Karan Mandal vs State

Pradeep Nandraiog, J.—It is not in dispute that the deceased Daljeet Kaur, along with her husband Harjit Singh PW-11, were residing in Flat No. 43, Gole Market, New Delhi. PW-11 was carrying on business from a shop bearing No. 63, Municipal Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The distance between the flat and the shop is about 1 kilometer.

Process of law swung into action when at 12.44 noon DD Entry No. 5-A, Ex.PW-17/A was recorded by HC Gopi Chand PW-17 on 27.4.2000, to the effect that he had received information from a PCR to the effect a thief had entered 109 Gupta Restaurant, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi.

SI Brijesh Malik, PW-2 took the copy of the DD Entry and accompanied by Const. Sarvesh PW-21, and Const. Roop Kishore PW-16, left for 109 Gupta Restaurant, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi. At the same time Inspector Ishwar Singh PW-23, who had also been informed about a thief being caught in Bhagat Singh Marg reached the spot.

By the time police reached the spot, PW-11 Harjit Singh the husband of the deceased had already reached the spot since Gaurav Chadha PW-4, who has an office in front of the flat of the deceased had informed him over the telephone that a thief has entered his house. Pawan Soni PW-1, and Inder Mohan PW-9, were also found by the police at the site.

On noticing that the door of the flat was bolted from within Harjit Singh PW-11, with the help of a key with him attempted to open the door but failed. The door was pushed. It was forcibly opened. The accused was apprehended at the spot. His clothes were having blood stains. A bag containing certain valuables was seized.

This in a nutshell is the case of the prosecution while charging the appellant for having connived with Paras (declared proclaimed offender) for having murdered the deceased; both having entered the house with the intention to commit robbery.

Reverting back to the action taken by the police at the spot, Inspector Ishwar Singh PW-23 seized a knife purportedly used for committing the offence vide memo Ex.PW-1/B and thereafter a sketch thereof, Ex.PW-1/B, was drawn by him. From the spot, blood, blood earth and piece of floor were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/C. The body of the deceased Daljeet Kaur was sent to RML Hospital where Dr. Atsung Aiyer declared her brought dead and penned the MLC recording the following external injuries:

(i) Incised wound approximately 5" x 0.5" extending from right side chin up to the right side jaw.

(ii) Incised wound in front of the neck 6" x 2" with exposure of underlying muscles and vessels.

(iii) Incised wound 4" in length in left mastoid region.

(iv) Lacerated wound in the left supra-tla-vascular and clavicular region approximate size 0.5".

(v) Abrasion over the left shoulder region.

(vi) An injury around the neck.

The blood-stained clothes and the under-garments of the deceased were seized by the police.

Const. Kulbeer PW-12, working as a photographer was summoned who took photographs of the scene of crime, Ex.PW-12/1-21, negatives whereof were Ex.PW-21/21. The investigating officer drew a rough sketch of the site where the offence was committed and on 14.6.2000, SI Mahesh Kumar PW-15, prepared the site-plan to scale, Ex.PW-15/A.

The dead body was sent for post-mortem to Lady Hardinge Medical College where Dr. Yashoda Rani PW-18, conducted the autopsy and submitted the report Ex.PW-18/A recording the following 6 injuries on the person of the deceased:

(i) Incised wound 12 x 3 x 1.5 cm over the middle front of the neck. 5 cm below the chin cutting the sub cutaneous muscles and the trachea.

(ii) Incised wound 13 x .5 cm. bony deep, horizontally placed over right side of the chin up to right side of jaw.

(iii) Incised wound 6 x .5 cm. over left side neck 3 cm. below left ear.

(iv) 3 superficial lacerated wound of 2 x 1.5 cm and one incised wound of 2 x 1.5 x .5 cm present interia of 8 x 2 cm over left supraclavicular and clavicular region.

(v) Linear abrasion 6 x .2 cm over left side of the neck.

(vi) Linear abrasion 4 x .2 cm over right side of neck. Both five and six are transveras placed.

Internal injuries recorded that the larynx and pharynx contained blood. The trichia contained blood. It was opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to the neck and that injury No. 1 to 4 could have been caused by a sharp-edged cutting weapon and that injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death.

The accused who was apprehended at the spot was stated to have been beaten by the public. He was taken to RML Hospital where he was examined by a duty doctor who noted on the MLC that the accused was injured and his pant and shirt were stained with blood. The same were handed over to the police.

The blood-stained clothes of the deceased, the accused and the other blood-stained objects lifted from the scene of the crime were sent to the forensic science laboratory and report Ex.PA and Ex.PB was obtained from A.K. Srivastava, Sr. Scientific Officer as per which the same blood group i.e. ''A'' was detected on the clothes and under-garments worn by the deceased and from the shirt and pant of the appellant.

The police recorded statements of persons present at the spot who inculpated the appellant and one Paras, engaged as a driver by PW-11, the husband of the deceased and the deceased.

Paras could not be apprehended and was declared a proclaimed offender. Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

At the trial various police officers associated with the investigation were examined. The doctor who recorded the MLC of the deceased as also who conducted the post-mortem were examined. The report of the forensic science laboratory was tendered in evidence.

PW-1, Pawan Kumar Soni the business partner of Inder Mohan Singh, PW-9 stated in evidence that on 27.4.2000 he and Inder Mohan Singh had gone to Miturishi Bank at Parliament Street to withdraw money and were returning to their shop at Karol Bagh via Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg. They reached Bhagat Singh Marg at around 12/12.30 noon and on noticing a crowd gathered there asked the persons gathered as to what the matter was and were informed that the cries ''bachao bachao'' were being heard from the flat on the first floor. He stated that he went to the first floor of the house and found the door bolted from inside. He tried to open the door but could not do so. He came down and with the help of a ladder reached up from the back lane and on peeping through the window found the deceased lying on the floor. He came down and by that time the husband of the deceased had reached the spot. Somebody had informed the police who reached the spot. The husband of the deceased could not open the door in the front with a key and hence the door was broken open and on entry inside the accused was caught with a carry bag and a knife in his hand. The public gave a beating to the accused. He stated that the knife was seized in his presence and a sketch was prepared in his presence.

Inder Mohan PW-9, deposed in harmony with the deposition of PW-1 till PW-1 deposed of having broken the door of the flat and having entered inside. In other words, PW-9 did not depose of having witnessed the arrest of the accused from the spot. Sardar Harvinder Mohit PW-3, the son of the deceased deposed that on 27.4.2000 he received a call on his mobile informing him that a robbery was on at his house and therefore he should rush there. He rushed to his residence and when he reached he found his mother lying in a pool of blood and the accused apprehended by the police.

Saurabh Chadha PW-4 stated that he has his office in front of the house of the deceased, and that at around 12.20 noon he saw the driver of the deceased running with blood spots on his shirts. He learnt that a robbery had been committed in the house of the deceased. Avinash Chander PW-5 stated that when he was conducting business at his shop 82 Bhagat Singh Marg he saw Paras, the driver engaged by the deceased running away with blood stains on his shirt.

Harjit Singh PW-11, the husband of the deceased deposed that at 12.15 PM he was at his shop at Connaught Place and received a telephonic call from one Gaurav Chadha, his neighbour, informing that a thief had entered his house. He immediately reached the house and saw a crowd having gathered outside the house. He reached the door of the flat and found it locked from inside. He tried to open the lock with a key but could not do so. With the aid of public persons present the door was pushed and upon entering the flat he saw the accused standing with a knife in his hand and a polythene bag in the other hand. He stated that the public persons gave beating to the accused and since somebody had informed the police, the police reached the spot. He deposed that the knife was seized in his presence and that the items seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/C were seized in his presence. He deposed that the accused was apprehended in his presence.

Noting that the FIR was recorded promptly and that there was no tampering with the various articles seized, with reference to the testimony of the witnesses, learned Trial Judge has held that the following chain of facts has been proved beyond reasonable doubt:

(1) Cries of deceased ''Bachao-bachao'' are heard by PWs.

(2) A crowd of people goes upstairs and finds the door closed.

(3) Door of the house is pushed open by husband of deceased with help of crowd.

(4) Accused is found with a blood stained knife inside the room where deceased has been brutally murdered.

(5) Accused is beaten by the crowd.

(6) The knife recovered from accused, as per the doctor is the knife with which injuries could have been inflicted on deceased.

(7) The injuries caused were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

(8) The robbed articles were found in hand of accused in a polythene bag, when crowd pushed opened the door.

Learned Judge has held that the charge u/s 302 IPC for murder of Daljeet Kaur and u/s 397 IPC for committing robbery has been established. Holding it not to be the rarest of the rare case appellant has been inflicted with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo R1 for six months for the offence of murder. For the offence u/s 397 IPC similar sentence has been imposed. Both sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

At the hearing today, Shri Bhupesh Narula, learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that PW-9 was the son-in-law of the deceased and PW-1 was a friend of PW-9 and hence their testimony requires to be considered with a pinch of salt as according to the learned Counsel they are interested witnesses. Same is the case of the testimony of PW-11, the husband of the deceased, urges Shri Bhupesh Narula. It is urged that presence of PW-1 and PW-9 at the spot is unnatural. Counsel urges that the conduct of PW-9 who is the son-in-law of the deceased is unnatural because if he was present at the site, it was he and not his friend who would be expected to go upstairs to the first floor flat and try and open the door. Counsel urges that why would PW-1 take the risk of going up, knowing fully well that a robber was inside the flat.

The afore-noted submissions are neither here nor there. How a particular witness reacts in a given situation can never be predicted. We find nothing unnatural in PW-1 taking a pro-active role and not PW-9. That PW-1 and PW-9 were present at the spot is evidenced by the fact that PW-1 is a witness to the seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B. His statement Ex.PW-1/D was recorded at the spot and this statement forms the basis of the FIR being registered. The FIR has been registered at 12.45 PM. The rukka from the spot was dispatched at 2.30 PM as recorded in the rukka. The circumstances under which PW-1 and PW-9 were at the spot has been disclosed by PW-1 in his statement, contents whereof have been noted by us in para 16 above. The presence at the spot has been satisfactorily explained.

No infirmity has been pointed out to us by learned Counsel for the appellant in the testimony of the public witnesses who were present at the spot. Indeed, each one of them had satisfactorily explained his presence.

It is urged by learned Counsel that it is strange that the police personnel reached the flat without knowing its number. Counsel urges that as recorded in the DD entry, Ex.PW-17/A the information received by the police was that a thief had entered 109 Gupta Restaurant, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market.

The submission has to be noted and rejected for the reason, as noted by the learned Trial Judge, Gupta Restaurant is on the ground floor and right above is the flat where the deceased was injured and murdered.

The presence of the appellant at the site is admitted by him. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., when questioned did he have anything else to say, the appellant answered:

I had come to Delhi from Tomilla Village West Bengal by train on 26.4.00 and reached Delhi in the night of 26.4.00. On 27.4.00 after depositing my luggage in the luggage room I went to Birla Mandir at about 10 am by bus. I was coming from Birla Mandir on foot as I wanted to see Delhi. I had asked people for the way to station. I had spent about 1/ one and half hour at Birla Mandir. While I was going towards station I found crowd in a gali. Seeing crowd I also went towards the crowd. When reached near the crowd people were saying that some thief is there. The people downstairs were saying "Pakdo Pakdo" so I went upstairs. Other people followed me. I pushed the door of a room and it got opened so I went in. The other people also came inside the room. When I went inside the room I do not know what happened to me but I fell down. Again said I fell down because somebody had hit me on my back side of the head. Again said when I fell down I received injuries on my forehead and back side of head. I do not know what happened to other people. I lost consciousness and I regained consciousness in the hospital. I have one mother and brother and elder sister in West Bengal. I had taken Rs. 4800 when I started from village. From village I had come to Midnapur station and purchased a ticket of Rs. 150/200. I purchased ticket of Rs. 300/400 for train. Nobody was knowing me in Delhi. I deposited luggage but no receipt was given to me. I had spent my night on the station. This is a false case against me. Police had assured me that police will leave me.

We concur with the chain of facts held to be proved by the learned Trial Judge, contents whereof have been noted by us in para 20 above. One vital fact in the chain has been omitted to be noted by the learned Trial Judge. The same is the opinion recorded in the FSL report Ex.PA and Ex.PB to the effect that the blood group on the pant and the shirt worn by the appellant when he was arrested matched that of the deceased.

We find no infirmity in the impugned decision.

The appeal is dismissed.