Delhi High Court
Salauddin @ Nuroo vs State on 27 July, 2018
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 558/2018 & CRL. MB 784/2018
SALAUDDIN @ NUROO ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for
State with SI Jasmer Singh, PS
Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
JUDGMENT
% 27.07.2018
Dr.S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. This is an appeal by Salauddin, (Accused No.2: A-2 in the original
proceedings) against the judgment dated 8th March, 2018 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge/Pilot Court, North District, Rohini
Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.59429/2016 arising out of FIR
No.407/2016 registered at Police Station (PS) Jahangirpuri, Delhi
convicting him for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC for
committing the murder of Ashok on 21st July, 2016 at around 10:45
am near Kushal Cinema, G-H Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
2. The appeal is also against the order on sentence dated 12 th March,
2018 whereby the Appellant herein was sentenced to imprisonment for
life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to
undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year.
3. At the outset it requires to be noticed that the Appellant was sent up
for trial along with his nephew Sartaj (A-1) for the above offence and
by the same impugned judgment, A-1 was convicted and sentenced in
a like manner. Yesterday, this Court dismissed the appeal of Sartaj (A-
1) by a detailed judgment in Criminal Appeal No.570 of 2018.
4. As far as the present Appellant is concerned, the relevant evidence
with regard to him is the same as the evidence as regards A-1. There
were several eye witnesses to the incident, including Chanchal Devi
(PW-4), Sajan (PW-5) and Manoj (PW-11), all of whom turned
hostile. However, two eye witnesses to the incident who were not
declared hostile and were relied upon by the prosecution to establish
the guilt of A-1 are Harbhajan Singh (PW-12) and his son, Manjit
(PW-13). In the judgment passed yesterday, the Court has discussed
their evidence as under:
"6. PW-12 stated that on 21st July, 2016, a quarrel over the same
issue took place between the deceased and A-1. He mentioned
that A-1 had also worked in his dhaba earlier. That day, A-1
picked up a sua (ice breaker) in order to stab the deceased.
However, PW-12 intervened and separated them both. No
injury was caused to the deceased by A-1 in that incident with
the sua. However, A-1 left the place whilst uttering threats to
the deceased. Within 5/10 minutes, A-1 returned with his
maternal uncle (A-2) at the same road on the divider on which
the deceased was sitting. This time, both A-1 and A-2 were
carrying knives. A-1 gave a knife blow on the right side of the
chest of the deceased while A-2 gave a knife blow on his back.
A-1 again gave another knife blow on the right side of the chest
of the deceased while A-2 gave another knife blow on the back.
The deceased then fell down on the ground and was bleeding.
7. Seeing both A-1 and A-2 carrying knives, PW-12 and other
public persons had retreated some steps from the place that they
were standing. PW-12 along with his son, with the help of other
public persons, took the deceased in a battery rickshaw to the
BJRM Hospital.
8. According to PW-12, the stabbing of the deceased took place
at around 10.45 am. When the deceased was brought to the
BJRM Hospital, he was declared „brought dead‟. The police
officials who reached there recorded the statement of PW-12.
9. There are two things that emerged in the cross-examination
of PW-12. One is that there was a CCTV camera installed in his
dhaba, but there was no CCTV footage of the incident since it
was not covering the spot where the stabbing actually took
place. The second aspect that emerged was that the clothes of
PW-12 were smeared with blood while he transported the
deceased to the BJRM Hospital in an e-rickshaw. However, his
bloodstained clothes were not seized by the police. According
to PW-12, although he informed the police of the same and
offered the officials his bloodstained clothes, they did not
collect them and told PW-12 that they were not required.
10. As regards the latter aspect, nothing much turns on it which
could help the accused, since the MLC of the deceased (Ex.PW-
2/A) clearly shows that it was PW-12 who brought him to the
BJRM Hospital at around 11.23 am. As regards the CCTV
footage, if indeed the said CCTV camera in the dhaba of PW-
12 did not cover the area where the stabbing took place, it could
not be said that any evidence that was relevant for establishing
the guilt of the accused was withheld.
11. On all material particulars, PW-12 has been fully
corroborated by PW-13, his son. He too stated that at around
10.45 am when the deceased demanded the return of his water
motor, a quarrel ensued between A-1 and the deceased but PWs
12 and 13 and some public persons intervened and separated
them. A-1 picked up a sua in order to cause injury to Ashok but
he was prevented from doing so. A-1 left the place murmuring
some words. After about 10/15 minutes, A-1 came back with
his maternal uncle, A-2. The deceased was sitting on the divider
of the road. Both A-1 and A-2 were carrying knives. While the
deceased tried to run away, A-1 and A-2 gave knife blows on
the chest and back of the deceased and then ran away. He has
also spoken about the deceased being carried to BJRM Hospital
by himself and PW-12. The cross-examination of PW-13 also
did not yield much for the accused."
5. The above two eye witnesses, PWs 12 and 13, have spoken clearly
and cogently and stood firm in their cross-examination. They have not
been able to be shaken by the defence. Their evidence is therefore
reliable, truthful and sufficient to bring home the guilt of the
Appellant. From the FSL report it is clear that the DNA isolated from
the lower of the present Appellant matched the DNA of the deceased.
Consequently, the guilt of the present Appellant for the offence of the
murder of Ashok has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
6. The appeal is dismissed. The applications are also dismissed.
7. The trial Court record be returned together with a certified copy of
this judgment.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
JULY 27, 2018
"shailendra/sandeep"
