Gulamuddin vs State (GNCT of Delhi)

P.K. Bhasin, J.—By this common judgment we are going to dispose of five appeals arising out of the judgment dated 19.5.2006 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 58/2005 arising out of FIR No. 31/99 registered at Bara Hindu Rao Police

Station whereby all the five appellants were convicted u/s 396 read with Section 34 IPC and also u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

The appellants/accused were prosecuted for having committed dacoity in House No.T-20, Kishan Ganj, Double Phatak, DCM Road, Delhi on

2.2.99 at about 7.00 p.m. and also for having killed one Smt.Rekha Sharma while committing the dacoity in her house. The complainant of this

case is PW-10 Ashwani Sharma @ Lovely. He is the son of deceased Rekha Sharma. His statement (Ex. PW-10/A) was recorded by PW-18

Sub Inspector Tara Chand and on that basis FIR of this case (Ex. PW-1/B) was registered. It was stated by Ashwani Sharma in his statement to

the Police that on 2.2.99 at about 7.00 p.m. he was playing with his sister Madhuri (PW-12) in a room of their house. At that time their mother

was sleeping in that room and their father was not at home. Suddenly three boys, out of whom two were fair complexioned and third one was

wheatish complexioned, came in that room and enquired about their father. On hearing their voice their mother woke up and asked those boys as

to who they were. Upon that, one of the fair complexioned boys started abusing his mother and told her to keep lying down silently. One of the

boys had a knife and he made him and his sister sit on a trunk lying there. One boy who was having a small gun caught hold of his mother and other

boy stabbed his mother with a knife due to which she started shouting. The complainant further alleged that on seeing his mother bleeding he and

his sister also shouted and then all the three boys fled away. On hearing their shouts their neighbours Satnam and Kishan Lal along with others

came and took their mother to hospital. In the Jiwan Hospital, where the injured was taken, she was medically examined and the doctor made

efforts to save her but could not succeed and declared her dead at 8.15 p.m. As per the MLC Ex. PW-9/A prepared in the hospital the deceased

had two stab injuries caused with a sharp edged weapon. On 4.2.99 accused Satbir Singh (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 785/2006) was arrested

by the Police on the basis of some information given by a secret informer of the Police. As per the prosecution case, one broken gold chain was

recovered from his possession at the time of his apprehension and the same was sealed and seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/B and that chain was

later on identified and claimed by the husband of the deceased to be belonging to her. Accused Satbir Singh also got recovered one blood stained

knife (Ex. P-1) and one blood stained shirt (Ex. P-2) from his house in Kabir Basti, Malka Ganj, Delhi pursuant to the disclosure statement made

by him wherein he had also named other co-accused also as his associates in the crime in question. As per the further prosecution case, accused

Kirpa Shankar Maurya @ Maurya (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 962/2006) and accused Gulamuddin (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 768/2006)

were arrested on 5-2-99 at the instance of accused Satbir Singh. At that time one knife was recovered from the possession of accused Kirpa

Shankar and the same was sealed and seized vide memo Ex. PW-18/M. All the three accused were required to participate in a test identification

parade (TIP) on 5-2-99 but all of them refused to participate in the TIP stating before the Magistrate(PW-19) that they had already been seen by

the two children of the deceased at the spot at the time of the incident.

On 6.2.99 accused Shiv Ram @ Chotu (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 1014/2006) and accused Juber Alam (appellant in Crl. Appeal No.

843/2006) were also arrested by the Police at the instance of accused Satbir Singh. After the arrest of these two accused persons they were also

required to participate in the test identification parade but also they refused to participate in the same on the ground that they had been shown to

the witnesses. As per the post-mortem report of PW-6 Dr. Komal Singh the following ante-mortem injuries were noticed on the dead body of the

deceased:

External Injuries:

Penetrating incised wound on the dorsum of the left hand 2.1 cm x 0.9 cm and it was spindle shape and both angles were acute.

Another penetrating incised wound present on the mid abdomen 2.3 cm x 0.8 cm, both angles were acute and margins were clean cut. It was

placed 7.8 cm above the umbilicus and 5 cm below Xiphistrnun.

Internal examination:

On internal examination on tracing the number two injury there was cut at the right lobe of the liver going through and through making a cut of 2.3

cm x 0.8 cm. Abdomen cavity contain 2 ltr. Of the blood. Stomach contain 200 ml. of undigested food.

The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhagic shock due to the injury to the liver which was found to be sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature. At the time of post-mortem examination blood stained clothes of the deceased and her blood sample were preserved

and later on the same were sent to Forensic Scientific Laboratory along with the blood stained knife and blood stained shirt got recovered by

accused Satbir Singh. As per the FSL report blood group of the deceased was found to be �B� and the blood on the knife and shirt got

recovered by accused Satbir Singh was also found to be human blood of �B� group.

On the completion of the usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet in court against the five appellants-accused and in due course

the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The learned Trial Judge framed charges under Sections 396/302/34 IPC against all the five

accused persons and all of them pleaded not guilty. The prosecution was then called upon to adduce its evidence which it did and examined 22

witnesses in all. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All of them pleaded false implication. Accused

Satbir Singh took a plea that he and his brother Jai Prakash had been falsely implicated in 5-6 auto theft cases at the instance of SI Tara Chand in

the last week of January, 1999 and when his uncle Babu Singh who was also SI in Delhi Police met SI Tara Chand and asked him as to why he

had falsely framed his nephew in false and theft cases. On this issue, there was exchange of hot words between SI Tara Chand and SI Babu Singh.

He further claimed that in the auto theft cases he had since been acquitted by the Court. Accused Shiv Ram while pleading false implication,

claimed that he had been lifted from his factory where he was working in the late night and was taken to the Police Station where he was detained

for six days and then falsely implicated in this case. Accused Juber Alam claimed that he was lifted from Shantivan Pushta and detained at the

Police Station for two days and then falsely implicated in this case. Accused Gulamuddin also claimed that he was lifted from his jhuggi and was

falsely implicated in this case. Accused Kirpa Shankar took the plea that he was called from his house to the Police Station through three police

officials on the pretext that some enquiry was to be made from him and then he was illegally detained for about five days at the Police Station and

falsely implicated in this case. Accused Satbir Singh examined his brother Jai Prakash in support of his plea that there was an exchange of hot

words between SI Tara Chand (initial Investigating Officer of this case) and his uncle SI Babu Singh. Other accused persons, however, did not

adduce any evidence in defense.

Learned Trial Judge after examining the entire evidence found the prosecution case fully established against all the five accused persons and

accordingly convicted them under Sections 396/302/34 IPC vide his judgment dated 19.5.2006 and vide order dated 22.5.2006 awarded life

imprisonment to all of them and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with a default clause for their conviction u/s 302/34 IPC and rigorous

imprisonment for ten years to all of them in addition to a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for their conviction u/s 396/34 IPC. The appellants filed separate

appeals challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment and order on sentence of the trial court. Since all the appeals arose out of the same

judgment of conviction of the trial court they were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment.

The appellants in these appeals were represented by two counsel whose services were made available to them at their request by the Delhi

Legal Services Authority (DLSA). Learned Counsel for the appellants did not dispute the fact that the deceased Rekha Sharma died a homicidal

death. That fact is even otherwise fully established from the MLC Ex. PW-9/A which shows two stab injuries on the body of the deceased and the

evidence of Autopsy Surgeon (PW-6) who, as noticed already, after conducting post mortem examination had opined that cause of death of

deceased Rekha Sharma was haemorrhagic shock subsequent to the injury to the liver which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature.

Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, seriously disputed the correctness of the findings of the trial court holding them guilty of having

committed dacoity and murder. The submission of both the counsel were similar. It was contended that there were many serious infirmities in the

evidence of the eye-witnesses of the incident and also in the evidence of the witnesses of recovery of gold chain from accused Satbir Singh and

blood stained knife and shirt at his instance as well as in the evidence of witnesses of recovery of knife from accused Kirpa Shankar. It was also

contended that accused persons were fully justified in refusing to participate in the test identification parade since they were shown to the identifying

witnesses before the test identification parade. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State fully supported the

impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution case was rightly found by the Trial Judge to be established beyond any shadow of doubt

and there being no infirmity in any of the findings of the trial court these appeals deserve to be dismissed. During the course of arguments evidence

of material witnesses was also referred to from both sides. We shall state the detailed submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and

their worth after narrating the evidence of the eye witnesses.

The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of two eye-witnesses of the incident and both of them are the children of the deceased and

corroboration to their evidence has been sought to be derived from some pieces of circumstantial evidence. PW-10 Ashwani Sharma @ Lovely is

the son and PW-12 Madhuri is the daughter of the deceased. PW-10 was about 11 years old and PW-12 was eight years old on the day of the

incident. They were examined in Court in the year 2002. Both of them have deposed that on the day of incident they were present in their house in

the evening at about 6.45-7.00 p.m. and at that time their mother was sleeping while their father was not at home. PW-10 has deposed that at that

time accused Gulamuddin, Kirpa Shankar and Satbir Singh(the witness had pointed out towards these accused persons) came to their house and

their mother got up and asked as to who they were. Accused Satbir Singh started abusing his mother and asked her to keep lying. Accused

Gulamuddin took out a gun from his pant and pointed it towards the temple of her sister. Accused Kirpa Shankar made him(PW-10) to sit on a

trunk lying in the room and also placed a knife on his abdomen. He further deposed that accused Satbir Singh gave knife blows to his mother and

thereafter all the three accused persons ran away when he raised an alarm. Their neighbours Satnam and Prithvi came along with 2-3 more persons

whose names he did not remember removed his mother to Jeewan Hospital. The same night police came and recorded his statement Ex. PW-

10/A. PW-10 also deposed that on 6.2.99 accused Gulamuddin, Kirpa Shankar and Satbir Singh, who had entered their house, along with two

more persons came to their house with the investigating officer and the Investigating Officer had informed him that other two persons were standing

in the staircase at the time of occurrence but he (PW-10) could not identify them. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Satbir Singh PW-

10 was again asked to tell as to how many persons had come to his house and then he claimed that four persons had entered their house and had

committed the offence and one person had remained present in the staircase while other persons were killing his mother. He further clarified that

accused Juber Alam had remained present in the staircase and the other four accused persons had come inside the house and Juber had asked

them to hurry up as somebody may come. Then PW-10 was asked if he had stated before the police that four accused had come inside the house

and one had kept standing in the staircase and he replied in the affirmative but when he was confronted with his police statement Ex. PW-10/A it

was not found to be so recorded. The witness denied the suggestion that he had been tutored by the police to identify three accused persons in

court. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Shiv Ram, PW-10 denied the suggestion that at the instance of the police he had introduced

fourth accused as the person who had also entered his house. He also denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence Shiv Ram had not come

to his house. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Kirpa Shankar and Gulamuddin also it was suggested to PW-10 that Kirpa Shankar

and Gulamuddin had not come to his house and that he was deposing falsely. The witness denied that suggestion. There was no cross-examination

of this witness on behalf of Juber Alam, although opportunity of cross-examination was given to him by the trial court.

PW-12 Madhuri is the sister of PW-10 and the other eye-witness of the incident. She deposed that accused persons except Satbir Singh had

come inside their room on the day of the incident and accused Gulamuddin had kept a pillow on the face of her mother and accused Kirpa

Shankar had stabbed her mother with a knife. Accused Juber Alam had caught hold of her (PW-12) and accused Shiv Ram had caught hold of

her brother Ashwani and placed a knife on his abdomen and that after killing her mother all the four accused had run away. In cross examination

on behalf of accused Satbir Singh this witness admitted that she had not seen accused Satbir Singh on the day of occurrence or thereafter. In

cross-examination on behalf of accused Shiv Ram it was asked from her if she had claimed before the police that four persons had entered their

house and her answer was in the affirmative. She was then confronted with her police statement PW-12/DA wherein it was recorded that three

persons had entered their house. On behalf of accused Kirpa Shankar it was simply put to this witness that this accused had not stabbed her

brother. The witness denied that suggestion. In cross-examination on behalf of accused Gulamuddin and Juber Alam the only suggestion put to her

was that these two accused had not come to her house. She denied those suggestion also.

Having narrated the evidence of the two eye witnesses we shall now consider the worth of the criticism of the counsel for the appellants

regarding their evidence. Referring to the evidence of the two eye witnesses the learned Counsel for the appellants had submitted that their

evidence is totally inconsistent on vital aspects of the prosecution case and in fact both of them have made totally contradictory statements which

cannot be explained by any hypothesis and, Therefore, their evidence could not be relied upon. It was argued that as far as PW-10 Ashwani

Sharma is concerned, he has claimed that accused Gulamuddin, Kirpa Shankar and Satbir Singh had come inside their house and in his first

information statement exhibit PW10/A also he had claimed that three boys had entered their room but during cross-examination on behalf of

accused Satbir Singh he had changed his version by claiming that five persons had come to their house out of whom four persons had entered their

room and committed the offence while the fifth person Juber Alam had remained present in the staircase. Learned Counsel also submitted that even

this statement made by PW-10 in cross-examination is an improvement made by him in Court and, Therefore, no reliance can be placed on his

testimony. Learned Counsel also submitted that PW-12 Madhuri has given a totally contradictory version of the incident by claiming that only

accused Gulamuddin, Shiv Ram, Kirpa Shankar and Juber Alam had come inside their house and she has totally exonerated accused Satbir Singh.

She has also claimed that it was accused Kirpa Shankar who had stabbed her mother with a knife while according to PW-10 Ashwani it was

accused Satbir Singh who had stabbed his mother. It was also contended that PW-12 has claimed that it was accused Shiv Ram who had caught

hold of her brother Ashwani and kept a knife on his abdomen but PW-10 has claimed that it was accused Kirpa Shankar who had placed a knife

on his abdomen. It was also submitted that even PW-12 had claimed before the police in her statement Ex. PW-12/DA that three persons had

come to their room and so her statement in Court that four persons had come is also an improvement and that two more persons were introduced

during the evidence as a result of tutoring of both PWs 10 and 12 and that is evident from the fact that PW-10 was examined-in-chief on 16-5-02

and that day he had claimed that three accused had come inside their room. His cross-examination was deferred for 1-8-02 and it was only on that

day that PW-10 changed his version and claimed that all the five accused were involved in the incident and on the same day his sister also,

contrary to her police version, claimed in Court that four accused had come inside their room. Learned Counsel contended that since the police

had booked five persons to make it a case of dacoity and PW-10 had also claimed in his chief-examination that on 6-2-99 the police had brought

to their house accused Satbir Singh, Kirpa Shankar and Gulamuddin along with two more boys and that the police had told him that those two

boys were also involved in the incident although they had remained standing in the stairs the two children of the deceased were tutored to change

their version between the date when examination-in-chief of PW-10 was recorded and the date of his cross-examination. According to the learned

Counsel for the appellants both the eye witnesses have not been consistent in respect of the involvement and individual roles played by any one of

the five accused persons. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the contradictions pointed out in the statements of these

two witnesses are insignificant and were rightly ignored by the trial Court considering the fact that both these witnesses were young children at the

time of occurrence and were examined in Court after more than three years of the incident and so there were bound to be some inconsistencies in

their evidence. Learned Prosecutor also submitted that both these witnesses had no reason to falsely identify the accused persons as the culprits

and the learned trial court had rightly accepted their evidence, ignoring the contradictions in their statements pointed out by the defense counsel. It

was also contended that if the police had to make out a false case against the accused persons it could have very conveniently put up the husband

of the deceased as the eye witness of the incident instead of making the two children as the eye witnesses but that was not done. It was further

submitted that the prosecution had also adduced other evidence also which corroborated the evidence of the two eye witnesses of the incident.

From the evidence of the two eye witnesses Ashwani Sharma and Madhuri it clearly stands established that in the evening of 2nd February,

1999 some persons had barged into their house and had killed their mother. On behalf of none of the five accused persons this part of their

testimony was challenged in cross-examination nor even during the course of arguments anything was contended by any of the counsel for the

appellants that the incident, as claimed by PWs 10 and 12, had not taken place in their house. As noticed already, all the counsel had, however,

strongly contended that none of the appellants was involved in that incident. In this case all the five accused were tried for the offences under

Sections 396/302 read with Section 34 IPC. For securing conviction u/s 396 IPC all that the prosecution is required to establish is that five or

more persons had committed robbery and while committing robbery one of them committed murder and if it is so established then all the culprits

would be held guilty u/s 396 IPC whether or not all had shared common intention with each other to commit murder. It was held by the Hon�ble

Supreme Court in Umesh Kamat Vs. State of Bihar, that in a case u/s 396 IPC it need not be proved by the prosecution that a particular accused

had caused the death and it would be sufficient to secure conviction of an accused u/s 396 IPC if it is established that he was one of the five or

more persons conjointly committing dacoity out of whom one had committed murder in the course of the same transaction irrespective of the fact

whether he is the actual assailant or not or whether he had shared the common intention to kill anyone. While for the offence of murder, to secure

conviction of two or more accused persons with the aid of Section 34 IPC it is required to be proved that murder was committed in furtherance of

the common intention of two or more persons. So, in the present case the charges against all the accused would stand established if it is found from

prosecution evidence that all of them had come to the house of the deceased to commit dacoity and had in fact, committed dacoity and while

committing dacoity someone out of them caused injuries to the deceased resulting in her death. Learned Counsel for the appellants did not dispute

this legal position. However, on behalf of accused Gulamuddin, Shiv Ram and Juber Alam it was argued by the learned Counsel that even if this

Court affirms the conviction of these accused u/s 396 IPC they would still be entitled to be acquitted of the charge u/s 302/34 IPC because both

the eye witnesses have not attributed any role to these three accused persons as far as the injuries caused to the deceased are concerned and there

is no circumstance from which it can be inferred that these accused persons had shared common intention with accused Satbir Singh and Kirpa

Shankar, both of whom had allegedly stabbed the deceased, to commit her murder.

Now, as far as the involvement of the appellants � accused in the incident is concerned the prosecution is strongly relying upon the evidence

of the two children of the deceased both of whom have claimed to have witnessed the incident. Since the incident took place inside their house,

which was on the first floor, in the evening time at about 7 p.m. the presence of the two small children of the deceased at that time in the house was

quite natural. As noticed already, PW-10 Ashwini Sharma was 14 years old when he came to the Court to give evidence and his sister PW-12

Madhuri was 11 years old at the time of giving evidence. Considering the fact that they were quite young at the time of the incident which had

occurred three years before they came to the Court to depose there were bound to be some inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements.

However, in our view, and as has been rightly held by the learned trial Court also, the evidence of the two children of the deceased cannot be

rejected because of the contradictions in their statements pointed out by the counsel for the appellants.

There is no doubt that in his examination-in-chief PW-10 Ashwini Sharma had claimed that only accused Gulamuddin, Kirpa Shankar and

Satbir Singh had come inside the room in which he was playing with his sister and his mother was sleeping. However, in cross-examination it was

asked again from him by the defense counsel as to how many persons had come inside their house and had committed the offence and then he had

claimed that four persons had entered the house and they were accused Gulamuddin, Kirpa Shankar, Satbir Singh and Shiv Ram while the fifth

accused Juber Alam had remained standing in the staircase. If this witness had to be tutored to say so then he himself would have volunteered to

make statement to that effect before his cross-examination commenced but he did not do that and it was only when it was asked from him by the

defense counsel that he came out with the version that all the five accused persons had come to their house for committing the crime. As far as

accused Juber Alam is concerned there was no cross-examination of PW-10 on his behalf and, Therefore, the statement of PW-10 that Juber

Alam was also one of the culprits stood admitted by this accused and he cannot derive any advantage from the fact that in his chief-examination

PW-10 had not claimed that Juber Alam was also one of the culprits. As far as accused Gulamuddin, Kirpa Shankar and Satbir Singh are

concerned they themselves had made statements before Metropolitan Magistrate PW-19 Shri Shiv Charan on 05-02-1999, when they were

produced before him for test identification parade, that they did not want to join test identification parade because they had been seen by the two

children of the deceased at the time of the incident/commission of offence at the spot. Those statements of these three accused persons have been

proved on record by the Metropolitan Magistrate himself and they can be used as admissions of these three accused of their involvement in the

incident. Ex. PW-19/B is the statement of accused Satbir Singh, Ex. PW-19/C is the statement of accused Kirpa Shankar and Ex. PW-19/D is

the statement of accused Gulamuddin. Although in cross-examination of PW-19 Shri Shiv Charan on behalf of accused Satbir Singh it was put to

him that accused persons had not given any statement nor were they even produced before him and that the investigating officer had already got

dictated the statements and had got it signed from him(PW-19) without producing the accused but in our view we have no reason to disbelieve the

evidence of PW-19 as well as the proceedings recorded by him regarding the refusal of the three accused persons to participate in the test

identification parade for the afore-said reason. The allegation leveled by accused Satbir Singh against PW-19 by putting this kind of a suggestion is

absolutely baseless and that is also clear from the fact that when this accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. he did not claim so. This accused has,

thus, taken a false stand and that is also a circumstance which goes against him.

As far as other two accused Kirpa Shankar and Gulamuddin are concerned they did not cross-examine PW-19 to dispute his statement that

accused Kirpa Shankar had made statement Ex. PW-19/C and Gulamuddin had made statement Ex. PW-19/D. So, the presence of accused

Satbir Singh, Gulamuddin and Kirpa Shankar in the house of PWs 10 and 12 at the time of the incident gets established beyond any doubt

whatsoever from the evidence of PW-10 as also from their own admission before the Magistrate about their presence at the place of occurrence

and their having been seen by the two children of the deceased. As far as accused Shiv Ram is concerned it had simply been put to PW-10 in

cross-examination that he had introduced the 4th accused (Shiv Ram) also as one of the culprits who had also entered their room along with Kirpa

Shankar, Satbir Singh and Gulamuddin at the instance of the police but the witness had denied that suggestion. There was no reason for PW-10 to

have falsely implicated the accused persons nor any motive was attributed to him in his cross-examination on behalf of any of the accused persons.

The statement of PW 10 regarding the involvement of accused Shiv Ram and Juber Alam gets strengthened from their refusal to participate in the

test identification parade which was to be conducted by PW-20 Shri R.B.Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate. Although before the Magistrate these

two accused had claimed that they were refusing to participate in the test identification parade because they had already been shown to the

witnesses but when the two eye witnesses and the investigating officer were examined during the trial it was not even suggested to anyone of them

that they had been shown to the witnesses before the date of test identification parade which was fixed for 07-02-1999. Even in their statements

u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused Shiv Ram and Juber Alam did not claim that they had been shown to the witnesses who were supposed to identify them

before the test identification parade and that is why they had refused to participate in the test identification parade. In fact, when it was put to them

that they had refused to participate in the test identification parade they replied that that was not correct. That means these two accused wanted to

convey that they had never refused to participate in the test identification parade and were, in fact, willing to do that. However, when the

Metropolitan Magistrate PW-20 Shri R.B. Singh deposed that these two accused had refused to participate in the test identification parade he was

not cross-examined at all which shows that these two accused were not disputing that they had refused to participate in the test identification

parade. They also, thus, took a false plea during their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by denying that they had refused to participate in the test

identification parade. So, against these two accused also the prosecution can utilize the circumstance of false plea having been taken by them in

addition to the circumstance of their having refused to participate in the test identification parade as deposed to by the Metropolitan Magistrate. In

these circumstances it has to be held that their refusal to participate in the test identification parade was not justified and, Therefore, an adverse

inference has to be drawn against them to the effect that they had refused to participate in the test identification parade because they were actually

involved in the incident and they knew that they would be identified by the eye witnesses.

The prosecution case regarding the involvement of all the five accused persons, as claimed by PW-10, gets further corroborated from the

evidence of PW-2 Satnam. He was also a resident of the same area where this incident took place. He has claimed that he had a shop near his

house and on 2-2-99 at 7/7.30 p.m. when he was present at his shop he had heard some shrieks of weeping and shouting coming from house No.

T-20, which is the house where incident took place, and he also saw the accused persons coming out from that house and running towards railway

line and then he had gone to the house from where the accused persons had come out and there he saw Rekha Sharma (the deceased) lying on

bed with blood on her body. He further deposed that one boy and one girl were with their mother and they were crying. In the meantime one

Kishan Lal from the locality also came there after hearing noise and then they took the injured to Jiwan Mala Hospital where the doctor declared

her dead. He further deposed that the husband of the deceased was not in his house at the time of incident. This witness was cross-examined on

behalf of accused Satbir Singh, Kirpa Shankar and Shiv Ram while other two accused did not cross-examine him at all which shows that these two

accused were not challenging the correctness of this witness. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Satbir Singh, Kirpa Shankar and Shiv

Ram it was suggested to him that he had not seen the accused persons running away as claimed by him. The witness denied that suggestion. This

witness is an independent person having no reason whatsoever for falsely implicating the accused persons. Nothing could be elicited from him in

cross-examination which could render his testimony doubtful. It was not even suggested to him that none of the accused had come out of house

No. T-20, as claimed by him. We have, Therefore, no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness also and, in fact, nothing was said

regarding his evidence by any of the counsel for the appellants.

PW-13 Ghan Shyam Sharma is the husband of the deceased who was not present in his house at the time of incident. He has deposed that on

2-2-99 at about 6.45 p.m. when he was returning to his house from office he had seen the accused persons, except Satbir Singh, running towards

the railway bridge, Kishan Ganj and when he reached his house he came to know that some persons had entered his house to commit dacoity and

had injured his wife with a knife. In his cross-examination also nothing helpful to the accused persons could be elicited from him. Although it was

suggested to him that he had deposed falsely but in the absence of any material having been brought on record by the accused persons to show

that there was some motive for their false implication either by the police or PW-13 and his children we have no hesitation in accepting the

testimony of PW-13 also which also corroborates the testimony of PW 10 regarding the presence of all the five accused persons in their house at

the time of the incident.

Now, we come to the evidence of the other eye witness PW-12 Madhuri. Her evidence has also been narrated by us already. The criticism

against her evidence leveled by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that she has totally exonerated accused Satbir Singh and her version

regarding the incident and the part played by each one of the other four accused persons is contrary to what has been stated by her brother

Ashwani Sharma and that fact makes her testimony wholly unreliable. We, however, are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this criticism of

the evidence of PW-12. We have already noticed that accused Satbir Singh himself had claimed before the Metropolitan Magistrate that he had

been seen by the children of the deceased at the place of the incident. Therefore, just because PW-12 does not claim that she had seen this

accused also along with other accused persons in their house at the time of the occurrence the evidence of PW-12 cannot be doubted. We are

also of the view that since accused Kirpa Shankar and Gulamuddin had also admitted before the Metropolitan Magistrate who was to conduct the

test identification parade that they had also been seen by the two children of the deceased at the place of occurrence the inconsistencies highlighted

by the counsel for these two accused in the statements of PWs 10 and 12 regarding the individual role played by them at the time of occurrence

will not in any way affect the veracity of these two eye witnesses whose presence at the place of occurrence, as observed already, cannot be

doubted at all. Having rejected the criticism in respect of the evidence of the two eye witnesses we have no hesitation in concluding that from the

evidence of PWs 10 and 12 it stands established beyond any shadow of doubt that all the five accused persons had come to their house on 2-2-

99 at about 7 p.m.

Now we proceed further to examine the remaining prosecution evidence to find out if it has also been established by the prosecution that all the

five accused persons had gone to the house of the deceased to commit dacoity and whether dacoity was committed or not. On this aspect of the

prosecution case the evidence is of PW-13 Ghan Shyam Sharma, the husband of the deceased, PW-3 Shankar Singh and the investigating officer

PW-22 Inspector Ran Singh. PW-13 Ghan Shyam Sharma had also deposed that when he had left the house on the day of incident he had seen

his wife wearing ring Ex.P-22, four gold bangles Ex. P-20, pair of ear tops Ex. P-21, ring Ex. P-22, anklet Ex.P-24, gold chain Ex. P-25 and nose

pin Ex. P-23. These jewellery items, except the gold chain Ex. P-25, were handed over to the investigating officer by the doctor in the Jiwan

Hospital where the deceased had been taken after the incident vide memo Ex. PW-13/B and the same were removed from the body of the

deceased in the hospital. As far as the gold chain Ex. P-25 is concerned, the prosecution case is that it was recovered from the possession of

accused Satbir Singh in broken condition at the time of his arrest on 4-2-99 and was seized by the investigating officer vide memo Ex. PW-3/B.

PW-3 Shankar Singh is an independent witness who has deposed about the recovery of the said chain from the possession of accused Satbir

Singh. The investigating officer PW-22 Inspector Ran Singh has also deposed about the recovery of the said gold chain from accused Satbir Singh

at the time of his arrest on 4-2-99. As per both these recovery witnesses it was a broken chain. It appears that the said gold chain was removed

from the person of the deceased forcibly and in that process it might have got broken. The investigating officer Inspector Ran Singh had also

deposed that the husband of the deceased had also given the description of the chain which was missing from the body of the deceased. On going

through the cross-examination of PWs 3 and 22 we find that nothing could be elicited from them which could throw any doubt regarding the

genuineness of the recovery of the gold chain Ex. P-25 from the possession of accused Satbir Singh. PW-3 is a public witness who was associated

by the police in the investigation of this case. This witness also had no reason to depose falsely regarding the recovery of gold chain from the

possession of accused Satbir Singh. We find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness as also that of the investigating officer Inspector

Ran Singh. The husband of the deceased had identified this chain and claimed it to be belonging to his wife when it was produced in Court during

his evidence from the police malkhana. It was not challenged in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused that the said chain did not belong to

his wife nor was it claimed by accused Satbir Singh that the broken chain belonged to him. He has, in fact, totally denied the recovery of chain

from his possession. However, in view of the trustworthy evidence of the two recovery witnesses we are not inclined to accept the bare denial of

accused Satbir Singh regarding recovery of the chain from his possession. This recovery of the gold chain from the possession of accused Satbir

Singh only two days after the incident clearly establishes that it was removed by him from the body of the deceased at the time of the incident and

consequently it also stands established that all the five accused persons had gone to the house of the deceased to commit dacoity and they did

commit dacoity.

As has been noticed already, the doctors had found two stab injuries on the body of the deceased. PW-12 Ashwani Sharma has deposed that

accused Satbir Singh had stabbed his mother and PW-12 Madhuri has also deposed that accused Kirpa Shankar had stabbed his mother with a

knife. We have already observed that for establishing the charge u/s 396 IPC the prosecution was simply required to establish that while

committing dacoity one of the dacoits had caused the death of the deceased and that stands established beyond any doubt from a combined

reading of the evidence of PWs 10 and 12. We do not think that prosecution case in this regard gets affected in any manner because of PW-10

having claimed that accused Satbir Singh had stabbed his mother and PW-12 having claimed that accused Kirpa Shankar had stabbed her mother.

It having been found that the prosecution has successfully established that all the five accused persons had gone to the house of the deceased to

commit dacoity and had, in fact, committed dacoity and further that while committing dacoity the deceased was killed we have no hesitation in

affirming the finding of the learned trial Court holding all the five accused persons guilty u/s 396/34 IPC.

As far as the statement of PW-10 that accused Satbir Singh had stabbed his mother is concerned it gets corroborated from other

circumstantial evidence also adduced by the prosecution. As per the prosecution case accused Satbir Singh after his arrest had got recovered one

blood stained knife Ex. P-1 and a blood stained shirt Ex. P-2 from his house pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex. PW-18/C made by him on

4-2-99 after his arrest. About that recovery the prosecution witnesses are PW-3 Shankar Singh, PW-18 SI Tara Chand and PW-22 Inspector

Ran Singh, the investigating officer. All of them have deposed that after his arrest on 4-2-99 accused Satbir Singh had got recovered a blood

stained knife and a blood stained shirt. PWs 18 and 22 have deposed that these recoveries were made at the instance of accused Satbir Singh

from his house in Kabir Basti. The evidence of these three recovery witnesses on this aspect of the matter could also not be demolished in cross-

examination on behalf of the accused. The knife and the shirt got recovered by accused Satbir Singh were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory

(FSL) during the investigation along with the blood stained clothes of the deceased which were preserved at the time of post-mortem examination

as well as her blood sample and on examination there it was found that the blood group of the deceased was ''B'' and the blood found on the knife

Ex. P-1 and the shirt Ex. P-2 got recovered by accused Satbir Singh was also found to be human blood of ''B'' group. Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2 are

the FSL reports placed on record by the prosecution. Find of human blood of �B� group on the knife and the shirt got recovered by accused

Satbir Singh clearly corroborates the testimony of PW-10 that Satbir Singh had stabbed his mother. PW-12 Madhuri has deposed that accused

Kirpa Shankar had stabbed her mother. In her cross-examination this statement was not challenged. Since it has been accepted by us that all the

five accused had come to the house of the deceased for committing dacoity and while committing dacoity stab injuries were caused to the

deceased by two of them and since all had come together and left the place of occurrence together it is clear that all of them had shared common

intention to kill the deceased. So, all the appellants were rightly convicted u/s 302/34 IPC also.

We have, thus, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case against all the five accused persons

beyond any shadow of doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted all of them and consequently the appeals of all the five appellants

being devoid of any merit are liable to be dismissed and their convictions and sentences awarded to them deserve to be affirmed.

In the result, we dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 768/06 filed by appellant Gulamuddin, Criminal Appeal No. 785/06 filed by appellant Satbir

Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 843/06 filed by appellant Juber Alam, Criminal Appeal No. 962/06 filed by appellant Kirpa Shankar and Criminal

Appeal No. 1014/06 filed by appellant Shiv Ram and affirm the judgment of conviction dated 19-05-2006 and the order on sentence dated 22-

05-2006 passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 58/05. The appellants be informed accordingly through the Jail Superintendent

concerned.