Ram Parvesh @ Kabari vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 1054 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                             Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2010


+                    CRL.A. 440/2005


       RAM PARVESH @ KABARI               ..... Appellant
                    Through:         Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate


                     Versus


       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI             ..... Respondent

                     Through:        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 the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1. With reference to the testimony of Geeta PW-1,

Ajay PW-2 (not to be mistaken with Ajay 'Deceased') and

Vishwa Nath PW-4 the learned trial Judge has returned a

finding that the ocular evidence of the said witnesses

establishes that on 14.11.2001 at around 9:15 PM the

appellant shot Ajay on the staircase of house No.5508, Gali

No.5, New Chandrawal, Delhi.

2. With reference to the report Ex.PW-26/A, proved by

Sh.K.C.Varshney PW-26 a ballistic expert, a bullet Ex.EB-1

which was recovered from the body of the deceased during

post-mortem by Dr. C.B.Dabas PW-9, being opined to be fired

from the country-made pistol recovered from the person of the

appellant when he was apprehended; the linkage being with

respect to the identity of the striation marks on the said bullet

on comparison with a test fired bullet the learned trial Judge

has found additional incriminating evidence.

3. Thus, the appellant has been convicted on the basis

of ocular evidence as also the fact that the weapon of offence

was recovered from him when he was apprehended.

4. That a bullet was recovered from the chest of the

deceased i.e. Ajay has been deposed to by Dr.C.B.Dabas PW-9,

who conducted the post-mortem on 15.11.2001 and noted

abrasions on the body of the deceased as also one fire arm

entry wound in the chest region. Skin around the entry point

of the wound was tattooed and scortched. Internal

examination revealed the bullet travelling upwards and ending

in the chest near the upper border of scapula. The bullet in

question was recovered from said place inside the chest

cavity.

5. The purity of the seizure and the seals being

intacted have been proved through the testimony of the police

constables who handled the bullet. The report Ex.PW-26/A

clearly shows that the seals remained intact till the bullet was

delivered for forensic evaluation along with the country-made

pistol recovered from the person of the appellant when he was

apprehended by Ct.Manbir Singh and Ct.Ranbir Singh and

formally arrested by SI Yashpal Singh PW-14.

6. We have gone through the testimony of PW-1, PW-2

and PW-4. None has seen the actual shooting but PW-1 and

PW-2 saw the appellant at the staircase of their house and

simultaneously saw Ajay lying on the staircase. PW-4 saw the

appellant run away. All saw the pistol (Desi Katta) in the hand

of the appellant.

7. We note that motive for the crime has not surfaced.

8. The fact that the appellant was seen at the

staircase of the house of the deceased and ran away at the

point of time when the deceased was shot, itself establishes

that the appellant was the offender. That he was seen by the

witnesses having a Desi Katta in his hand further inculpates

the appellant. There is positive proof that the said Desi Katta

was the weapon of offence for the reason when the appellant

was apprehended, he was carrying with him the Desi Katta.

The bullet recovered from the chest of the deceased has been

proved to have been fired from the Desi Katta in question.

9. We are not noting certain blemishes pointed out in

the testimony of the three witnesses of the prosecution for

the reason they are minor and are natural occurrences when

an eye-witness deposes. That PW-1 and PW-4 are related to

each other and the deceased and PW-2 is a friend of PW-4

does not mean that they are interested witnesses for the

reason it has not been brought out that the three witnesses

had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant.

10. It also assumes importance to note that the FIR has

been registered on the statement Ex.PW-4/A made by Vishwa

Nath PW-4 to the Investigating Officer who reached the

hospital soon after the incident and in the said statement

Vishwa Nath has named the appellant.

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

12. Since the appellant is in jail, a copy of this decision

be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for being

delivered to the appellant.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 23, 2010 mr