Maharajdin vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 2106 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Decision : 21st April, 2010

+                         CRL. APPEAL NO.358/2010

        MAHARAJDIN                       ..... Appellant
                Through:       Mr.Vimal Puggal, Advocate and
                               Mr.Rajesh Madan, Advocate.

                      versus

        STATE OF DELHI                        ..... Respondent
                 Through:      Mr.M.N.Dudeja, A.P.P. and
                               Ms.Richa Kapoor, A.P.P.

         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?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. At the outset it may be noted that there is

considerable confusion whether the name of the appellant is

Maharajdin or Mehrajudin. Somewhere he is referred to as

Maharajdin and somewhere as Mehrajudin. Since in the memo

of parties drawn up by the learned Trial Judge the appellant

has been referred to as Maharajdin, we shall be referring to

the appellant by said name.

2. In a well penned judgment dated 28.1.2010 the

appellant has been convicted for the offence of having

murdered Vijay Kant Shukla at about 9:15 PM at Jhuggi No.C-

43/296 Ambedkar Basti. The date being 6.4.2006. The

appellant has also been convicted for the offence of criminally

intimidating Parmatma PW-1. Vide order on sentence dated

29.1.2010, for the offence of murder the appellant has been

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. For the offence of

criminally intimidating Parmatma, sentence imposed is to

undergo imprisonment for two years.

3. In returning the verdict of guilt, the learned Trial

Judge has held that the testimony of Parmatma is creditworthy

and hence has accepted the percipient evidence brought

before the Court by Parmatma when he deposed as PW-1.

Learned Trial Judge has further relied upon the testimony of

Rafiq Ali PW-2 as per which from a bag containing clothes of

the appellant, a cover of a knife Ex.P-8 was recovered which

cover later on got linked to a knife Ex.P-7 got recovered by the

appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement, on which knife

human blood was detected. Lastly, appellant absconding has

been held as nailing the guilt of the appellant.

4. Suffice would it be to state that if Parmatma PW-1

and Rafiq Ali PW-2 stand the test of credibility, it would hardly

matter as to what is the value to be attached to the recovery

of the knife Ex.P-7 at the instance of the appellant as also the

recovery of the cover Ex.P-8 of a knife, for the reason the knife

is an ordinary knife and at best could be opined to be a

possible weapon of offence and not the only weapon of

offence. Indeed, this is the opinion of the doctor who

conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased.

Secondly, only human blood was detected on the knife and not

the blood group of the deceased. To put it pithily, the

evidentiary value of the recovery of the knife and its cover is

very weak evidence.

5. Thus, we straightway deal with the issue of the

credibility of the testimony of Parmatma and Rafiq.

6. It assumes importance to note that the crime was

reported to the police when DD No.21-A Ex.PW-19/A was

recorded by the duty officer at 9:35 PM on 6.4.2006. It stands

recorded therein that an unknown person has rung up to

inform that one Maharajdin has stabbed one Vijay Kant in

Jhuggi No.C-43/296 Ambedkar Basti belonging to Satya

Narayan. Thus, the cryptic first information reported to the

police not only names the appellant as the offender but also

discloses the name of the victim as also the place of the crime.

7. SI R.D.Yadav, SI H.N.Giri and ASI Pancham

accompanied by HC Ram Sarup left the police station taking

along with them a copy of DD No.21A and as deposed to by

the SHO of the police station Insp.Rajender Bhatia PW-21 even

he received the information of the crime and hence proceeded

to the jhuggi in question, where as deposed to by

Insp.Rajender Bhatia PW-21 and Parmatma PW-1, Parmatma

met Insp.Rajender Bhatia who recorded Parmatma's statement

Ex.PW-1/A and making an endorsement Ex.PW-21/A beneath

the statement, as deposed to by Insp.Rajender Bhatia PW-21,

the tehrir was dispatched as recorded on the tehrir at 11:55

PM for FIR to be registered. As recorded vide DD No.21A at

12:10 in the middle of the night, the next date having

technically arrived and hence being recorded as 7.4.2006, FIR

No.106/2006 was registered for the offence of murder.

8. Parmatma's statement and the tehrir span three

pages. Having received information of the crime at 9:35 PM

and leaving the police station; reaching the spot where the

crime was committed; after surveying the place and recording

Parmatma's statement and making the endorsement beneath

the same, it can hardly be argued that the dispatch of the

tehrir at 11:55 PM is belated. Thus, we see hardly any scope

for the argument that Parmatma would be a planted witness,

an argument which has been very feebly advanced before us.

9. As deposed to by Parmatma, he runs a grocery

shop in his jhuggi bearing No.C-43/295 Ambedkar Basti i.e. the

jhuggi immediately adjoining the jhuggi No.C-43/296 where

the crime was committed. As per him, on the first floor of

Jhuggi No.C-43/296, which jhuggi belongs to his brother Satya

Narayan, deceased Vijay Kant Shukla along with his brothers

Dinesh and Ramesh as also accused Maharajdin were residing

as tenants for about 3-4 years and there was some money

transaction between Vijay Kant Shukla and Maharajdin. A few

days prior to when the crime was committed there was a

dispute between Vijay Kant Shukla and Maharajdin over money

borrowed by Vijay Kant Shukla and Maharajdin started living

separately after leaving the jhuggi in question. On 6.4.2006 at

about 9:00 PM when he was in his shop he heard cries of Vijay

Kant Shukla. He saw accused Maharajdin stab Vijay Kant

Shukla with a knife. He closed the door of the jhuggi and tried

to stop Maharajdin from stabbing Vijay Kant Shukla but

Maharajdin threatened him and Parmatma that unless he

leaves he would be killed. Thus, he i.e. Parmatma stood on the

side and Maharajdin ran away. People collected. Somebody

telephoned the police. Police reached and his statement

Ex.PW-1/A was recorded. He deposed that the memos Ex.PW-

1/B to Ex.PW-1/E pertaining to various exhibits which were

stained with blood and were lifted from the spot were signed

by him as a witness and that the recoveries were in his

presence.

10. On being cross-examined Maharajdin stated that his

statement was recorded at the spot and again at the police

station and that he did not remember when his third statement

was recorded.

11. Rafiq Ali PW-2 deposed that Maharajdin had started

residing with him in his jhuggi No.43/295 and that after the

murder of Vijay Kant police came to his jhuggi and in his

presence checked the bag of Maharajdin and from beneath the

clothes in the bag recovered a cover Ex.P-8 of a knife which

was seized vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. He deposed that on the

cover the inscription 'B-I Meena Butcher Knife' as also the

name of the manufacturer 'Bharat Industries, Jilla Garden

Chowk, Kanal Road, Rajkot-360002, India' was printed.

12. Suffice would it be to note that the testimony of

Rafiq Ali, as noted above, has gone unchallenged. His cross-

examination, in its entirety is being recorded. It reads as

under:-

"I do not remember the date when the police had made the above recovery of plastic knife cover mentioned above. The police had come to the spot at about 6.45 PM. One Parmatma was present at that time when the recovery was effected. 3-4 police officials were present at the time of recovery along with public persons. I cannot tell the names of those public persons. Those persons had not put their signatures on the recovery memo.

It is wrong to suggest that no recovery was effected in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."

13. Insp.Rajender Bhatia PW-21 deposed having

recorded Parmatma's statement Ex.PW-1/A and having made

the endorsement Ex.PW-21/A and got the FIR registered. He

deposed that he effected the recoveries on the spot as entered

in the memos proved by Parmatma. He further deposed that

he summoned the crime team which could detect nothing and

that the photographer took photographs Ex.PW-6/B-1 to

Ex.PW-6/B-15 of the scene of the crime. He deposed that

during investigation Rafiq Ali met him and in the presence of

Rafiq Ali he recovered the cover Ex.P-8 of the knife on which

the inscription as deposed to by Rafiq was printed.

14. Suffice would it be to note that Insp.Rajender Bhatia

has not been put any suggestions that he recorded more than

one statement of Parmatma.

15. Insp.Anil Kumar PW-22 who was assigned further

investigation on 23.8.2006 has deposed that on secret

information being received he apprehended Maharajdin on

24.8.2006 and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-8/C

and next day at the pointing out of Maharajdin as recorded in

the pointing out memo Ex.PW-8/D he recovered the knife Ex.P-

7 as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-8/F and that he prepared

the sketch Ex.PW-8/E of the knife. It may be noted that on the

knife Ex.P-7 the same matching inscription stands embossed

as stands printed on the cover Ex.P-8.

16. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Maharajdin admitted living as a tenant along with Vijay Kant

Shukla and his brothers in jhuggi No.C-43/296. He admitted

that the deceased had borrowed some money from him but

claimed that the same was returned. He denied residing with

Rafiq or having anything to do with the knife cover Ex.P-8.

Relevant would it be to note that as per Maharajdin he had left

the jhuggi of Satya Narayan where he was residing along with

the deceased and the two brothers of the deceased about two

weeks prior to the date of the incident. He claimed that he

never absconded but went to his village on account of Holi.

17. Pertaining to the recovery of the knife at the

instance of the appellant, learned counsel urges that as per

the prosecution the appellant was apprehended near the

flatted factory complex at Jhandewalan on 24.8.2006 and the

place wherefrom the knife is recovered is hardly 500 metres

away. Counsel urges that there is no reason why recovery was

got effected on 25.8.2006.

18. Ms.Richa Kapoor, learned counsel for the State

draws our attention to the arrest memo Ex.PW-8/A of

Maharajdin which shows his arrest at 8:45 PM on 24.8.2006.

Thus, counsel urges that after Maharajdin's disclosure

statement was recorded, it became late night and hence

recovery of the knife was effected the next day. Counsel

highlights that the knife was found buried and had to be dug

out.

19. Ignoring the evidence pertaining to the knife Ex.P-7,

noting that the marking on the knife tallies with of what was

printed on the knife cover Ex.P-8, we deal with the direct

percipient evidence against the appellant spoken through the

mouth of Parmatma.

20. Having perused the cross-examination of Parmatma

we find that the only blemish worthy of being noted is

Parmatma's deposition that after his statement was recorded

at the spot further statements were recorded and these were

at the police station.

21. As noted herein above, no suggestion was given to

the investigating officer that he recorded more than one

statement of Parmatma. Under the circumstances, the

blemish of Parmatma has to be treated of a kind which does

not impinge upon the creditworthiness of the testimony of

Parmatma.

22. We have already noted hereinabove that Parmatma

met the investigating officer at the spot. We have already

noted hereinabove that the crime was reported at the police

station at 9:35 PM and the teherir was dispatched at 11:55 in

the night. We rule out Parmatma being a planted witness.

23. No doubt, Parmatma has said that he saw the

accused inflicting 10-12 stab blows on the person of the

deceased; the fact of the matter being that the deceased

received as many as 31 stab wounds, the discrepancy is

explainable for the reason the cries of the deceased attracted

Parmatma and it is obvious that many stab blows were

possibly inflicted before Parmatma reached and saw the stab

wounds being further inflicted. Besides, Parmatma was not

expected to start counting the number of blows inflicted upon

the deceased which were as many as 31.

24. The post-mortem report Ex.PW-11/A of the

deceased, proved by its author Dr.Vijay Dhankar PW-11, shows

the brutal nature of the assault. As noted above, 31 stab

wounds have been inflicted on the person of the deceased and

this rules out any scope for an argument that the offence

committed is not murder.

25. We concur with the reasoning of the learned Trial

Judge and hence dismiss the appeal.

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

this decision be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar

to be made available to the appellant.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE APRIL 21, 2010 dk