Veer Singh @ Veeru vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 3143 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 RESERVED ON : JULY 01, 2014
                                 DECIDED ON : JULY 17, 2014

+                          CRL.A. 702/2013

       VEER SINGH @ VEERU                                   ..... Appellant
                           Through :    Mr.Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
                           versus
       STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI                            ..... Respondent
                           Through :    Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Veer Singh @ Veeru assails the legality and correctness of a

judgment dated 03.10.2012 in Sessions Case No.13/12 arising out of FIR

No.111/11 registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri by which he was

held guilty for committing offence under Section 304 Part (1) IPC. By an

order dated 10.10.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with

fine `5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-

sheet was that on 01.11.2011 at about 06.30 p.m. at Jhuggi No.409,

Sanjay Camp, Chankaya Puri, the appellant inflicted injuries by a knife to

Deepak and caused his instant death. The incident was reported to Police

Control Room in promptitude and Daily Dairy (DD) No.17A (Ex.PW-

1/A) came into existence at 07.10 p.m. at Police Station Chankaya Puri.

The investigation was assigned to ASI Sant Ram who with Ct.Naresh

went to the spot. PCR had already taken the victim to RML hospital

where he was pronounced „brought dead‟ at 07.15 p.m. ASI Sant Ram

lodged First Information Report after recording statement of victim‟s

mother Asha Devi (Ex.PW-7/A). Statements of the witnesses conversant

with the facts were recorded during investigation. Post-mortem

examination of the body was conducted. The appellant was arrested and

pursuant to his disclosure statement, crime weapon was recovered at his

instance. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted

in the court; the appellant was duly charged under Section 302 IPC and

brought to trial. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses to bring home

the appellant‟s guilt. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his

involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication without examining

any witness in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction under Section

304 Part (1) IPC. It is pertinent to note that the State did not challenge the

appellant‟s acquittal under Section 302 IPC. Being aggrieved and

dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

3. Appellant‟s counsel urged that the trial court did not evaluate

the evidence in its true and proper perspective and based its conviction on

the sole testimony of PW-11 (Asha Devi) who resiled from her previous

statement; did not claim her presence at the spot at the time of incident

and exonerated the appellant completely. Referring to her court statement,

he contended that Asha Devi repeatedly disclosed that at the relevant time,

she had gone to the market to purchase vegetables. The prosecution was

unable to establish the appellant‟s motive to inflict fatal injuries to his son.

Asha Devi nurtured grudge against the appellant as he had joined the

company of Rekha who lived nearby. The prosecution witnesses have

given conflicting and divergent versions about the incident and their

evidence in the court is based upon rumours being spread about the actual

assailant. The recovery of the crime weapon is suspect as no blood stains

were found on it. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that PW-11

(Asha Devi) an illiterate woman was reluctant to give evidence against her

husband initially. However, in certain terms, she implicated him during

cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor and without sound

reasons, her version is not liable to be rejected.

4. Admitted position is that Asha Devi was earlier married to

one Mahender at the age of 16/17 years and two sons Amit and Deepak

were born to her. After Mahender‟s disappearance, she married Veer

Singh @ Veeeru and gave birth to Tanu and Aman out of the said

wedlock. Amit, Deepak (since dead) Tanu and Aman used to live with

PW-11 (Asha Devi) in her Jhuggi. Veer Singh @ Veeru had started living

with Rakhi in a Jhuggi at some distance.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that homicidal death of

victim Deepak is not under challenge. In the post-mortem examination

report (Ex.PW-15/A) proved by PW-15 (Dr.Rajiv Sharma), cause of death

was hemorrhagic shock as a result of stab injury to the left thigh. All the

injuries were ante-mortem in nature and fresh before death. External

injuries No.1 and 2 were individually and collectively sufficient to cause

death in ordinary course of nature. Apparently, it was a case of culpable

homicide.

5. The occurrence in which Deepak sustained fatal injuries took

place at around 06.30 p.m. on 01.11.2011. PW-12 (Hira Lal) made a call

at 100 from his mobile and the information conveyed by him was

recorded in PCR form (Ex.PW-10/A) at 19:04:33 hours. Name of the

informant i.e. Hira Lal with mobile No.9990201270 finds mention therein.

The information conveyed at the earliest to the Police Control Room was

„Ek Aadmi Ne Apne Ladke to Knife Mar Diya Hai Pl.Help" PW-10

(Ct.Baljeet Singh) recorded the information and transmitted it to the

Communication Branch immediately which led to the recording of DD

No.17A (Ex.PW-1/A) at 07.10 p.m at Police Station Chanakaya Puri by

PW-1 (HC Gauri Shankar). After the investigation was handed over to

ASI Sant Ram, he with Ct.Naresh proceeded from the police station at

around 07.15 p.m. MLC (Ex.PW-8/A) records the arrival time of the

victim at RML hospital at 07.15 p.m. Name of PCR official Ct.Satbir

finds mention therein. The Investigating officer lodged the First

Information Report after recording victim‟s mother Asha Devi‟s statement

(Ex.PW-7/A). Rukka was sent at 09.30 p.m. from the hospital without

wasting time. Asha Devi in her statement (Ex.PW-7/A) given to the

police at the first available opportunity gave vivid description of the

occurrence and disclosed as to how and under what circumstances, her

husband-Veer Singh @ Veeru arrived at the Jhuggi at around 06.30 p.m.

under the influence of liquor and demanded money from her son Deepak.

She elaborated that on refusal to pay money by Deepak, the appellant got

enraged and left the Jhuggi in anger hurling abuses. She further disclosed

that after 5-10 minutes, he again came to the Jhuggi, armed with a

vegetable knife and inflicted injuries to Deepak as a result of which he

started bleeding profusely. On her raising noise, the appellant fled the

spot. Apparently, Veer Singh @ Veeru was named in the First

Information Report with all the details. Since the FIR was lodged without

delay, there was least possibility of the complainant to fabricate a false

story in such a short interval to falsely implicate her husband and to spare

the real offender.

6. In her Court statement, she initially opted not to implicate the

appellant and denied her presence inside the Jhuggi at the time of stabbing

incident. She claimed that at around 06.30 p.m. she had gone to fetch

vegetables from the market and on return, she found Deepak smeared in

blood on the folding cot. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross-

examined her after seeking Court‟s permission as she resiled from her

previous statement (Ex.PW-7/A). In the cross-examination, she divulged

the correct version and disclosed that at around 06.30 p.m. her husband

came in the Jhuggi in drunken condition and demanded money from

Deepak for household expenses. When Deepak declined to part with the

money because of his stay with another lady and their own meager

income, the appellant became furious and went away abusing Deepak.

She admitted the suggestion that after 5/10 minutes, the appellant returned

to the Jhuggi with a knife, meant to cut vegetables and attacked Deepak

uttering "aaj tera kam tamam kar deta hoon.‟ He (the appellant) gave a

knife blow on the left thigh and Deepak started bleeding. She further

admitted that on her raising alarm, the appellant fled the spot. On

specifically asked as to why she had not given the correct version earlier,

she gave a plausible and acceptable reason that the appellant was the only

bread-earner of the family and nobody could return her son Deepak.

In the cross-examination, again, she was reluctant to depose

against the appellant and admitted the suggestion given by the defence

counsel that she did not know as to who hit her son-Deepak by a knife.

She further admitted the suggestion that she had informed the police

officials that at the time of incident she had gone to purchase vegetables

and was not present at the spot.

7. Scrutinizing the testimony of this illiterate witness, who was

in a dilemma to depose against the appellant due to her close relation,

reveals that she had witnessed the occurrence and had seen the appellant

inflicting injuries to her son-Deepak inside the Jhuggi. She had no

ulterior motive to falsely rope him in the FIR lodged soon after the

incident when she was not under anyone‟s influence. Again, in the cross-

examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she specifically

implicated the appellant and assigned a specific and definite role to him.

Being a mother, the witness was not expected to spare the killer of her

son. Obviously, the witness also intended to exonerate the appellant being

her husband as she did not want to lose him after having lost her son.

Since the complainant gave wavering statements, other evidence on record

would be looked into for corroboration.

8. PW-12 (Hira Lal) set the police machinery into motion and

PCR Form (Ex.PW-10/A) came into existence. It specifically records „Ek

Aadmi Ne Apne Ladke to Knife Mar Diya Hai". Apparently, the

perpetrator of the crime was victim‟s father and none else. It further

records that the victim‟s mother had accompanied him to RML hospital

where he was declared „brought dead‟. It goes on record that as per

victim‟s mother his father had picked up a quarrel under the influence of

liquor and had inflicted injuries by a knife. PW-12 (Hira Lal) deposing

Asha Devi‟s presence inside the Jhuggi at the relevant time recalled that

she was crying that her husband had stabbed her son and thereafter he

dialed 100 from his mobile. In the cross-examination, nothing was

suggested if Asha Devi was not present inside the Jhuggi or she had not

uttered the words that her son was stabbed by her husband. Her statement

made contemporaneously was relevant and material on account of its

spontaneity. Nothing was suggested if she had gone to the market to

purchase vegetables or at what time, she returned to the spot.

9. Another material circumstance to connect the appellant with

the crime is the recovery of crime weapon i.e. knife (Ex.P-4) pursuant to

his disclosure statement. PW-18 (Insp.Babbar Bhan), who took over the

investigation proved the recovery of knife at the appellant‟s instance from

Jhuggi No.409, Block A, Sanjay Camp, Chankaya Puri. The appellant led

the police team pursuant to his disclosure statement (Ex.PW-7/K) to

Jhuggi and recovered the knife lying under a slab built on its left side.

The knife had blood-stains and was seized vide seizure memo

(Ex.PW-7/M) after preparing its sketch (Ex.PW-7/L). Similar are the

testimonies of PW-7 (ASI Santram Bhardwaj) and PW-4 (Amit). The

crime weapon was shown to PW-15 (Dr.Rajiv Sharma), autopsy surgeon

who after examining it on 23.11.2011, was of the opinion that the injuries

and cut marks on the left sleeve on the jeans pant mentioned in the post-

mortem examination report were possible with the seized weapon. The

opinion (Ex.PW-15/B) remained unchallenged. The knife was sent to

Forensic Science Laboratory and report (Ex.P-X) shows that blood of

human origin was detected on it. Asha‟s ocular version is in consonance

with medical/scientific evidence.

10. The motive to inflict injuries has emerged in the statement of

PW-11 (Asha Devi). PW-4 (Amit) corroborated her and categorically

deposed that Veer Singh @ Veeru‟s was quarrelsome and used to

consume liquor daily. He highlighted that the appellant used to demand

money from him and Deepak for liquor and household expenses. On their

refusal to give money, he nurtured grudge against them. The version

given by the witness has remained unchallenged. Deepak‟s refusal to give

money to the appellant was the impelling factor to inflict injuries to the

victim.

11. The appellant did not give plausible explanation to the

incriminating circumstances proved against him. His presence at the spot

was asserted in categorical terms. He did not set up plea of alibi and

avoided to examine Rekha to disclose as to where else he was present at

the relevant time. Only for the first time in 313 statement, he came up

with the plea that he was totally drunk after return from duty at about

06.30 p.m. and was lying in front of a public toilet. No such suggestion

was put to the prosecution witnesses in the cross-examination. The

appellant did not examine any witness from the neighbourhood to

substantiate his defence. It is unclear as to when and at what time he

returned from his duty and consumed liquor.

Minor discrepancies, exaggerations and improvements

highlighted by the appellant‟s counsel do not affect the basic structure of

the prosecution case and are not sufficient to throw away the statements of

prosecution witnesses in their entirety. The Trial Court has already given

benefit to the appellant in not convicting him under Section 302 IPC as he

had no intention to murder Deepak. The findings of the Trial Court based

upon proper and fair appreciation of the evidence warrant no interference.

12. Alternative plea adopted by appellant‟s counsel is to modify

the sentence order and to reduce the sentence to the custody period

already undergone by him. Nominal roll dated 24.03.2014 shows that

the appellant has undergone custody for about two years, four months and

twenty three days besides remission for five months and five days. He is

not involved in any criminal activity and is not a previous convict. At the

same time, the Court is not oblivious of the fact that the victim was aged

about 16/17 years at the time of occurrence and suffered death for no fault

of his. The appellant‟s conduct was unfair when he demanded money

from the victim under the influence of liquor. The appellant had no

reason to approach Deepak for money after consuming liquor when he did

not live with them and used to squander money in consuming liquor. A

young life was lost due to injuries inflicted by a sharp weapon at the hands

of the appellant. He deserves no leniency.

13. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed

as unmerited. Trial Court record along with a copy of this order be sent

back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JULY 17, 2014 sa