Singh Vs. V.State of Nct Ofdelhi  INSC 61 (15 February 2000)
Nanavati )( S.N. Phukan)
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. Three 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.
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.
The 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. Hence the present-appeal.
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.
Tyagi - 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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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. Obroi. 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.
was in the kitchen. PWs -2 and 3 were in the bed room of PW-3.
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.
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.
and PW I I torned hostile.
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.
Head 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
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.
therefore, 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. This 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.
the distance as per sketch map and the lay out of the place statement of P.W.I
that he saw the assailans canno be doubted.
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.
as there was no finger prints of tlie appellant. Immediately 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
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.