Corroboration has been found to the testimony of Ct.Ramvilas

through the testimony of SI A.K.Singh PW-16, ASI Fazruddin

PW-19 and Ct.Radhey Shyam PW-3. Though not specifically

referred to by the learned trial judge, as per the report Ex.PX

of the serologist, human blood of the same group as that of

the deceased was detected on the clothes of the appellant

which were seized on the appellant being apprehended. We

note that the learned trail judge has relied upon the fact that

the clothes of the appellant which were seized by the

Investigation Office after the appellant was apprehended were

stained with blood.

3. Mohd.Iqbal PW-2, the brother of the appellant

simply deposed that on 27.10.2006 he was at his house along

with Aas Mohammad and at about 2:00 PM went upstairs to

change clothes for Namaj. When he was changing clothes he

heard noise on the ground floor and immediately came down.

He saw his father in a pool of blood inside his shop. His

brother-in-law also came there and both shifted their father to

Holy Family Hospital in a TSR where the doctor declared him

brought dead. He deposed that the appellant used to quarrel

with the family and hence his father had got him separated.

That his father had given the appellant a shop which appellant

had rented out for a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. That the

appellant used to remain mentally depressed. That the

appellant suspected that he would not be given his share in

the family property.

4. Suffice would it be to note that PW-2 does not claim

to have seen the appellant assault his father. At best, the

testimony of PW-2 brings out a motive for the crime.

5. Jakir PW-4 deposed that on 27.10.2006 he was

present in his house along with his brother-in-law Aas

Mohammad and at around 2:00 PM his father Ali Sher was

sitting inside the shop. The distance between his house and

the shop was a room. He heard a noise. He came out on

hearing the noise/cry of his father and saw the appellant with a

dagger in his hand which was smeared in blood. He saw the

appellant at a distance of about 10 feet and on seeing him the

appellant fled from the spot. He saw his father in a pool of

blood with a number of stab injuries. He called his brother and

brother-in-law and rushed his father to the hospital. Police

reached the hospital where his statement Ex.PW-4/A was

recorded.

6. Suffice would it be to note that substantially the

same facts have been disclosed by PW-4 in his statement

Ex.PW-4/A on the basis whereof the FIR was registered.

7. Aas Mohmmad PW-5, the brother-in-law of PW-2

and PW-4, whose presence at the spot has been deposed to

by the said two witnesses, deposed that he was present in the

house of his brother-in-law Jakir (PW-4) on 27.10.2006 at about

2:00 PM. He heard noise of crying and came outside. He saw

his father-in-law Ali Sher lying in a pool of blood. He saw the

accused running away from the spot having some arm. A TSR

was stopped and his father-in-law was removed to Holy Family

Hospital where he expired.

8. Since Aas Mohammad claimed to have become

unconscious and perplexed and resiled from certain

statements made by him during investigation to the

investigating officer and as recorded in his statement under

Section 161 Cr.P.C., he was cross-examined by the learned

APP and on cross-examination admitted that when he came

outside the house of his brother-in-law he saw the appellant

running from the spot having blood on his clothes and a blood

stained dagger in his house. He admitted that he chased the

appellant who was apprehended by the police at a distance of

about 15 meters from the spot where the crime was

committed.

9. The person who claimed to have apprehended the

appellant is Const.Ramvilas PW-9 who deposed that on

27.10.2006 he was on picket duty at Ceiling Club Picket from

8:00 AM to 8:00 PM and that around 2:00 PM saw a person

coming towards the picket with a blood stained dagger in his

hand. The clothes of the person was stained with blood. He

apprehended that person and brought him to the police station

and disarmed him. Two persons in a TSR were taking an

injured and told him that the appellant had stabbed his father.

He made inquiry and the appellant told his name as Farukh.

He informed the police post Jamia. SI A.K.Singh accompanied

by Const.Radhey Shyam and ASI Fazruddin came to the spot

and he handed over custody of the accused to them.

10. Suffice would it be to note that while deposing in

Court Const.Ramvilas PW-9 has confused when he stated that

he brought the accused to the police station, it appears that he

intended to say that he brought the accused to the police

picket, for the reason SI A.K.Singh, ASI Fazruddin and

Const.Radhey Shyam claimed to have taken custody of the

accused at the police picket.

11. SI A.K.Singh PW-16 deposed that on receipt of DD

No.14 from police post Jamia Nagar he along with ASI

Fazruddin and Const.Radhey Shyam went to Ceiling Club

Picket where Const.Ramvilas produced the appellant whose

clothes were stained with blood. A dagger was handed over to

him. He went to Holy Family Hospital where he met Jakir

whose statement Ex.PW-4/A was recorded by him. He made

the endorsement Ex.PW-16/A beneath the statement and

handed over the same to Const.Radhey Shyam for FIR to be

registered. He further deposed that after FIR was registered

Insp.Akhilesh Yadav PW-21 took over the investigation and

came to the spot. Even he went to the spot. At the spot

Insp.Akhilesh Yadav seized the dagger which was handed over

by Const.Ramvilas and drew up the seizure memo Ex.PW-9/D

and thereafter drew the sketch Ex.PW-9/C of the dagger and as

recorded in the memo Ex.PW-9/E seized the clothes of the

accused.

12. Insp.Akhilesh Yadav PW-21 has deposed in sync

with the testimony of SI A.K.Singh PW-16 pertaining to the

investigation conducted after the FIR was registered.

13. We have gone through the cross-examination of

aforesaid witnesses and do not find anything worthy of being

noticed which discredits the testimony of the said witnesses.

14. The only thing worthy to be noted is that as per the

police officers the dagger in question was wrapped in plain

white paper and thereafter cloth was used to create a

pullanda. It has come on record that when the dagger was

opened for the first time after it was seized and on the seal

being broken and the pullanda opened, no such paper was

found within which the dagger was wrapped.

15. The aforesaid blemish as to whether at all the

dagger was wrapped in a white sheet of paper and if at all

what happened to said white sheet, in view of the eye witness

account aforenoted, renders the said controversy fairly

inconsequential.

16. From the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 it is apparent

that when deceased Ali Sher was seen fatally stabbed, lying in

a pool of blood, the appellant was seen nearby with blood on

his clothes and a dagger in his hand. The appellant was in the

process of leaving the scene of the crime.

17. The appellant is the son of the deceased and his

conduct of not rendering any assistance to his father and

fleeing from the scene of the crime is so strong evidence that

it leaves no scope for any inference other than the inference of

guilt against the appellant. The fact that the clothes of the

appellant were stained with the blood of his father and the fact

that there was a dagger in the hand of the appellant further

nails the guilt of the appellant.

18. We would be failing if we do not note that

Dr.B.L.Chaudhary PW-12 who conducted the post-mortem on

the body of the deceased and prepared the post-mortem

report Ex.PW-12/A also gave the opinion Ex.PW-12/B that the

dagger in question could be the possible weapon of offence.

19. As per the post-mortem report Ex.PW-12/A, 13

incised wounds were inflicted on the person of the deceased.

The target was the neck. It is apparent that an attempt was

made to slit the neck of the deceased. The external jugular

vein was cut. Incised wound No.7 shows the situs of the injury

on the chest. Entering the third right rib at cost-chondral

junction the dagger pierced the right lung.

20. The sketch of the dagger Ex.PW-9/C prepared by

the investigating officer shows that the total length of the

dagger is 31 cms with blade length being 21 cms.

21. Thus, there is no scope for any argument that the

acts of the appellant do not make out a case of murder.

22. He who inflicts 13 stab wounds on the vital part of

the body of a human being using a dagger having a blade of

21 cms length would certainly be attributed with the intention

to cause the death of the victim.

23. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.

24. Since the appellant is in jail we direct that a copy of

the present decision be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail

Tihar to be made available to the appellant.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

APRIL 7, 2010 'mr/mm'