Delhi High Court

Mohd. Shamim vs State on 12 October, 2021

                          #J-1



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                             Judgment Reserved On: 16.04.2021
                                                           Judgment Pronounced On: 12.10.2021


                          CRL.A.1111/2019

                          MOHD. SHAMIM                                             ..... Appellant



                                                       versus



                          STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)                            .....Respondent


                          Advocates who appeared in this case:

                          For the Appellant:    Ms. Geeta Verma, Advocate.

                          For the Respondent:   Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP alongwith S.I. Devender P.S.:
                                                Sarai Rohilla, for the State of NCT Delhi.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

                                                        JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

1. The present Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) read

with Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

("Cr.P.C") assails the judgment dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi, whereby the Appellant has been convicted under

Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") for

committing the murder of the deceased, Mukesh, by stabbing

him with a knife, in collusion with the co-perpetrator of the

crime, Nisar (not arrested), who inflicted deadly injuries upon

the deceased with a broken glass bottle. By way of the order on

sentence dated 30.04.2019, the Appellant has been sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of

Rs.10,000/-, and in default whereof, to undergo further simple

imprisonment for 03 months.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant along with co-

perpetrator, Nisar, motivated by a grudge that the deceased was

a police informant, stabbed the deceased on vital parts of his

body with a knife and a broken glass bottle causing his death. It

is also the case of the prosecution that a blood-stained

handkerchief and a knife were recovered from the Appellant

pursuant to his disclosure statement. To bring home the guilt of

the Appellant, the prosecution has relied inter alia upon the

testimonies of eye-witnesses PW-1 (Vakeel Khan), PW-13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

(Nitesh - deceased's younger brother), PW-14 (Dinesh) and

PW-18 (Pawan Kumar).

3. According to the prosecution, the crime was committed at about

10:30 P.M. on 11.08.2011, at Railway Line Daya Basti under

Zakhira Bridge, near Rakhi Market Jhuggi, Delhi. The

information about the crime was received on the intervening

night of 11/12.09.2011 by PW-4 (Head Constable Raj Kumar),

who was posted as the DD Writer at Police Post Inderlok under

Police Station : Sarai Rohilla. PW-4 recorded DD No.33,

exhibited as Ex.PW-4/A, and handed-over the same to PW-9

(Head Constable Prithvi Singh), for necessary action. It was

informed that the victim (now deceased), Mukesh, had been

stabbed with a sharp object and was bleeding. Further, it was

recorded that Mukesh had been taken to Hindu Rao Hospital

from Badhi Masjid, Sarai Rohilla, Inderlok PP, Delhi. PW-9

along with PW-10 (Constable Mahipal), reached the spot, where

they found that the victim had already been taken to Hindu Rao

Hospital by the PCR van. PW-9 and PW-10 reached Hindu Rao

Hospital and collected the MLC of the victim (Ex.PW-17/A).

As per the MLC, the victim was opined to be 'unfit for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

statement'. At the instance of PW-9, PW-4 went to Hindu Rao

Hospital and recorded DD No.36 in this regard, which has been

exhibited as Ex.PW-4/B. PW-5 (Duty Constable Dharmender),

handed-over a sealed parcel bearing the seal of Hindu Rao

Hospital and a sample seal to PW-9, which were taken into

possession by PW-9 vidé Seizure Memo Ex.PW-5/A. DD No.33

(Ex.PW-4/B) with regard to the incident was assigned to PW-

27 (Sub-Inspector Ramphal). PW-9 handed-over the MLC and

one sealed parcel along with a sample seal to PW-27. PW-27

then recorded the statement of PW-6 (ASI Jaswant), exhibited

as Ex.PW-6/A, and prepared a rukka and dispatched the same

with PW-10 for the registration of the FIR (Ex.PW-25/A). As

per the statement of PW-6, he was posted as In-charge PCR

Sugger 36 and his duty hours were from 08.00 A.M. to 08.00

P.M. PW-6 stated that he was stationed near Badi Masjid,

Inderlok with PW-8 (Head Constable Satya Narain), the driver

and PW-7 (Constable Raghuram), the gunman. The PCR was

standing stationary near Badi Masjid, Inderlok when at about

11.00 P.M., they saw one boy coming towards the PCR from

the side of Gupta Complex. They noticed that the boy had stab

injuries and was bleeding from his chest; with his clothes Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

stained with blood. The boy told them that his name was

Mukesh and he further informed him that 3-4 boys had stabbed

him. PW-6 took him to the aforesaid hospital and gave the

information about the incident to Sugger-I. On the statement of

PW-6, an FIR was registered under section 326 of the IPC, the

investigation of which was entrusted to PW-27. PW-27 and PW-

9 went to the spot, where they met PW-1, PW-14, PW-15

(Mohd. Mumtaz) and PW-18, who claimed to be eyewitnesses,

and recorded their statements. The brother of the deceased, PW-

2 (Rajesh Singh), also reached the spot and his statement was

also recorded by PW-27. PW-27 then prepared the site-plan at

the instance of PW-1. PW-27 then proceeded to the shop of PW-

18 and seized a crate containing 23 empty bottles, which were

taken into possession vidé Seizure Memo exhibited as Ex.PW-

9/A. Thereafter, PW-27 received information about the death of

the victim, vidé DD No.6 (Ex.PW-27/B), who had since been

shifted from Hindu Rao Hospital to Ram Manohar Lohia

Hospital on 12.08.2011. Pursuant thereto, relevant sections of

the IPC were added, and further investigation was assigned to

PW-30 (Inspector Naresh Chander). PW-30 reached the spot

with PW-17 (Constable Sabir), where they met with PW-27. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

PW-30 called the crime team and got the crime scene

photographed. PW-30 lifted the blood lying at the spot with

cotton and seized the blood-stained concrete and earth control.

The seized articles and viscera were sent for chemical analysis.

4. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the Appellant was

apprehended by PW-30 at the instance of a secret informer.

Upon interrogation, the Appellant made a disclosure statement

and led the police to the place of the incident and the Pointing

Out Memo of the place of incident was prepared at his instance.

A blood-stained handkerchief was also recovered at his instance

from Daya Basti, Railway Station. The Appellant also led the

police to Bawana Canal from where a knife was recovered,

which the Appellant disclosed had been used in the commission

of the offence. Site plans of the place of occurrence and the

place from where the knife was recovered were prepared. A

scaled site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared

which was duly exhibited. Further, the dead body of Mukesh

was identified by PW-2 as well as by the uncle of the deceased,

PW-3 (Devender Singh) at the Aruna Asaf Ali Government

Hospital Mortuary at Subzi Mandi. PW-30 conducted Inquest

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

Proceedings and then moved an application for conducting

postmortem on the body of the deceased. The blood sample of

the deceased and viscera were sealed with the hospital seal and

seized by PW-30. The body of the deceased was handed-over to

his relatives after the post-mortem.

5. After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in

the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the case

was committed for trial to the learned Sessions Court.

Thereafter, charges were framed against the Appellant under

Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC by the learned Trial Court, to

which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial. The prosecution

examined 34 witnesses during the course of the trial; whereafter,

the statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313

of the Cr.P.C., in which he inter-alia stated that he was innocent

and had been falsely implicated. In his statement under Section

313 Cr.P.C., the Appellant also stated that he did not want to

lead any evidence in his defence.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has raised the following

contentions whilst challenging the case of the prosecution and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

assailing the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed

by the learned Trial Court, seeking thereby the acquittal of the

Appellant:

(i) The testimony of PW-1 contradicts the testimony of

PW-13.

(ii) It is not probable for the eyewitnesses to have heard and

seen the Appellant and his co-perpetrator talking and

inflicting injuries upon the deceased considering, (a) the

distance at which the eyewitnesses were standing, (b)

the circumstance that there was very little light at the

spot; and (c) there must have been too much noise and

commotion because of the closeness of the spot to the

railway station.

(iii) The testimony of PW-1 is inconsistent in itself inasmuch

as, (a) he said that he did not hear the Appellant talking

with his co-perpetrator; (b) he did not know whether the

deceased was grabbed from the front or from the back

by the Appellant; (c) that he had deposed in his

examination-in-chief that bleeding was caused due to

the fist blow by the Appellant, whereas during cross

examination, he stated that bleeding was caused due to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

the injury caused by the co-perpetrator with a glass

bottle and a knife.

(iv) It is very unnatural and unclear why the eye-witnesses,

including PW-1, did not come forward to intervene and

save the deceased from the clutches of the Appellant and

his co-perpetrator; and that this raises questions on the

very presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot, during

the commission of the crime, since they did not even

inform the police about the crime afterwards.

(v) It has also been contended that in case the version of

PW-13 is to be believed, inasmuch as he was afraid to

intervene, he could have informed the police about the

incident but failed to do so; and thus, the mere fact that

he did not do so, implies that he was not present on the

spot when the crime was committed. It has also been

canvassed that PW-18 could not have been present on

the spot since he also neither came forward to help the

deceased, nor did he raise any alarm.

(vi) The testimony of PW-14 as well as that of PW-15 are

hearsay evidence, and thus hold no evidentiary value in

the eyes of law.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

(vii) There was no blood found on the knife that had been

recovered at the instance of the Appellant; and that this

casts a deep shadow of doubt on the case of the

prosecution. It has also been argued by learned Counsel

for the Appellant, that the FSL Report (Ex.PW-31/A) in

this regard is also completely silent on the aspect of any

blood being found on the knife.

(viii) The police did not preserve any fingerprints, if any,

found on the recovered knife in order to match the same

with those of the Appellant; and it therefore seems that

the knife was planted by the police to falsely implicate

the Appellant in the crime.

(ix) The FSL Examination Report (Ex.PW-32/A) states that

no cut mark was caused by the knife on the shirt of the

deceased, and thus, it is beyond imagination as to how

the deceased could have been stabbed on his chest

without there being any cut marks on his shirt.

(x) The prosecution has failed to establish that the blood

found on the handkerchief matched with the blood of the

deceased. It has been further canvassed that since the

handkerchief was recovered from a public place, and the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

blood was not matched with that of the deceased, the

prosecution story in this regard cannot be believed.

(xi) It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to

establish a motive for the commission of the crime by

the Appellant.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the Appellant and the learned APP; have closely

examined the evidence marshalled by the prosecution; and have

perused the impugned judgment and sentencing order.

8. The homicidal death of the deceased is not under dispute. It was

specifically stated by PW-19 (Dr. S. Lal) in the Postmortem

Report (Ex.PW-19/A) prepared by him as well as in his

testimony before the learned Trial Court that the injuries upon

the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of nature. The postmortem on the dead body of the

deceased was conducted by PW-19, who by his testimony

proved the Post Mortem Report. It was stated by PW-19 that the

cause of death was "hemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem

stabbed injuries to chest vessels. Injury No.1 was stated to have

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

been caused by single, pointed, sharp edged weapon and was

fatal. Injury No.2 was stated to have been possibly caused by an

unevenly sharp weapon (glass)". It was also stated therein that

the injury could have been caused by the weapon i.e., the knife,

that had been produced for examination before PW-19.

Furthermore, PW-12 (Dr. Naveen Kumar Agarwal), in the death

summary (Ex.PW-12/A), stated that the cause of death was

"Myocardial Pump failure in a c/o stab injury to rt. side of chest

with hemothorax in a post-op c/o Thoracotomy with circulatory

shock. ..... "; and further stated that the deceased also suffered

acute renal shut down with hypoxic brain injury. Further, a

reading of the testimonies of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8, would

reveal that the deceased had approached the PCR van and stated

that some boys had stabbed him with a sharp object. These

prosecution witnesses have also deposed that the deceased was

bleeding from his chest and his shirt was also covered with

blood. The deposition of PW-5, Duty Constable at Hindu Rao

Hospital, where the deceased was taken by PW-6, PW-7 and

PW-8, corroborates the deposition made by PW-6, PW-7 and

PW-8 with regard to the condition of the deceased. The

testimony of PW-3, who recorded DD No.33 (Ex.PW-4/A) with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

regard to the incident, further corroborated the prosecution case

of the injury being on the chest. He deposed that he was

informed telephonically by PW-9 that the deceased had a wound

on the right side of his chest.

9. In his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the Appellant

abjured his guilt and pleaded that had been falsely implicated.

He also said in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement that he did not

want to lead any evidence in his defence.

10. The only question which thus subsists is, whether the Appellant

is responsible for causing the death of the deceased by inflicting

stab injuries on his person.

OCULAR TESTIMONIES

11. The prosecution story rests on the ocular evidence of PW-1,

PW-13, and PW-18. The prosecution has also canvassed that the

crime was committed owing to a grudge that the deceased gave

information about the Appellant and his absconding accomplice

to the police. The prosecution has also relied upon the recovery

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

of the blood-stained handkerchief as well as a knife at the

instance of the Appellant.

12. PW-1 had stated in his testimony that he had seen the Appellant

hit the deceased with a fist blow on his chest which caused

bleeding through his chest, and further that the Appellant may

have been carrying a sharp object. He further stated that the

Appellant's co-perpetrator hit the deceased with a broken glass

bottle; after which both, the Appellant and his co-perpetrator

dragged the deceased to the railway tracks. PW-1 also identified

the Appellant before the Trial Court. In his testimony, PW-1

also stated that he heard the Appellant and his co-perpetrator say

that the deceased had passed on information to the police, before

committing the crime. In his cross-examination, PW-1

reiterated that he had heard the Appellant say that Mukesh was

passing on information about the Appellant to the police. He

also clearly deposed about there being a quarrel between the

deceased and the Appellant and his co-perpetrator, in his cross-

examination. He also stated that PW-15, PW-18 and PW-14

were also present there at the time of the commission of the

crime.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

13. The testimony of PW-18 is corroborative of the statement of

PW-1, to the effect that the Appellant gave fist blows to the

deceased on his chest holding a sharp object. Further, the

testimony of PW-18 reveals that the Appellant asked the

deceased whether the deceased had given information about the

Appellant to the police and immediately thereafter inflicted

injuries upon him. PW-18 also stated that there was blood lying

on the ground where the crime was committed.

14. A reading of the testimony of PW-13 would make it clear that

he saw the Appellant and his co-perpetrator inflict injuries upon

the deceased's chest with a sharp weapon, seemingly a knife and

a broken glass bottle. PW-13 also stated that right before

committing the crime upon the deceased, he heard the Appellant

say to his brother that the Appellant would teach the deceased a

lesson for getting him arrested by informing the police about

him.

15. In view of the above, contrary to the contentions raised on

behalf of the Appellant, there appear to be no contradictions

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

between the eyewitness accounts of PW-1, PW-18 and that of

PW-13; which would render the evidence led by the prosecution

unreliable or make it lose or efface its credibility; thereby

belying the case of the prosecution. The questions raised on

behalf of the Appellant, as to why PW-13 did not inform the

police or take him to the hospital, do not have the effect of

casting a shadow on the testimony of PW-13. It was stated by

PW-13 in his testimony that he ran away from the spot due to

the fear and shock of having witnessed the heinous crime

committed against his elder brother. The statement made by

PW-13 corroborates the prosecution case as well as the

testimony of the other eyewitnesses to the crime i.e. PW-1 and

PW-18. Thus, the mere fact that he did not inform the police or

did not intervene to save his brother from persons armed with

deadly weapons, does not make his testimony unworthy of

credit.

16. Further, it is sufficiently clear from the above discussion that

the contention made on behalf of the Appellant that it was

improbable for the eyewitnesses to have seen or heard anything,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

in the absence of cogent evidence, holds no water and is thus,

rejected.

17. It is also pertinent to note that the only contradiction that occurs

in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-18, both eyewitnesses to the

crime, is with regards to the manner in which the deceased was

carried to the railway tracks after he had been inflicted with

injuries by the Appellant and his co-perpetrator. PW-1 has

stated that the Appellant and his co-perpetrator dragged the

deceased, whereas PW-18 deposed that he was carried by them

on their shoulders. However, the testimonies of PW-1, PW-18

as well as PW-13 corroborate the prosecution story with respect

to, (i) the manner in which the injuries were inflicted i.e. fist

blow with a sharp object, seemingly a knife, which led to

bleeding alongwith injuries inflicted with a broken glass bottle;

(ii) the weapons used in the crime i.e. a sharp object, seemingly

a knife and a broken glass bottle; (iii) the remarks made by the

Appellant to the deceased which were immediately followed

with the violent blows; (iv) and the place on the person of the

deceased where injuries were inflicted i.e. right side of the chest

of the deceased. Therefore, a contradiction that does not go to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

the root of the matter, cannot shatter the prosecution's case or

taint the overwhelming ocular evidence which has been

completely supported by medical opinion, the FSL results as

well as by way of the recoveries made in the case. [ref: State v.

Saravanan, reported as (2008) 17 SCC 587]

RECOVERIES MADE PURSUANT TO THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

18. A perusal of the statement of PW-30, the Investigating Officer

(I.O.) of the matter, would reveal that the Appellant informed

the police that a handkerchief was used by the Appellant to

wipe-off the blood from the knife, which was the weapon of

offence. The handkerchief was subsequently recovered upon

pointing-out by the Appellant from near the spot of the crime.

The testimony of PW-22 (Head Constable Narain Dass), is

corroborative of the fact that recovery of the blood-stained

handkerchief was made upon the pointing-out of the Appellant;

and further of the fact that he had wiped-off the blood from the

knife using the handkerchief. The statement of PW-22 would

also reveal that the Appellant stated that he used the knife to

commit the crime. The FSL results have corroborated the fact

that the blood found on the handkerchief was, in fact, human Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

blood. Further, the testimony of PW-17, is also corroborative of

the fact that the Appellant stated that he had used the knife to

commit the crime and thereafter wiped the blood off it with a

handkerchief. Further, the testimony of PW-17 also supports the

fact that at the pointing-out of the Appellant, recovery of

handkerchief was made, with which the Appellant had statedly

cleaned the blood.

19. The I.O.'s statement would further reveal that, upon the

pointing-out by the Appellant, the police also recovered the

knife from the Bawana Canal. The statement made by PW-30

with regard to the recovery of the knife being made at the

instance of the Appellant is also corroborated by the statement

made by PW-23 (Constable Gajender Singh), as well as by the

deposition of PW-22. The statements of PW-23 as well as PW-

22 would also reveal that some dried blood/blood stains were

found on the blade of the knife.

20. The contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that there

was no blood found on the knife and therefore the prosecution

story ought to be disbelieved, cannot resultantly be accepted. It

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

is clear from the evidence led by the prosecution, specifically

by the statements of PW-23 and PW-30, that the Appellant had

wiped-off the blood from the knife with the recovered

handkerchief and thus only some dried blood was found on the

knife. As a consequence thereof, no conclusive FSL results

could be returned for presence of blood on the knife.

21. The statement made by PW-19, would further reveal that in his

opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to ante-

mortem stab injuries to chest vessels. He also opined that Injury

No.1 was caused by a single, pointed, sharp-edged weapon and

was fatal in nature. He further deposed that Injury No.1 as

mentioned in the Post Mortem Report could have possibly been

caused by the knife produced before him in Court.

22. The report of the Chemical Analyser exhibited as Ex.PW-32/A

also demonstrates that human blood was detected on the shirt of

the deceased, and was also found on the cement pieces obtained

from the crime spot.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

23. It would also be relevant to point-out that the evidence would

reveal that the police had requested public persons to join the

investigation whilst the police was trying to make the recoveries

pursuant to the disclosure statement of the Appellant but no

public person was willing to do so. Even otherwise, it is the

settled position of law that recoveries cannot be mistrusted

solely for the reason that no independent, public persons were

joined during the making of such recoveries. Therefore, the

contention made on behalf of the Appellant assailing the

recoveries on that count, cannot be accepted. [ref: Lekhraj vs.

The State, Criminal Appeal No.16/2002, decided on

21.08.2019, reported as 2019 VIII AD (Delhi) 1]

24. The contention on behalf of the Appellant that since the shirt of

the deceased had no cut marks as found in the Ex.PW-32/A, the

prosecution story of the deceased having been stabbed in the

chest could not be believed, cannot be accepted in the face of

the entire countervailing evidence which proves the nature and

place of the injury as well as the weapon used to inflict the same

upon the deceased.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

25. Furthermore, in view of the FSL reports read in conjunction

with the testimony of the police officials with regard to the

recovered handkerchief, it is sufficiently clear that blood was

found on the handkerchief. The fact that fingerprints on the

knife were not preserved and that the FSL examination returned

results stating that there was no reaction regarding the blood on

the knife, does not outweigh or diminish the value of the

clinching ocular evidence led by the prosecution in the present

case. [ref: Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported

as (2010) 10 SCC 254]

MOTIVE OF THE CRIME

26. It is trite law that the issue of motive becomes irrelevant when

there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the

commission of the crime. [ref: Sunder Lal vs. State, reported as

2019 (3) JCC 3411 and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West

Bengal, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.07.2010

in Criminal Appeal No.1247 of 2008, reported as (2010) 12

SCC 91]. However, the present case is one where substantial

evidence establishing motive for the commission of the crime

has been led by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

that the Appellant alongwith his co-perpetrator, murdered the

deceased believing him to be an informer of the police. Thus,

the motive behind killing the deceased was that, according to

the Appellant, the deceased had provided information about him

to the police which had led to his arrest in the recent past.

27. The ocular evidence led in the instant case would make it

abundantly clear that PW-1, PW-16 and PW-18 had heard the

Appellant making remarks to the deceased about the latter

informing the police about him, right before committing the

crime upon the latter's person. In his testimony, PW-13, the

younger brother of the deceased, stated that he heard the

Appellant say to the deceased that, "Sale tune meri mukhbiri

kar ke police me pakdhwaya tha aaj tujhe iska sabak sikhata

hu". (You informed the police about me to get me arrested, and

so today, I will teach you a lesson for that.)

28. Further, PW-14 stated in his testimony that he saw the Appellant

after the incident at Lallu Park, Dayabasti where he asked the

Appellant why he had quarrelled with the deceased and inflicted

blow injuries upon him. PW-14 further deposed that answering

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

his question, the Appellant told him that the deceased was a

secret informer of the police and had given information about

him to the police.

29. Furthermore, a perusal of the testimony of PW-30, would reveal

that when the Appellant was apprehended, he informed the

police that he killed the deceased because the latter had given

information to the police (P.S.: Anand Parbat) about him that

led to his arrest. PW-30 has also testified that he confirmed this

information from P.S.: Anand Parbat, and it was found that the

Appellant had, in fact, been arrested by the police under Section

110(g) read with Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. The factum of the

prior arrest of the Appellant on the intervening night of

19/20.07.2011 was also testified by PW-29 (Sub-Inspector Bal

Mukund Rai), in his testimony.

30. Therefore, in view of the above, it can be reasonably concluded

that the prosecution has successfully proved that the Appellant

believed the deceased to be a secret informer of the police; and

that the deceased was the one who informed the police about the

Appellant, which ultimately led to the Appellant's arrest. Thus,

Signature Not Verified owing to spite, the Appellant intentionally inflicted fatal injuries Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:12.10.2021 11:53:43

on the vital body parts of the deceased with a knife, alongwith

his co-perpetrator who inflicted injuries upon the deceased with

a broken glass bottle, which led to the unfortunate death of the

deceased.

31. In view of the discussion above, there is overwhelming ocular

evidence in the case pointing towards the guilt of the Appellant

beyond reasonable doubt, when coupled with (i) recoveries

made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the Appellant, of

the weapon of the crime i.e. the knife, and the blood-stained

handkerchief which was used to wipe-off the blood from the

knife; (ii) FSL reports regarding the presence of blood on the

handkerchief; (iii) the medical evidence with regards to the stab