BABLU AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BABLU and Pankaj Kumar Gupta have challenged their conviction vide judgment dated 6th August, 2011 for having committed murder of Pappu on 17th January, 2010, at about 11.00 P.M., on the pavement of main road Najafgarh, in front of Metro Pillar No. 564, New Mahavir Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi. The two appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). They have been directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each, in default of which, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The prosecution case is premised upon the statement of alleged eye witness Satpal (PW -4) who, in his examination -in -chief, stated that he was employed as a watchman at Kamal Tent House, New Mahavir Nagar, Tilak Nagar. On 17th January, 2010, at about 8.00 P.M., he came to attend his duty and was warming himself by burning wood. At about 11.00 P.M. Pankaj and Bablu, who were employed in the tent house, joined him and started warming themselves. They also had liquor. Thereafter, he went on a round, as a part of his duty, and when he returned he saw that the appellants -Pankaj and Bablu were quarrelling and abusing Pappu. The appellant -Pankaj dashed Pappu to the ground and caught him. Meanwhile, appellant Bablu hit Pappu on his head twice, with a big stone. According to PW -4, the quarrel occurred over a money dispute. Before hitting Pappu, the appellant Bablu had said that he would finish him. Thereafter, the appellants ran away. Satpal (PW -4) avers that he informed his son about the alleged incident and his son called the owner of the Kamal Tent House. Police came to the spot and recorded his statement (Exhibit PW -4/A) which bears his signatures. Subsequently, on 19th January, 2010 at 2.00 P.M. and 4.30 P.M. respectively, the two appellants Bablu and Pankaj were arrested, after being identified by PW -4, who is also a signatory to the arrest memos (Exhibits PW -4/B and PW -4/D, respectively).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has submitted that PW -4 was not an eye witness and consequently his version should not be accepted and has been wrongly believed by the trial court. Various inconsistencies in PW -4's statement and the statement of ASI Gurcharan Singh (PW -21) and Constable Charanjeet Singh (PW -14) have been pointed out. It is submitted that according to PW -21 and PW -14 when they reached the spot of occurrence, on 17/18 January, 2010, they could not locate any eye witness and this is in stark contrast to PW 4's version who claims to be at the spot when the police arrived.

(3.) IN the present case, the police swung into action after information was received at Police Control Room on 17th October, 2010 at 2136 hours (vide Exhibit PW -16/A), that near Pillar No. 564, New Mahavir Nagar, Tilak Nagar, one person was lying unconscious. The call was made by Kapil Batra from telephone no. 9818019341. The PCR van reached the crime spot and recorded, at 2359 hours, that one dead male body was found. What is to be noticed is that name of the person is not mentioned anywhere in Exhibit PW -16/A. Neither did the informer, i.e., Kapil Batra (PW -6) give the deceased's name. The PCR van and the police officers remained present at the crime spot till at least 1.13 hours on 18th January, 2010. On the basis of information given by the PCR van, DD entry No. 40A dated 17th January, "2010 (Exhibit PW -1/A) was recorded at about 11.40 P.M. The said entry again does not mention the person's name who was found unconscious at the said spot.