RANJEET Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the investigative agency of police was set into motion on 20th December, 2010. On that day, Constable Babu Lal of PS Bara Hindu Rao along with Constable Vinod, Members of Quick Reaction Team (QRT) were on duty at Azad Market red light. At about 7 p.m. HC Ved Prakash came to them in injured condition and told that he had been stabbed at Railway track. This information was supplied to Duty Officer, PS Bara Hindu Rao on mobile phone and a DD No. 20A was recorded. Both of them thereafter shifted the injured to Hindu Rao hospital in QRT vehicle and the injured was admitted in the hospital. SI Ganga Dhar and SI Rohit reached at the hospital. Injured was declared unfit for statement. SI Ganga Dhar collected MLC of the injured. SHO/Inspector Satish Bhardwaj also reached at the hospital. They thereafter reached at the railway track. No eye witness was found there. It was dark. An endorsement was made on DD no. 22A and the rukka was prepared and the FIR was registered in this case. The injured HC Ved Prakash was in a bad condition and needed operation immediately. Consent to the operation was given by PW1 Constable Babu Lal. Certain parcels/pulandas were seized from the hospital. On 23.12.2011, statement of injured was recorded. He had not named the appellant in his statement. Thereafter on 25th December, 2010 the appellant was arrested by ASI S.K. Srivastava along with Constable Sajjan and HC Narender who were posted at AATS Central District under Section 411 (A) Cr.P.C. Appellant made a disclosure statement. In his disclosure statement he disclosed about this incident. He had also disclosed that one of his friend was also involved who took up the article which the injured had kept on the railway line and ran away and he also followed his friend. On the disclosure statement of the appellant he was found involved in this case. He was arrested on 26th December, 2010 in this case and was remanded to the judicial custody. He was in judicial custody when an application for holding Test Identification Parade (TIP) was moved on 3.1.2011. Appellant refused to participate in the TIP on the plea that he had been shown to the injured in the hospital. He had been given the statutory warning that his statement of refusal to TIP shall be used as a piece of evidence against him. Even despite the statutory warning, the appellant refused to participate in the TIP. Thereafter police custody remand of the appellant was sought on that day and he was taken to Hindu Rao hospital where the injured was admitted. At about 5.30 p.m. the injured was shifted from Intensive Care Unit to the Ward. The appellant was shown to the injured. The injured identified the appellant as his assailant and an identification memo was prepared. The accomplice of the appellant who had stolen the inverter of the injured, could not be arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed under Section 307/379/34 IPC against the appellant.

(2.) CHARGES for these offences were framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. Prosecution had examined 15 witnesses. All the prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. He had denied all the evidence against him as incorrect and had taken the plea that he had been falsely implicated and that he was innocent. He had taken the plea that he had not gone to the railway track and that he did not make any disclosure statement and that his signatures were obtained on blank papers under coercion; that he was shown to the injured before being produced in the court and that HC Ved Prakash injured had falsely implicated him as he failed to satisfy his illegal demand. The appellant has examined Shri Pushpender Kumar Sharma as defence witness. This witness has stated that at Kishan Ganj railway station, where he had gone to see off his friend Sunny, he witnessed a quarrel between an old man aged about 40 -42 years and a boy aged about 27 -28 years who was holding a knife in his hand. He reached near them and he saw the boy stabbing the old man. After considering all the evidence on record and taking into consideration the defence produced by the appellant, the learned trial court had reached to the conclusion that the charges under Section 307/379 IPC stands proved against the appellant and returned the guilt of the appellant under these two sections.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of learned APP for the State that the appellant was never shown to the injured before 3.1.2011. His refusal to participate in TIP an adverse inference can be drawn against him and he has been identified by the injured PW7 in court and there is nothing to suggest false implication of accused in this case.