State v. Sarvan @ Sanju

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

R.K.GAUBA, J. SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 NA

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 547/2015 Date of decision: 22nd September, 2015 STATE ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP with Inspector Om Prakash Pawar, SHO, NDRS. versus SARVAN @ SANJU ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA SANJIV KHANNA (ORAL) The impugned judgment dated 18th February, 2015, acquits Sarvan @ Sanju from the charge that he along with his associates Firoz and Dharmender (not arrested and proclaimed offenders) had committed murder of Rakesh in the intervening night between 3rd and 4th May, 2013 at platform Nos.6 and 7 of New Delhi Railway Station. It is alleged that deceased Rakesh has suffered homicidal death as he was hit by a heavy stone and other objects and was made to lie on the railway line as a result of which, he was run over by a train. 2. The impugned judgment records and accepts that the deceased Rakesh may have suffered homicidal death in view of the post mortem of Rakesh marked Ex.PW4/A proved by Dr. S. Lal (PW4), which records ante mortem injuries in the form of lacerated wounds and bruises. Dr. S. Lal (PW4) has also affirmed crushed injury on the left upper limb of the middle arm. The cause of death was shock due to cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon blunt object injury on the head, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. This injury, PW4 opined, was ante-mortem in nature. The other words, the crush injuries were post-mortem i.e. after Rakesh had died. 3. On the question of involvement of the respondent, the prosecution charge sheet relies and is predicted on the testimony of one eye witness i.e. Deepak (PW18). The trial court in the impugned judgment has elucidated and given several reasons as to why the said witness is not trustworthy and should not be relied for convicting the respondent. We have examined the said grounds and find that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court do not require interference. The elucidation by the trail court is meritorious and credible. 4. As per the prosecution version, dead body of Rakesh was recovered and came to the notice of the police after DD No.2A dated 4th May, 2013 was recorded at about 12.30 midnight. The DD entry mentions that a dead body was lying between railway tracks going from platform No.10, New Delhi Railway Station. Thereafter, ASI Raghubir Singh (PW8) had visited the spot and had seen a dead body of a male, whose right hand had been chopped. PW-8 filled up the inquest form and deposited the dead body in Subzi Mandi mortuary. PW8 had again visited the spot in question at about 6.40 A.M. Crime Team was called and evidence and material at the site were collected. It is apparent that ASI Raghubir Singh (PW8) did meet and could not ascertain whether any eye witness had seen the occurrence. No one came forward or had informed ASI Raghubir Singh (PW8) or any other police officer that he or someone else had seen the occurrence or elucidated and stated how the deceased had died. 5. Deepak (PW18) accepts that he had visited and got himself medically examined at the Lady Harding Medical College vide MLC Ex.PW2/A at about 2.15 P.M. on 4th May, 2013 i.e. nearly 14 hours after the dead body of Rakesh was noticed lying on the railway track. He had abrasions over the right knee and left leg and swelling on the right distal eye. There were also abrasions and swelling below the left eye. The injuries, it was opined, were simple. The MLC marked ExPW2/A was written and signed by Dr. Harvinder Dev (PW2). Dr. Debashis (PW3) has deposed that as per the X-ray, no bone injury was found. It is only after Deepak (PW18) had come to the hospital and was examined, as per the police version that they came to know about the involvement of the respondent. Sarvan @ Sanju and others. Thus, Deepak (PW18), who claims himself to be an eye witness, did not report about the occurrence to the police. Relevantly, Deepak (PW18) avers that he was worki