Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
MANJEE SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF NCT OFDELHI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2000
BENCH:
G.T. Nanavati, S.N.Phukan
JUDGMENT:
PHUKLAN, J.
This 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. 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.
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.
According 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. 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.
chamber 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
revolvers in their hands-and abusing the deceased. He could
not stop them as they ^ere armed.
Immediately.. 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.
Brij 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, <HR>
therefore, he conspired with deceased Brij Mohan
during his stay in Tihar Jail to eliminate the deceased.
The police after getting information arrested the appellant
on 5^ July. 1998 at Jabalpur and after investigation
submitted
the charge sheet.
We have heard Shri R.K. Mahesiwari. learned counsel
for the appellant and Shri A.S. N^mbiar. learned senior
counsel for the respondent.
At 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.
PW --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.
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.
PWs 1. 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.
It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that all
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
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.
It has 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 hostile.
PW-6 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.
Head Constable Naram Singh has proved this entry.
From 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 occurrence.
Five 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 their revolvers.
While 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.
Our attention has been drawn regarding over-writing in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
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.
Five cartridgss 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.
We. 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.
After 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.
PW-j 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 be doubted.
When 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 proper identification.
The 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.
From 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.
Immediately after the occurrence number of per.i’ons c.ime
to the chamber of the deceased and it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
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.
We have also perused the entire evidence on recora and
hold lhat the learned trial court rightly convicted the
appellant.
For the rcasons stated above the appeal has no merit
and accordingly dismissed.