State v. Manjit & Ors

S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J

G. P. MITTAL, J

JULY 22, 2011

'ajk'

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22.07.2011 + CRL.L.P. 76/2011 STATE ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. Jaideep Malik, APP. versus MANJIT & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. P. MITTAL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % Crl. M.A. 1706/2011 (Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) in Crl. L.P. 76/2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. Crl. M.A. 1706/2011 stands disposed of accordingly. Crl. L.P. 76/2011 1. The State, by this petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 24.04.2010 in S.C. No. 62/2008. The respondents were charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 302/392/411/120-B/34 IPC. 2. The prosecution allegations were that on 03.02.2007, one Pramod Kumar was Page 2 attacked sometime in the forenoon in his premises – Flat No. 226, Pocket-E, Sector-17, Peepal Apartment, Dwarka. The information to this effect was received by D.D. No. 20- A by the Police Control Room (PCR), Police Station Dwarka. The initial information appeared to be, besides attack, Pramod Kumar's chain and ring had been snatched. The police, after reaching the premises, found that Pramod Kumar had died; he appeared to have been beaten. His blood soaked body and the other personal effects were seized and investigation took place. The police recorded the statement of Meenakshi, PW-1, who claimed to have witnessed the attack. She was an Office Assistant employed by the deceased with effect from 20.12.2006 on a monthly salary of ` 3,000/-. She had stated that at around 11.00 am on the date of the incident, her co-worker Sunil had gone to the deceased's premises and later, after talking to Pramod, went away. About half an hour later, someone knocked on the door, and when it was opened by the deceased three persons entered. PW-1 further stated to the police that the tallest among the three – who entered the premises showed an Identity Card of Pramod Kumar and claimed that he found it on the way. Pramod Kumar, however, refused having lost it whereupon she was asked to fetch some water for the three. At that moment, Pramod Kumar was taken to the bedroom adjacent to the drawing room and given beatings. PW-1 also stated that Pramod Kumar had been tied and gagged with the handkerchief. PW-1 tried to raise an alarm upon which the same assailant, the tall person grabbed her and took her to the kitchen. The other two were alleged to have killed Pramod Kumar. The three appellants left after taking-away the gold chain and ring besides Pramod Kumar's mobile phone. 3. The prosecution had alleged that Sunil Kumar, Jitender Kumar @ JK and Mohit were arrested on 22.03.2007 after which the other three accused were arrested. The prosecution further alleged that there was some inter se financial transaction between the accused, one of whom had been told to collect ` 30,000/- from the deceased Pramod Kumar, which he allegedly owed. This was the motive pressed by the prosecution. 4. The prosecution mainly relied on the testimonies of PWs-1 and 2. PW-1 had claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident. However, in the course of her deposition before the Court, she turned hostile and completely disowned making any statement to the police. She did not identify any of the accused – even the three alleged to have been Page 3 seen by her at the time of the incident. So far as the testimony of PW-2 was concerned, the prosecution relied on it to establish the motive. She was the wife of the deceased. She claimed to have no knowledge about the alleged transaction, which formed the basis of prosecution story, for motive. 5. Upon a consideration of the entire evidence, the Trial Court