Singh Vs. State of Nct Ofdelhi  INSC 59 (15 February 2000)
appeal is dieted against the judgment dated 14.05.99 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Designated Court-11. Delhi in Sessions Case No. 3/97.
accused namely appellant - Manjeet Singh @ Kukku, Ajay Kumar and Georn Innis @
Jerry' were booKed for trial before the designaaed court. By the impugned juigmen
the decignaed cour. acquitted accused-appcllant and Ajay Kumar of the charge
under Section 120B IPC. The court also acquitted Georg Innis @ Jerry of the
charge under Section 201 IPC.
designated court, however, found the accused appellant-ManjeetSingh guilty
under Section 302 IPC and under Secion 5 of Terrorist Activities and Disruptive
(Prevention} Act. 1987 and convicted him accordingly.
to prosecution at about 08.45 p.m on 6^ June, 91 deceased Baba Gurcharan Singh
a lawyer was murdered in his chamber by the appellant and Brij Mohan, Shri K.K.
- PW6 junior counsel attached to the chamber of the deceased. J.S. Obroi, Steno
of the deceased and Shri Bljendra Singh -PWI I - a suspended head constable of Delhi police who was a client of the
deceased, were present at the time of the occurrence. At that time the deceased
was giving dictation to his steno for filing a petition before this Court and a
young boy peeped through the door-glass of the chamber and on being signaled by
the deceased he walked inaide. He pushed PW-6 and at the same time another
person aged about 30 years also went inside the chamber. Both the persons
started firing shots trom their revolver. According to prosecution the second
person who entered subsequently was the appellant. On seeing accused persons
firing shots at tlie deceased. PW-6 rushed to the adjacent house and informed tlie
police over phone. Mrs N. Shcrjune - PW-2 sister of deceased and Mrs P.O.S. Bawa
- PW-3 wife of deceased who were in the bedroom of PW-3 came out 'on hearing
the sound of gun fire. Shri Babu Ram Thapa - PWI cook of the. deceased, who was
in the kitchen, heard sound of gun fire coming from the.
of the deceased .and .ran towards the office and he saw PW-2 and PW-3 were aiso
rushing towards the chamber of the deceased. When he reached near the chamber,
he saw the young boy and the appellant coining out with revolvers in their
hands-and abusing the deceased. He could not stop them as they ^ere armed.
son-in-law of the deceased Dr. M.L. Khatri
-PW7 and his wife Mrs. Rashi K-hstri -PW8 on being informed reached the house
of deceased and lifted the deceased with the assistance of PW-l and PW-6 ond
put him in the car and thereafter he was taken to nursing home of PW-7 where he
was declared dead.
Mohan was stated to have died in police enc-ounter at Mathura. During investigation it was
revealed that the accused - Ajay Kumar who was an accused in another criminal
case. wanted lo ehjfninate the deceased who was appointed as Special Public
Prosecutor in that case,
therefore, he conspired with deceased Brij Mohan during his
stay in Tihar Jail to eliminate the deceased.
police after getting information arrested the appellant on 5^ July. 1998 at Jabalpur and after investigation submitted
the charge sheet.
have heard Shri R.K. Mahesiwari. learned counsel for the appellant and Shri
A.S. N^mbiar. learned senior counsel for the respondent.
the. time of incident PW-o. J.S. Obroi and PW-Il were present in the chamber of
deceased. J.S. Obroi was not examined and PW-I.I was declared hostile.. PW-6
was the main witness of the occurrence and he identified the appellunt. PWs 1.2
and 3 who rushed to the chamber of deceased also identified the appellant.
--6. Junior counsei of the deceased was the eye witness and had described the manner
in which deceased was murdered in his chamber. According to him the deceased
came from out side. sat m his office and called tor suspended constable- PWI I
whose petition was to be filed in this Court and started giving dictation to
his steno Shri J. S.
At that time- a young boy peeped from the door of his office and deceased
called the boy The boy entered the office but did not sit and called his
companion who came with a revolver in his hand. The first boy took out a
revolver from his bag pushed PW-6 and at that time second boy started firing.
According to PW-6 both the assailants fired from their revolvers four - five
shots. This witness identified the appellant as the second boy who came inside
the otfice with a revolver in his hand. PW-6 ran away from the office and
called police control room from adjoining house. When he returned he found the
deceased profusely bleeding with his face down-ward on his table.
2 and 3 have also deposed that they heard the sound of gun fire coming from the
otTice of the deceased and it was about 08.45 p.m. P.W-I was in the kitchen. PWs -2 and 3 were in the bed room of PW-3.
These witnesses ran towards the office room of the deceased. They saw both the
persons and deposed that they would be able to identity the persons. They
identified the appellant.
been urged on behalf of the appellant that all the above witnesses are
interested witnesses and no reliance could be placed on then- evidence. PW-6
being the junior counsel to the deceased was expected to be in the chamber of
deceased at that time and so also the cook PW-I to be present in the house. It
was natural for PW-2 and PW-3 to be present in the house. Therefore, their
presence at the place of occurrence is quite natural. There is nothing on record
for coming to the conclusion that the above witnesses had any grudge against
the appellant. Therefore, the submission is not tenable.
been urged on behalf of the appellant that PW-6 was a planted witness and he
was not present at the time of occurrence. In this regard our attention has
been drawn to tlie evidence of PWs 2. 5 and 11. PW-2. the sister of the
deceased, was an aged lady and it was quite natarni tbpf she was under shock
when she found that her brother was murdered. Ivierely because she did not
mention PW-6 was present. Ins presence cannot be ruled out. PW 5 and PW I I torned
informed the police and it was recorded in DD Entry No. 18A. at P.S. Model Town. This was exhibited as PW 4''A. It wa.s recorded
that at 09.00 p.m PW-6 informed about the incident of
the death of the deceased. PW-4.
Constable Naram Singh has proved this entry.
the evidence of the Investigating Officer - PW35 we find that at about 09.00 p.m. on 6,6.91 he received the information about the
incident through wireless and mimediateh' proceeded to the house of the
deceased. On finding that the deceased was removed to the nursing home he went
there. PW-6 met him at the nursing home and Investigating Officer recorded his
statement. PW-6 also witnessed the seizure of various articles and signed memos
Ex. PW 3/A-F. These materials would support the presence of PW-6 at the time of
cartridge cases were recovered from the place of occurrence as per recovery
memo Ex. P-3.'A - three were of 9 m.m and two were of 45 m.m. This recovery
also supports the presence of PW6 as he deposed that two assailants fired from
lifting the body of the deceased the shirt of PW-6 stained with blood of the
deceased. The deceased had blood of '0' group but on the shirt ofPW6 a blood
stain was found of 'B' group. On behalf of the. appeilant it has been urged mat
this fact establishes the contention of the appellant that PW-6 was not present
at the place of occurrence. This aspect ha^ been dealt with by the learned
trial court who noted that the incident took place on 6.6.91 and the shirt of
PW-6 along with other exhibits lifted from tile place of occurrence was
received by C.F.S.L on 24.07.91 and in view of this inordinate delay, detection
of "B" blood group on the shirt ofPW-6 cannot destroy the other
evidence available to support the contention of the prosecution that PW-6 was
present and saw the occurrence. We agree with the trial court, in view of oral
and other supporting evidence, presence of P.W.6 at the time of occurrence
cannot be doubted.
attention has been drawn regarding over-writing in serial numbers of daily
diary recorded on 6.6.91. We find from the impugned judgment that this aspect
was duly dealt with by the trial court who recorded the finding that
over-writing was due to mistake in numbering and that there was no over-writing
or manipulation. We accept the finding of the trial court.
were recovered from the spot and those were fired from pistol. It has been contended
before us that PW-6 deposed that assailants were having revolvers and he being
an advocate would know the difference between pistol and revolver, therefore,
his evidence is not reliable. We cannot accept the submission as PW-6 is
"n advocate but not an expert in amis.
reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Pw-o was
not present at the time of occurrence. We have already stated that being a
junior counsel of the deceased. Ins presence was quite natural in the chamber
of the deceased at the relevant time.
the occurrence. P.W.I.. P.W.3 and P.W.6 gave description of the assailants to
the Investigating Officer - P.W.35, who could suspect that the appellant was
one of the culprits as he had previous police records and was involved in other
criminal cases. On the basis of this description police moved and apprehended
the appellant at Jablapur.
fact would support that the above eye witnesses could identify the appellant at
the time of occurrence.
stated that he rushed to the chamber of the deceased on hearing gun shot. From
his evidence we find that he was rushed to the chamber through corridor and saw
two assailants coming out by the door fi the chamber of the deceased through
which tills v'.'imess 'vent inside. Considering the distance as per sketch map
and the lay out of the place statement of P.W.I that he saw the assailans canno
the appellnt was brought to he house of the deceased on 8.7.91. P.Ws 1,2,3 and
6 identified the appellant. From the above discussion we hold that there wa-s
learned counsel for the appellant has raised serious objection for
non-examination of Ashok Talwar irom whose statement appellant was arrested.
PW-35 has stated on oath that in spite of best efforts he could not locate
tills wmiess. Non-examination has been duly explained by tlie prosecution.
the evidence ofPW-L we find that the appellant .first came to the chamber of
the deceased when PW-l was preseni and inquired about the deceased from PW-I
and on coin ins to know that the deceased would be returning after some time
the appellant a-sked for a glass of water which was given by PW-i. According to
PW-i tills glass was kept on the table and was also seized by tlie police but not
produced at tlie time of trial. According to the learned counsel tor the
appellant tlie prosecution did not produce the. glass as there was no finger
prints of tlie appellant.
after the occurrence number of per.i'ons c.ime to the chamber of the deceased
and it was quite natural that finger prints on The glass might have wiped out
or super imposed by the finger prints of others. For this. the prosecution
cannot be faulted.
have also perused the entire evidence on recora and hold lhat the learned trial
court rightly convicted the appellant.
the rcasons stated above the appeal has no merit and accordingly dismissed.