Naveen Kumar v. State of Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

MARCH 13, 2009 mm

R-20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 293/2001 % Date of Order: 13th March, 2009 NAVEEN KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Sheikh Israr Ahmad, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Vide judgment and order dated 9.4.2001 the appellant has been convicted for the offence of murdering Arjun. 2. We note that Arjun died as a result of receiving a single gun shot wound. The weapon of offence could not be recovered. 3. The appellant has been convicted on the basis of the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 and the fact that his T-shirt, which he was wearing at the time of his arrest, was found to be stained with blood and as per the report of the serologist was opined to be human blood of group "A"; the same blood group as that of the deceased. Lastly, the learned Trial Judge has held that the presence of the appellant at the site was established and thus the defence was falsified. 4. Pertaining to the last circumstance used by the learned Trial Judge, we fail to understand the purport of the last sentence in para 11 of the decision to the effect: 'presence of accused has been proved on record which falsifies his defence". 5. We do not find that the appellant had taken or raised the plea of alibi. 6. We are thus left with the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 and the presence of human blood on the T-shirt of the appellant which was opined to be of group "A" i.e. the same blood group as that of the deceased. 7. PW-1 Amad deposed that on 29.1.1998 he was in his office at South Extension and was informed that his brother Arjun had met with an accident. He came to the house and did not find his brother and learnt that he had been removed to the hospital. When he reached home his brother Mahesh told him that the appellant had fired at Arjun. 8. PW-2 deposed as under:- "On 29.1.1998 I along with my brother Arjun and one other brother Dinni, were present at the house at about 12 noon. Accused Naveen present in the court (correctly identified) came and asked for my elder brother Durgesh. I told him that he has gone out for duty. Naveen came inside and sat by my side. He brought out something which was in a wooden case and placed the same on my cot. I felt sleepy and went in drowsiness while my brother Arjun was standing. Suddenly I heard a bang. I felt gun powder entering my eyes. Naveen ran away from the spot along with the weapon of offence. I ran after hi. I stopped him on the way in a gali. I asked him as to why he had attacked my brother, whereupon he said that he had no intention to attack, and it had occurred by chance. I and Naveen accused removed Arjun to hospital. My uncle Ashok also reached the hospital after being informed by somebody and on seeing my uncle Ashok Naveen left the hospital. Arjun had received injuries on his face. XXXXXXX by H.O.Bhaskar counsel for accused. I do not know what statement mine was recorded by police. My statement was recorded by police at hospital on 29.1.1998. I stated before the police that Dinni was present at the house when Naveen came. Confronted from statement Ex.PW-2/DA where it is not so recorded. I have told the police that I have told Naveen that my brother had gone for duty. Confronted from Ex.PW-2/DA where it is not so recorded. I had told the police and Naveen came and sat by the side confronted with statement Ex.PW-2/DA where it is not so recorded. I do not remember whether I told the police that Naveen had brought out something which was in a wooden case and place the same on a cot. Confronted Ex.PW-1/DA where it is not recorded I have told the police that I felt sleepy and went in drowsiness while my brother Arjun was standing confronted with Ex.PW-2/DA where it is not so rec