Delhi High Court
State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Parveen Kumar & Ors on 8 September, 2014
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 760/2013
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the
State with Inspector Anil
Kumar, PS Bawana.
versus
PARVEEN KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Bhupinder Methani,
Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr.Saurabh Kansal and
Md.Azhar, Advocates for
respondent No.2.
Mr.B.S.Mathur and Mr.Rajat
Mathur, Advocates for
respondent No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 08.09.2014
1. State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated November 09,
2012 whereby the respondents Praveen [email protected] Sonu, Shiv [email protected] Tony
and Kulwant Singh have been acquitted of the charge for offence punishable
under Section 302/120B IPC. Praveen Kumar has been convicted for offence
under Section 25 Arms Act challenging which he has filed a separate appeal
being Crl.Appeal No.354/2013.
2. The case of the prosecutions rests on the circumstantial evidence. An
information was received at PS Bawana regarding a dead body lying in the
fields of Village Nangal Thakran, Kanjhawala-Nangal Road, Delhi on
March 27, 2010. ASI Surender Singh and Constable Nirmal reached the
spot where a farmer Mahavir took them to the field where a dead body was
lying head downwards and blood was lying on the ground. Besides the dead
body were lying empty Royal Stag Whisky bottle and two plastic glasses.
Crime Team was summoned to take photographs and finger prints. There
was a deep wound on the back of the neck of the dead body. In the
meantime Mahavir Singh s/o Maman Singh identified the body to be of his
nephew Manish. On the basis of statement of Mahavir Singh rukka was sent
on which FIR No.74/2010 was registered under Sections 302/34 IPC.
3. Mahavir Singh stated that his other nephew Sandeep told him that the
deceased Manish had gone with accused Praveen and Shiv Kumar in their
Santro Car on March 26, 2010. The Investigating Officer recorded the
statement of Sandeep as well who stated that he along with his friend
Mahesh @ Jony had gone to Dada Dev Akhara in the village on March 26,
2010 at 7.00 PM. From there, they along with Manish went to Auchandi
Boarder for drinking. After taking drinks Manish called accused Shiv
Kumar on his phone at Auchandi border. Accused Shiv Kumar and Praveen
came there in Santro Car No.HR-29H-0777 and Manish accompanied them.
After some time when he made a call to Manish to return home, he replied
that he will come in the night. Sandeep alleged that there was a quarrel
between Praveen and Shiv Kumar with Manish a few days ago.
4. The prosecution also examined other witness Raghubir Singh who
had seen the deceased in the company of Praveen Kumar and Shiv Kumar
on March 26, 2010 at 11.30 PM near the fields of his brother Mahavir. On
the basis of these statements, Praveen Kumar and Shiv Kumar were arrested
on April 20, 2010. They pointed out the place where they had parked Santro
Car and got recovered the same. Praveen got recovered the loaded pistol
from a place near Shri Krishan Gaushala at Kanjhawala Road. Mahavir the
person who got located the dead body got his statement recorded on May 10,
2010 stating that the accused made an extra judicial confession before him.
In the meantime Kulwant Singh was arrested in the Arms Act and then in
the present case.
5. During the course of trial, though Sandeep PW-1 brother of the
deceased who had last seen Manish with Praveen Kumar and Shiv Kumar at
7.00 PM on March 26, 2010, has deposed in sync with his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, Raghubir Singh PW-8, who
had stated to have seen the deceased with Praveen and Shiv Kumar on
March 26, 2010 at 11.30 PM near the fields of his brother Mahavir, turned
hostile.
6. PW-23 Dr.V.K.Jha who conducted the post-mortem report found
lacerated penetrated wound of size 1 cm x 1 cm on left occipital region and
lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm on left frontal region, which were entry and
exist wounds of firearm. He opined the cause of death as cranio cerebral
damage consequent to ante mortem firearm injury. The post-mortem was
conducted on March 29, 2010 at 1.00 PM and he opined that the time since
death was approximately 27 hours. Thus according to the doctor the time
was roughly 10.00 AM on March 28, 2010 when the dead body was found
and the information of the dead body was also received at around 10.30 AM.
7. Sandeep had seen the deceased in the company of Praveen Kumar and
Shiv Kumar at around 7.00 PM on March 26, 2010 and thus there was lot of
time gap between the last seen and the death. The post-mortem report also
noted absence of food and alcohol in the body of the deceased thereby
indicating that sufficient time had elapsed between the deceased consuming
liquor with Sandeep PW-1 and his death.
8. Further the prosecution has also not been able to recover the weapon
of offence at the instance of the respondents as the fire arm recovered at the
instance of Praveen Kumar was sent to ballistic expert. As per the Ballistic
Division report Ex.PX-1 the individual characteristics of firing pin marks
and breech face marks present on fired cartridge case marked Ex.'EC1' and
on test fired cartridge cases marked as 'TC1' and 'TC2' were examined and
compared under the comparison microscope and were not found to be
identical. Thus the weapon of offence recovered from Shiv Kumar and
Praveen Kumar was not the one which was used for commission of offence.
9. Mere recovery of Santro car at the instance of the deceased would be
insufficient to hold that the respondents committed the criminal conspiracy
to commit the murder of Manish. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the
impugned judgment acquitting the respondents. Hence the leave to appeal
petition is dismissed.
10. TCR be tagged with Crl.Appeal No.354/2013.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014/'vn'
