STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. HUSSAIN @ RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 26.02.2008 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 108/2002 by which the Respondent was acquitted of the charge of committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 19.06.2004 Daily Diary (DD) entry No. 24 -A was recorded at 8.27 P.M. at PS Narela on getting information from HC Kamruddin that a boy aged about 3 years was murdered near a temple, in Safiabad border. The investigation was assigned to SI Ram Chander who, with Constable Dataar Singh reached the spot. He recorded the statement of Manmohan Sharma (uncle of the deceased) who stated that his nephew Ravi was playing with children outside his shop at about 5.00 P.M. The accused Raju his former employee, was also standing there. He took Ravi with him inside Ekta Murgi Farm. After some time, when his father and Raju inquired from him regarding whereabouts of Ravi, he told them to search him near the temple but he could not find him. He further stated that at 7.00 P.M. while searching for Ravi, he met Kuldeep who told him that he had seen the accused going with Ravi towards nearby fields belonging to Anand Khatri. On reaching there, they saw Ravi's dead body lying there. He suspected the accused to have committed the crime as he wanted to seek revenge for terminating his employment.

(2.) SI Ram Chander made an endorsement on the statement and sent the rukka through Constable Dataar for registering the case under Section 302 IPC. Further investigation was taken over by Inspector Mahipal Singh who summoned the crime team to the spot. The team inspected the scene of the crime and took photographs. The IO lifted earth control sample, blood stained soil, sample soil and one dipper of the right foot by preparing a seizure memo. He recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts. The accused who reached the spot was arrested. During investigation, he made a disclosure statement and pursuant to that, he recovered a pant (trouser) and shirt which he was wearing at the time of the incident. He also led the police team to the spot and recovered the blood stained brick from the millet filed. The IO sent the exhibits to forensic laboratory (FSL) and subsequently, collected the report. After the completion of investigation, the accused was charge -sheeted for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC and was duly charged and brought to trial.

(3.) LEARNED APP challenged the findings of the Trial Court and urged that it did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and fell into grave error in disbelieving the testimonies of PW -2 (Manmohan Sharma), PW -3 (Ajay), PW -8 (Ramanand) and PW -12 (Kuldeep) without cogent reasons. All these witnesses had last seen the child alive in the company of the accused. They had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused. Minor contradictions and discrepancies in their depositions were not sufficient to discard their version. The Trial Court, urged the counsel, ignored the material circumstance of motive to commit the crime. The accused wanted to wreck revenge because PW -2 (Manmohan Sharma) had terminated his services and did not re -employ him despite repeated requests. He further contended that the recovery of blood stained clothes and weapon of offence i.e. brick pursuant to the disclosure of the accused were vital incriminating circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused which were ignored by the Trial Court. The ocular evidence of the material witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence i.e. post -mortem and FSL reports.