Ram Nath vs State & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 3575 Del

          THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                    Judgment delivered on: 27.07.2011

+      CRL.A. No. 908/2010


RAM NATH                                                 ..... Appellant

                      versus

STATE & ORS                                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Appellant : Mr Pradeep Kumar Arya with Mr Narinder Chaudhry, Mr Rana Kunal, Mr Anuj Tomar & Mr Ashish Sharma, Advocates

For the Respondent : Mr Pawan Sharma, St. Counsel for State.

Mr R.S. Deswal, Advocate for respondent nos 2 & 3.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This is a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated

21.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini

Courts, Delhi, in sessions case No.67/2008 arising out of FIR

No.121/2008, registered at P.S. Nangloi, under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. In this case there were originally five accused, three of them

were juveniles and, therefore, they were being dealt with by the

Juvenile Justice Board. The respondent nos 2 and 3, namely, Sushil @

Anil and Sunil @ Kala have faced trial before the said court and have

been acquitted.

3. The prosecution case was based on the testimony of PW-1 and

PW-6 as they were supposed to be the witnesses who last saw the

appellant's son Ram Babu in the company of the accused at the STD

booth. The case of the prosecution was also that blood stained clothes

have been recovered at the instance of the respondent Sushil. It was

also alleged that the murder weapon (knife) was recovered at the

instance of respondent no.2 Sushil.

4. Insofar as the "last seen" evidence is concerned, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge found that PW-6 turned hostile and that

PW-1 could not be believed. According to the learned Additional

Sessions Judge there were serious contradictions and improvements in

the testimony of PW-1 with regard to his having last seen the deceased

in the company of the accused. At one instance he has stated that his

son Ram Babu was last seen in the company of the accused at the STD

booth and at another point he has stated that the accused persons had

come to his house to take Ram Babu to attend a marriage. Thus, his

testimony has been disbelieved.

5. Insofar as the recovery of "blood stained clothes" is concerned,

although there is recovery of clothes belonging to the accused Sushil,

but, since there were no blood stains on them, there was nothing to

connect these clothes with the alleged murder of the appellant's son

Ram Babu.

6. Insofar as the recovery of the knife is concerned, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the same inasmuch as there

were serious contradictions between the recovery witnesses and, what

is more material, because it was found from the malkhana record that

the knife was already in the malkhana prior to its alleged recovery at

the instance of the respondent no.2 Sushil. It is in these circumstances

that the recovery of the knife was disbelieved by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge.

7. In view of the foregoing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

found that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted the respondent nos 2 & 3.

We see no infirmity in the said conclusion arrived at by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge even on a prima facie view. Consequently,

the appeal is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J JULY 27, 2011 srb