Shakeel@ Bhura v. State

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J. JANUARY 14, 2009/dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 14th January, 2009 + CRL.A. 142/2007 SHAKEEL@ BHURA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Javed Alvi, 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? Yes 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) Crl.M.B.94/2008 Learned counsel for the appellant and the State jointly state that the main appeal may be heard today itself. The application is dismissed as infructuous since we are hearing arguments in the main appeal. Crl.Appeal No.142/2007 1. The case of the prosecution is that Const.Gajender Singh, PW-2, while on patrol duty at 10:00 PM on 18.10.2002 found a person in an injured condition on Thekewala Road near Sulabh Sauchalya, Metro Apartments, Jahangir Puri, murmuring in pain, that he had been stabbed. Const.Gajender took the injured on a rickshaw to BJRM Hospital and claims that on the way to the hospital the injured informed him that Bhura i.e. the appellant was the assailant. Const.Gajender claimed that on the way to the hospital, wife of the deceased, PW-1, Sangeeta had incidentally met him and had disclosed the name of the injured, introducing herself as the wife of the injured. 2. As per MLC, Ex.PW-13/A, the injured was declared dead when he was brought to the casualty of the hospital at 10.15 P.M. 3. FIR No.699/02, Ex.PW-9/A was registered by PW-9, ASI Zahur Singh at PS Jahangir Puri. 4. As per the prosecution, the accused made a disclosure statement in the presence of HC Jogi Ram, PW-7, pursuant whereto the weapon of offence, a knife was recovered at the instance of the appellant who pointed out the place where the knife was ostensibly hidden by him after committing the crime. 5. It is not in dispute that another FIR, being FIR No.698/02, under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered on 18.10.2002 at the same police station i.e. PS Jahangir Puri against the appellant, as according to the police he was found in possession of a knife. It is not in dispute that in FIR No.698/02, PS Jahangir Puri, the appellant was arrested by the police at 7.30 PM and continued to be in the custody of the police till he was produced before a Magistrate the next day. 6. At the trial, PW-1, the wife of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution inasmuch as she deposed that on the day of the occurrence i.e. 18.10.2002 she received an information by a neighbour at 11.30 PM that her husband was lying near a liquor shop at Jahangir Puri. She reached the liquor shop and found that her husband was lying cold having injuries on the stomach and that a crowd had collected at the spot. She stated that the police had reached there. She stated that the police took her husband to the hospital where she identified the dead body of her husband and thereafter her statement, Ex.PW-1/B, was recorded. She stated that she was not aware as to how her husband was killed. 7. A two-fold contention was urged before the learned Trial Judge during arguments. Firstly, that PW-1 had contradicted PW-2 with respect to PW-2 having met her and she having told him that the injured person he was taking to the hospital was her husband Gurudev. It is urged that the testimony of Const.Gajender, PW-2 was thus suspect. 8. A more forceful submission has been made. It is urged that as per the record of the police station pertaining to FIR No.698/02, the appellant was arrested at 7.30 PM. Where was the occasion for him to have inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased at around 10.00 P.M? Learned counsel urges that PW-2 has falsely deposed of the deceased having made a dying declaration to him. 9. We find from the impugned judgment that the learned Trial Judge has brushed aside both submissions. Though, the same have been noted as the contention