Uttam Biswas vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 86 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Decision: 11th January, 2010

+                        CRL.APPEAL NO.552/2004

       UTTAM BISWAS                     ......Appellant
           Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate

                                  Versus

       STATE                                      ......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. A perusal of the impugned judgment does not

guides us much as to what circumstances have been used by

the learned Trial Judge to convict the appellant. But, learned

counsel for the State submits that from lines scattered here

and there, it can safely be said that the incriminating

circumstances against the appellant are that the clothes of the

appellant recovered at the time of his apprehension were

stained with blood; pursuant to the disclosure statement

Ex.PW-2/H made by the appellant, a tong (chimta) Ex.P-1 and

half brick Ex.P-7 stained with blood was recovered. Further

incriminating evidence, urges learned counsel for the State, is

that the testimony of PW-3 establishes that the appellant and

the deceased were co-workers in his factory and used to sleep

in the factory itself. The deceased was brutally murdered on

the verandah of the second floor of the said factory. The

appellant was found in the factory and feigned an injury.

2. We may note at the outset that the chimta Ex.P-1

has not been linked as the weapon of offence. It has not been

shown to Dr.Chanderkant PW-6, who conducted the post-

mortem of the deceased. As regards the half-brick Ex.P-7, we

note that the same has not been sent for serological test. The

report Ex.PW-14/A of the FSL laboratory shows that various

exhibits which were seized during investigation were sent for

serological examination, but unexplainably, half-brick Ex.P-7

has not been sent for serological examination. Thus it is not

established that the brick Ex.P-7 was stained with blood.

3. With reference to the testimony of SI Yashpal Yadav

PW-2, Inspector R.S.Nehra PW-7 the investigating officer, and

Ct.Neeraj PW-12, as also the testimony of Vijay Manchanda

PW-3, the owner of the factory where the deceased Bali Ram

Tiwari was found murdered, it is apparent that the crime was

detected when Vijay Manchanda PW-3 reached the factory at

around 9:25 AM on 4.8.1999 and could not enter the factory as

there was no response from inside when he pressed the button

of the bell. He asked a person in the neighbourhood to see

from the roof of the adjoining factory as to why there was no

response. The person told him that a person was lying in a

pool of blood in his factory. When Vijay Manchanda gave said

information to the police, the three police officers afore-noted

reached the factory and upon entering the same found Bali

Ram Tiwari dead in a pool of blood on the second floor. The

dagger Ex.P-2 was lying next to the dead body. As they came

down the stairs, they found the appellant on the staircase

between the first and the second floor. The appellant was

unconscious and injured. The appellant was removed to the

hospital where he was treated by one Dr.Rakesh who prepared

the MLC Ex.PW-13/A which records that the appellant was

having tenderness on the chest valves. The appellant was

advised x-ray.

4. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted

by Dr.Chanderkant PW-6 who prepared the post-mortem

report Ex.PW-6/A noting therein the following 10 injuries:-

"1. One incised wound in the upper and middle of forehead 6 cm above from bridge of nose, size 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, margins and angle acute.

2. One punctured wound, circular in shape, inverted contused margins, on left forehead 3 cm above from left eye brow size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep.

3. One incised wound on the forehead outer aspect, left side, 3 cm above from outer aspect of left eye brow, both margins and both angles acute, size 4 cm x 2 cm x 3.2 cm underneath bone (left frontal bone fractured).

4. One incised wound on left temporal region 5 cm above from left ear, both margins clean cut, both angles acute size 2 cm x 0.8 cm x 1 cm.

5. One obliquely placed incised wound on posterior aspect of left temporal region, 3 cm away from midway injury No.4, both angles acute, both margins clean cut size 5 cm x 1 cm x fractured bone deep.

6. One incised wound outer aspect of forehead right size, 6 cm above from right eye brow both margins clean cut, both angles acute size 4 cm x 1 cm x fractured right frontal wound deep.

7. One contused lacerated star shaped wound on right temporal region 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.

8. One punctured wound on the outer aspect of right eye brow, margins contused and inverted circular in shape size 0.4 cm x 0.4 cm x bone deep underneath frontal bone (right) fractured.

9. One linear abrasion obliquely placed on the neck left side size 16 cm x 0.4 cm.

10. One transversely placed abrasion on the lower and frontal part of neck size 11 cm x 0.2 cm."

5. Dr.Chanderkant gave opinion Ex.PW-6/B when the

dagger Ex.P-2 was sent to him for opinion. As opined by him

and as deposed by him when he appeared as PW-6 injuries 1,

3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 could be produced by the dagger Ex.P-2.

6. It is interesting to note that chimta Ex.P-1 and the

half-brick Ex.P-7 were not sent to Dr.Chanderkant for opinion.

7. Suffice would it be to state that injury No.2 and 8

are punctured wounds, circular in shape having inverted

contused margins, meaning thereby, a distinct weapon of

offence other than a knife or dagger has been used to inflict

the said two injuries.

8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the

appellant stated in response to the last question that he and

the deceased were residing together. The deceased had a

quarrel with somebody on money transactions and in the

unfortunate night 3 people came. While he was coming down

they enquired about the deceased and on his reply they went

upstairs. One of them stopped him in the staircase and gave

him a beating as a result whereof he became unconscious and

fell down. That he did not know what happened to the

deceased.

9. We note that SI Yashpal Yadav PW-2 has

categorically stated that the appellant was lying unconscious

in between the first floor and the second floor on the staircase.

Even PW-3 has so stated. Inspector R.S.Nehra PW-7 has used

the expression that when he saw the appellant, he was lying

as if he was unconscious. Ct.Neeraj PW-12 has also stated

that the appellant was lying unconscious on the stairs.

10. We note that Ct.R.N.Jha PW-9, who had removed

the appellant to the hospital, stated that since the appellant

was in an unconscious condition he disclosed nothing on the

way to the hospital.

11. Since the impugned judgment does not guide us

much, we have, with the help of learned counsel for the

appellant and the State perused the testimony of the various

witnesses.

12. It is apparent from the testimony of PW-2, 3, 7, 9

and 12 that the appellant was inside the same building where

the crime took place and was himself injured. All witnesses,

save and except Inspector R.S.Nehra PW-7, categorically

stated that when they found that appellant on the staircase he

was unconscious. Inspector R.S.Nehra is the only witness who

has used the expression that the appellant was lying as if he

was unconscious. His testimony is suggestive as if the

appellant was feigning unconsciousness.

13. We note that the MLC Ex.PW-13/A of the appellant

records that when brought to the hospital the appellant was

conscious and oriented.

14. Unfortunately, the doctor i.e. Dr.Rakesh who

prepared the MLC could not be examined as he had left

employment in the hospital concerned. We note that the MLC

records tenderness in the chest of the appellant.

15. We are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled

to the benefit of doubt for the reason the post-mortem report

of the deceased conclusively establishes that two weapons of

offence were used, suggestive of the fact that the deceased

was assaulted by two or more persons. We note that the

chimta Ex.P-1 got recovered by the appellant pursuant to his

disclosure statement has not been linked as the weapon of

offence. Similarly, the half blood-stained brick Ex.P-7 has not

been linked as the weapon of offence and has not even been

sent to the serologist for any opinion. The clothes of the

appellant were found stained with blood. The serological

report does not link the same with the blood group of the

deceased. We note that as per the confessional-cum-

disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/H the appellant gave the reason

for assaulting the deceased as the deceased was his

tormentor, stating that in the past the deceased used to

sodomize him and attempted to sodomize him that night. The

appellant was re-medically examined after his disclosure

statement and the report (not exhibited but at page No.230 of

the trial court record) rules out that the appellant was ever

sodomized.

16. The statement of the appellant when examined

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is probable and acceptable for the

reason two weapons of offence have been used admittedly in

the commission of the crime suggestive of at least two persons

assaulting the deceased.

17. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and

order dated 24.5.2003 convicting the appellant of the offence

of having murdered Bali Ram Tiwari is set aside. The appellant

is acquitted of the charge framed against him.

18. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond and the

surety bonds furnished by the appellant are discharged.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

JANUARY 11, 2010 Dharmender