Akash @ Bhole v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

14. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that appellants Akash @ Bhole, Manoj @ Ashok, Arjun had no motive or common intention with other appellants to commit the crime, since they had never met or had any personal enmity with the deceased as such there is no evidence to sustain the charge under Section 34 IPC against the appellants Akash @ Bhole, Manoj @ Ashok and Arjun.

15. Learned Counsel for the appellants have lastly urged that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF MANOJ S/O ASHOK

16. Learned counsel for the appellant/Manoj S/o Ashok adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of appellants Akash@Bhole and Arjun and further argued that the prosecution failed to produce the blood stained clothes of PW-6 and PW-11 which were handed over to the investigating agency, as is evident from the testimonies of PW- 6 and PW-11. Moreover, the arrest of the appellant Manoj S/o Ashok is not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution witnesses have given contradictory versions in this context.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RAHUL & MANOJ @ KALE

17. In addition to the arguments advanced on behalf of appellants Akash@Bhole, Manoj @ Ashok and Arjun, Mr. Adit S Pujari, learned counsel for the appellant/Rahul and Manoj @ Kale argued that the learned Trial Court has ignored and omitted the material available and disregarded the cogent evidence in favour of the appellants and have failed to appreciate the basic issue that there is no direct evidence on record to establish the involvement of the appellant/Rahul & appellant/Manoj@Kale in the commission of the alleged offence.

18. He further contended that the police mechanism in the present case was set in motion after registration of DD No.42A (Ex.PW5/A) and DD No. 43A (Ex.PW5/B) on receipt of the information from telephone number 92899375618 & 9211379946, but the investigation agency made no endeavor to ascertain the identity of the caller nor any attempt was made to place on the record the call detail records of the aforesaid numbers.

19. Learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the testimony of DW-1, Smt. Brij Bala in its correct perspective which proves that the appellant/ Manoj @ Kale was not present at the scene of the crime, at the time of commission of the alleged offence and was on duty at M.C. Primary School, 13A Block, Karol Bagh, New Delhi from 3:00 pm of 28.04.2010 to 8:00 am of 29.04.2010 relying upon the attendance register (Ex.DW-1/A) of the aforesaid school produced by the DW1- Brij Bala.

20. Learned counsel further argued that as per the story set up by the prosecution that the appellants had motive to commit the alleged offence, as there were illicit relations between the deceased and Usha (W/o Nandu@ Ram Kishore and M/o Sachin) and the name of Usha (wife of appellant/Nandu @ Ram Kishore) was mentioned in the Rukka (Ex.PW6/A); however no endeavor were made by the investigating Agency to record the statement of Usha and produce her as a prosecution witness in the trial court.

21. He further argued that the present case was a blind murder case without a single piece of evidence on record to suggest that the appellant/Manoj@Kale and appellant/Rahul were hand in glove and committed the aforesaid offence. It was further emphasized that the prosecution had introduced a frivolous story against the appellants and have falsely implicated them.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT/NANDU

22. Mr. Badrinath learned counsel for the appellant Nandu opened his submissions and submitted that there was delay of 2 hours 50 minutes in recording the rukka, which proves that FIR was registered against the appellants by falsely implicating them after due consultation and deliberation by the Investigating Officer casting serious doubts on the story set up by the prosecution.

23. Learned counsel further contended that the medical evidence finds no corroboration with the ocular evidence, as according to the post mortem report the deceased had received injuries on the back portion of his body, which is contrary to the injuries mentioned by the prosecution witnesses.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APP

24. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for State, on the other hand, strongly refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that as the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced by the prosecution, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for by this Court; that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and medical/scientific evidence are corroborative in nature and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

25. She further submitted that the prosecution has relied upon recovery of knife (Ex. PW-11/F) which was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant/Rahul in the presence of PW-23, (ACP Vir Singh) and PW-17 (SI Sukhdev Singh). She further submitted that there is no cogent reason to disbelieve the abovementioned recovery on the ground that the same was not done in the presence of any independent witness. To substantiate her arguments, learned APP for the State relied upon the case of State vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru reported in (2005)11 SCC 600.

26. Ms. Tiwari further submitted that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are corroborated and trustworthy and have established the factum of the incident without any iota of doubt, describing the role played by each appellant in the commission of the alleged crime. To substantiate her arguments, learned APP for State relied upon the case of Suresh & Anr vs State of UP reported in (2001) 3 SCC 673; Mukesh & Anr vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1.

27. As far as the plea of sufficient light at the place of incident is concerned, learned APP for the State argued that the prosecution witnesses have proved the existence of source of light without any doubt. She further contended that the light was coming from the neighbouring houses, from the street light as well as from the iron grill installed on the roof of the house where the incident took place. Moreover, it was a full moon night making it effortless for PW-6 and PW-11 to identify the appellants. She further submitted that there is no inconsistency as to the persons who took the deceased to the Bara Hindu Rao Hospital, as all the prosecution witnesses have deposed on the same line.

28. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for State further submitted that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are consistent and corroborative in nature and minor contradictions and discrepancies which have arisen in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are ignorable and do not go to the root of the case. To substantiate her arguments, learned APP for State relied upon the case of State of UP vs Masalti, reported in AIR 1965 SC 202; Rana Pratap & ors vs State of Haryana reported in 1983 Crl LJ 1272 and Mritunjoy Biswas vs Pranab @Kutibiswas & anr reported in 2013 12 SCC 796.

29. Learned APP for the State further contended that the scaled site plan (Ex PW6/D[5]) evidently shows the ladder which was used by PW-6 and PW-11 to climb over the boundary wall and they both had witnessed the incident, moreover, it is possible for the witnesses to have jumped over the boundary wall from the given height without using a ladder also. She further submitted that there is no doubt as to the arrest of the appellants which have been duly corroborated by the police witnesses. To substantiate her arguments, learned APP for State relied upon the case of Hema vs State through Insp. Of Police Madras reported in 2013 10 SCC 192 and C. Munniappan & ors vs State of Tamil Nandu reported in 2010 3 SCC CRI 1402.

30. Learned counsel for the State further contended that certain errors were made by the Investigating Agency during Investigation, however, those errors or omissions do not affect the outcome of the case and no benefit can be extended to the accused for such defects, which lead to their acquittal.

31. Based on these submissions Counsel for the State urged that this Court may not interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellants for the alleged offence.

32. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material placed on record including the record of the trial court.

CREDIBILITY OF MATERIAL WITNESSES/HEIGHT OF THE BOUNDARY WALL/PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED AT THE SPOT/ LIGHT AT THE PLACE OF INCIDENT

33. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per the case of the prosecution, on hearing the cries of the deceased, PW-6 (father of the deceased), PW-10 (aunt of the deceased), and PW-11 (brother-in-law of the deceased) witnessed the incident from the tinsheet on the wooden khokha of the house of PW-6 (father of the deceased) however, the same is an afterthought as in the initial site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer no ladder was shown in the site plan and it was not possible to scale from second floor/terrace of the house of the PW-6 to tin-shed on the wooden khokha of the said house without the help of a ladder. Moreover, as per the testimonies of the prosecution witness the height between the tinshed on the wooden khokha of the house of PW-6 and the terrace of the House No. 2222, Basti Julhan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi where the alleged offence took place is 5-6 feet and as such there was no possibility for PW-6 (father of the deceased), PW-10 (aunt of the deceased), and PW-11 (brother-in-law of deceased) to witness the alleged incident.

34. In this context, it is relevant to examine the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-6 (father of the deceased), PW-10 (aunt of the deceased), PW-11 (brother-in-law of deceased) and PW-8 (SI Manohar Lal) and PW-23 (ACP Vir Singh, Investigating Officer). PW-6 (father of the deceased) in his deposition has stated that he has witnessed the incident and the height of the boundary wall from his Khokha is about 4-5 feet. The relevant portion highlighting this fact has been reproduced as under: “I have three daughters and had one son Pradeep (deceased). My son Pradeep after taking meal went to the roof of my neighbour for walking. I alongwith my son in law Sunil were on the roof of our house. At about 10.30-11.00 p.m. I heard the voice of my son Pradeep “Papa Bachao Bachao”. I alongwith my son in law Sunil went to the roof of our neighbour where I saw Manoj @ Kale had caught hold my son from the side of his head. My son’s shoulder was caught by Manoj @ Kale. Akash and Arjun had caught the legs of my son Pradeep. Nandu and Rahul were stabbing my son Pradeep. Sachin who is a son of Nandu was exhorting by saying “Sale ka kaam tamam kar do aaj.” Thereafter all of them ran from there and they got down from the staircase. I alongwith my son in law Sunil lifted the body of my son Pradeep and we got down from the roof. Thereafter my sister went to the police station and one PCR van came to the spot. My son was removed in the said PCR van and my nephew Vijay and my son in law Sunil accompanied them. I took auto and reached at the hospital at Bara Hindu Rao…..” xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The witness is shown photographs EX PW-6/D[1] to D[4] to which he admits to be correct. It is correct that in photographs EXPW-6/D[1], mark-DA showing my house and mark-DB is Kirti’s house. It is incorrect to suggest that in photograph EX. PW-6/D[2], the height of the yellow colour wall is marked as Mark-DC is about 8ft. (Vol. the height of this wall is about 5ft). It is incorrect to suggest that in photograph EX.PW-6/D[3], the height of the yellow colour wall marked as Mark-DD is about 8ft. It is correct that there is no staircase for going to Kirti’s roof from my roof. I reached to the roof i.e. place of incident with the help of wooden ladder. Wooden ladder was already lying there. The ladder was movable. The height of ladder was around 5 feet. The distance between my roof to the roof of the place of occurrence is about 5 to 6 feet. The height of the wall is about three and half feet from the roof of my khokha. It is wrong to suggest that the height of the wall is 26 feet from the roof of my khokha. It is wrong to suggest that no person can scale the wall of Kirti’s house except from using the stairs of Kirti’s house. Q: I put it to you by showing the photograph Ex.PW-6/D- 3 what was the height of the boundary wall in this photograph from the roof where the incident took place. A: The height of the boundary wall might be 3-3 ½ feet from the roof where the incident took place. It is wrong to suggest that the height of this wall is about 8-9 feet from the roof where the incident took place. Q: I put it to you what was the height in between roof of your Khoka and the roof of Kirti’s house? A: There is a difference of 3 ½ feet from the roof of my Khoka and the roof of Kirti’s house as shown in photograph Ex.PW-6/D-3.”

35. PW-11 (brother in law of the deceased) in relation to witnessing the incident and height of the boundary wall has deposed as under: - “….My father in law Dharamvir, woke me up suddently. He told me that he heard the voice of quarrel from the roof. I followed my father in law and from varandah where I was sleeping. We reached at the roof of the house of my father in law and from there, we used wooden staircase to reach the khoka which was built at the roof of my father-in-law. When we reached on the top of wooden khoka, we saw to the adjacent roof from the boundary wall that Rahul & Nandu, were stabbing my brother-in-law/sala Pradeep @ Deru with knife. And Manoj @ Kale & Manoj, had caught hold Pradeep @ Deru, from his head. Aakash and Arjun caught hold Pradeep @ Deru, from his leags. Sachin, was saying that SALE KA KAAM TAMAM KAR DO. We raised a noise BACHAO BACHAO, after hearing our voice, they all ran away one by one from the staircase of that house…...” It is incorrect to suggest that the wall between the house of my in-laws and the place of occurrence is not less than 10 feet. Volunteer, height of wall was upto my neck and my height would be about 5 and 5 ½ feet. I could see the floor of the third floor of the house of Kirti from where I was standing. The floor where the deceased was lying was made of cement. I could see the same as there was sufficient light coming from the iron Jaal. I saw the alleged occurrence from the roof top (Khoka) of my father in law. When all the accused had left, I alongwith my father in law reached the place of occurrence after jumping the wall.

36. PW-10 (aunt of the deceased) during her examination in chief has deposed as under:- “….At the same time, I also heard the voice of son-inlaw Sunil. I came outside my house and saw upward, I saw my brother Dharamvir, was climbing over the wall of a roof. I reached at the roof of my house, my house is adjacent to the house of my brother. When I reached at the roof of house of my brother, I used the wooden stair case to reach the place where my brother had jumped. I also reached at the place where my brother and my sonin-law Sunil, was present. It was the roof of Kasturi Lal where Dharamvir and Sunil, had reached. I saw my nephwew Pradeep @ Deru, was lying in a pool of blood on the roof of Kasturi Lal. I started crying and went downstairs from the staircase of Kasturi Lal and reached at the ground. I rushed to PS Sadar Bazar. Outside the PS, there was one police vehicle, I told to the police that I saw my nephew Pradeep @Deru, lying in a pool of blood on the roof of Kasturi Lal. Police accompanied me and we reached at the said roof. Before the police official reached at the said roof, my nephew Pradeep @ Deru, was brought in the gali by my brother Dharamvir and my son Vijay. The police vehicle took my nephew Pradeep @ Deru, to the hospital along with Dharamvir and Vijay. Doctor in the hospital checked Pradeep @ Deru and declared him dead. Before that when I firstly reached at the said roof where my brother Dharamvir and son-inlaw Sunil, was present, I saw Pradeep @ Deru, was lying in a pool of blood on the roof and I saw Nandu, Arjun, Manoj, Manoj @ Kale, Rahul and AAkash, were running from the staircase of Kasturi lal, one by one. All these accused are present in the Court today (the witness correctly identifies each accused by pointing out by name.)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX”

37. PW-23 (ACP Vir Singh, Investigating Officer) during his cross examination deposed as under:- “…..I inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. PW-6/D[4] at the instance of complainant Dharmabir, which bears my attestation at point X. The complainant had met us in Hindu Rao Hospital and from there accompanied us to the spot…..

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ……..When I visited at the spot, there was light. As far as I remember, the boundary wall of the terrace, i.e. spot was approximately 3-4 feet on that day, though it was not measured by me. We went to terrace through stairs but one could easily climbed the boundary wall from the side of Dharamvir’s house. I did not get any photograph of the site or of the boundary wall as it was already got done by Inspector Pramod Gupta. I do not recognize the photographs of spot as the same were not taken on my instructions. I do not remember whether the height of boundary wall of terrace i.e. spot was about 8-9 feet. Anyone can come on the terrace i.e spot by jumping the boundary wall from the khoka on the terrace on the house of Dharamvir......”

38. Apart from the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses, it is also relevant to examine the testimony of PW-8 (SI Manohar Lal) who had prepared the scaled site plan (Exhibit PW6/D-5). PW-8 (SI Manohar Lal) deposed as under:- “…….There, the complainant Dharamveer, also called by SI Darshan Lal and on the pointing out of complainant, I inspect the spot and prepared rough notes of the spot. On the basis of rough notes, I prepared scaled site plan which is already exhibited as Ex. PW- 6/D-5 which bears my signature at point A. After preparing the scaled site plan, I destroyed the rough notes and the site plan was handed over to the IO. My statement was recorded by the IO.”

39. During his cross-examination the PW-8 (SI Manohar Lal) deposed as under:- “xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The height of the house where the incident took place was higher by 140 centimeter i.e. 4 feet and 8 inches. It is correct that the roof of the house of the deceased was made of tin shed covered with tarpal. There was a wooden ladder to go from the second floor to the top floor of the house of deceased. It was a temporary wooden ladder. I has shown the stairs in the scaled site plan at point A but I have not mentioned the stairs in my marginal notes recorded on the scaled site plan. I cannot tell whether any person can climb or descend from the roof of the deceased which was made of tin shed. I had gone to the house of deceased from the gali. It is wrong to suggest that no person can go from the roof of third floor to the roof of the house of deceased. I did not opt to use the way to go from the roof of third floor to the house of the deceased as it was not a thorough way and it was risky too. There were pakka stairs made for going from ground to second floor but however, there was a wooden ladder to go to the roof from the second floor. It is wrong to suggest that there was no wooden ladder or that had it been there, I would have mentioned in the references, i.e., marginal notes mentioned at point B. I did not climb on the tin shed but however, I climbed upto the second floor only. It is wrong to suggest that I did not climb on the tin shed as there was no way to reach on the tin shed. There was a parapet (fore-wall) of the height of 163 cm where the alleged incident took place. It is correct if a person wants to descend from the parapet wall to the roof of the third floor where the incident took place, the distance was 163 cm. I do not remember where there was any stair or ladder for descending from the parapet wall to floor where the incident took place. One can jump from the parapet wall to the floor where the incident took place. It is wrong to suggest that if there would have been any ladder or any pakka stair, I would have mentioned the same in the my scaled plan….. ” xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx”

40. The scaled plan prepared by PW-8 (SI Manohar Lal) has been reproduced as under:-

41. The conjoint reading of the aforesaid testimonies reflects that, PW-6 (father of the deceased) deposed that ‘I heard the voice of my son Pradeep “Papa Bachao Bachao”. I alongwith my son in law Sunil went to the roof of neighbour where I saw Manoj @ Kale had caught hold my son from the side of his head. My son’s shoulder was caught by Manoj @ Kale. Akash and Arjun had caught the legs of my son Pradeep. Nandu and Rahul were stabbing my son Pradeep. Sachin who is a son of Nandu was exhorting by saying “Sale ka kaam tamam kar do aaj.” There after all of them ran from there and they got down from the staircase. I alongwith my son in law Sunil lifted the body of my son Pradeep and we got down from the roof. PW-11(brother in law of the deceased) i.e. son-in-law of the PW-6, corroborated the testimony of the PW-6 and deposed that ‘When we reached on the top of wooden khoka, we saw to the adjacent roof from the boundary wall that Rahul & Nandu, were stabbing my brother-in-law/sala Pradeep @ Deru with knife. And Manoj @ Kale & Manoj, had caught hold Pradeep @ Deru, from his head. Aakash and Arjun caught hold Pradeep @ Deru, from his legs. Sachin, was saying that SALE KA KAAM TAMAM KAR DO. We raised a noise BACHAO BACHAO, after hearing our voice, they all ran away one by one from the staircase of that house’. Both the witnesses maintained their stand during their rigorous cross-examination on the fact that they witnessed the alleged incident and have categorically attributed specific role to each of the appellants. PW-10 (Raj Rani) also claimed that she had witnessed the incident and had also seen the accused persons running down from the stairs after stabbing the deceased. However, the testimony of PW-10 (Raj Rani) is in contradiction with the testimony of PW-6 and PW-11. According to PW-6 and PW-11 the accused persons ran from the spot after they raised an alarm and there was no reference of PW-10 in their testimonies witnessing the incident alongwith them at the time of commission of crime. It becomes imperative that PW-10 (aunt of the deceased) has not witnessed the incident, though her scaling the wall and reaching the spot cannot be negated. Returning to the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-11, both of them deposed that they witnessed the incident from the Khoka situated on the second floor/roof of the house of PW-6 which they scaled while using the ladder which was always available on the second floor/roof of the house of PW-6. Learned counsel laboured hard to contend that there was no ladder available on the second floor/roof of the house of PW-6 and also that even while standing on the Khoka situated on the second floor/roof of the house of PW-6, no one can witness the incident on the terrace of House No. 2222, Basti Julhan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. In this context, we find that PW-6 (father of the deceased) deposed that ‘I reached to the roof i.e. place of incident with the help of wooden ladder. Wooden ladder was already lying there. The ladder was movable. The height of ladder was around 5 feet. The distance between my roof to the roof of the place of occurrence is about 5 to 6 feet.’ PW-11 (brother in law of the deceased) in relation to existence of ladder deposed that ‘We reached at the roof of the house of my father in law and from there, we used wooden staircase to reach the khoka which was built at the roof of my father-in-law.’ XXXX ‘I saw the alleged occurrence from the roof top (Khoka) of my father in law. When all the accused had left, I alongwith my father in law reached the place of occurrence after jumping the wall.’. He further deposed that ‘It is incorrect to suggest that the wall between the house of my in-laws and the place of occurrence is not less than 10 feet. Volunteer, height of wall was upto my neck and my height would be about 5 and 5 ½ feet.’ PW-23 (ACP Vir Singh, Investigating Officer) corroborates the version of the PW-6 and PW-11 in relation to existence of the ladder on the second floor/roof of the house of the PW-6 and also confirms that one can witness the incident from the wooden Khoka on the house of PW-6 and deposed that ‘As far as I remember, the boundary wall of the terrace, i.e. spot was approximately 3-4 feet on that day, though it was not measured be me.’. A conjoint reading of these witnesses affirms that there was a wooden ladder on the second floor/roof of the house of PW-6 which was used to scale the wooden Khokha from the roof of PW-6. It has also emerged from these testimonies that the height of the boundary wall of House No. 2222, Basti Julhan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi was 4-5 feet and one can witness the incident at House No. 2222, Basti Julhan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi standing from the wooden Khokha on the house of the PW-6. In the context of height of the boundary wall of the House No. 2222, Basti Julhan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, the testimony of PW-8 (SI Manohar Lal) is of paramount importance as he prepared the scaled site plan (Ex. PW6/D[5]) and further confirms that there was a wooden ladder on the second floor/roof of the house of PW-6 and further confirms the height of the boundary wall of house of 2222, Basti Julan, Sadar Bazar as 4 feet and 8 inch which can be scaled by anyone standing on the Khokha of house of PW-6. PW-8 deposed that ‘The height of the house where the incident took place was higher by 140 centimeter i.e. 4 feet and 8 inches. He further deposed that ‘It is wrong to suggest that no person can go from the roof of third floor to the roof of the house of deceased.’

42. In view of the above discussion, we find that PW-6 (father of the deceased) and PW-11 (brother in law of the deceased) have witnessed the incident and they have reached the wooden khokha on the house PW-6 by using the wooden ladder which was lying on the second floor/roof of the house of PW-6 from where they have witnessed the commission of the crime by the appellants. Hence argument raised by the appellants that PW-6 (father of the deceased) and PW-11 (brother in law of the deceased) are planted witnesses holds no ground.

43. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the testimonies of PW-6 (father of the deceased), PW-10 (aunt of the deceased), and PW-11 (brother-in-law of deceased) are contradictory to each other and there are various inconsistencies and improvements which make the version of these prosecution witnesses unreliable. As discussed above, we have discredited the testimony of the PW-10 (aunt of the deceased) as an eye witness. No doubt there are certain minor contractions and improvements in the testimonies of PW-6 (father of the deceased) and PW-11 (brother-in-law of the deceased) but the same does not go to the root of the matter and does not affect the case of the prosecution as the testimonies of both these witnesses alongwith the testimonies of the other key witnesses inspire confidence. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr., reported at (2013) 12 SCC 796, has held as under:

49. Reference can also be made to Israr vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2005 SC 249 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

50. Hence, it is evident from the record, that on 28.04.2010, it was a full moon night, moreover there was street light and light was also coming from the nearby houses. Additionally, the appellants were known to PW-6 (father of the deceased) and PW-11 (brother-in-law of the deceased) and were not strangers or unknown to PW-6 and PW-11, which made the identification of the appellants easier. Hence the argument raised by counsel for the appellants that PW-6 and PW-11 could not have witnessed the incident is without force.

RECOVERY OF KNIFE

51. Learned counsel for the Appellant laboured hard to bring forth that the recovery of knife made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant/Rahul is not admissible in the eyes of law and the same was planted in order to falsely implicate the appellants.

52. It is apparent on record that pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant/Rahul (Ex. PW-11/D) and subsequent pointing out, the alleged weapon of the offence (knife) was recovered from a slaughter house. According to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1860, no credence can be placed upon the confession made by the accused, which reads as under:

53. However, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is in the nature of a proviso or an exception which partially lifts the prohibition imposed by Section 25 and reads as under: “Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:

27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.--Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

54. In the light of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 whatever information is given by the accused in consequence of which a fact is discovered only that would be admissible in the evidence, regardless of the fact that such information amounts to confession or not. The basic idea embedded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by the subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from an accused; such a discovery is true and admissible. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes reliable information.

55. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Jha vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 1 DLT (Cri) 79 has extensively dealt with the admissibility of the confession made by the accused to the police. Relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:

Little substance and content would be left in Sections 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

18. A little reflection will show that the expression "confession" in Sections 24 to 30 refers to the confessional statement as a whole including not only the admissions of the offence but also all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence. Section 27 partially lifts the ban imposed by Sections 24, 25 and 26 in respect of so much of the information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of the information, if the other conditions of the section are satisfied. Section 27 distinctly contemplates that information leading to a discovery may be a part of the confession of the accused and thus, fall within the purview of Sections 24, 25 and 26. Section 27 thus shows that a confessional statement admitting the offence may contain additional information as part of the confession. Again, s. 30 permits the Court to take into consideration against a co- accused a confession of another accused affecting not only him but the other co-accused. Section 30 thus shows that matters affecting other persons may form part of the confession. xxxxx

8. Accordingly, the statement recorded in the First Information Report was admissible, in respect of the identity of the accused as the maker of the same i.e. his name, address and other details and the fact that he had come to the police station to make the report, which was recorded and read over to him. The other portions of the statement recorded in the First Information Report were not admissible, save and except the portions which come within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the other portions had to be excluded. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

13. In Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1994) 2 SCC 467, there are some observations which purport that the motive recorded in the self-implicating First Information Report are admissible and not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as they do not amount to confession of committing any crime. However, as clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in Mukesh v. State Crl. Appeal No. 615/2008 decided on 4.5.2010, in AghnooNagesia (supra) three Judges of the Supreme Court have firmly held that confession not only includes admission of the offence but also other admissions of incriminating facts relating to the offence. Motive, therefore, has to be excluded.

14. Read in this manner, we have to completely ignore and discard the extra judicial confession allegedly made to PW-20 on telephone, on 14th May, 2006 at 1.15 -1.20 P.M., i.e. after the Appellant had gone to Police Station, Lajpat Nagar and DD entry No. 11A (Ex. PW1/A) was recorded at 1.00 P.M. The alleged extra judicial confession to PW-20 is hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act. DD entry No. 11-A (Ex. PW1/A) is admissible to the limited extent that it discloses identity of the Appellant, address and details of the maker of the First Information Report. This portion is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Other portions of DD entry 11A have to be excluded, except the portion(s) which comes under the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This portion, noticed below, will consist of Appellant’s statement that dead body of Suman Rai was lying in flat No. E-20, First Floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi, and the knife used and blood stained clothes of the accused were lying in the same flat.

15. Head Constable RaghubirPrasad(PW-1) was the duty officer at the Police Station, Lajpat Nagar and had first interaction with the accused, at Police Station, Lajpat Nagar, where he had recorded his confessional statement, vide DD entry No. 11A(Ex. PW1/A). The DD entry reads as: "I reside at 50 E, First Floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi in the Flat of Smt. Suman Roy and loved her. I came to know about her illicit relations with some other persons, on which some hot arguments took place between us. As a result whereof I became furious and today at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning I finished her by giving knife blows. I had kept the blood stained knife and clothes at the locale itself. I have locked the flat and the key of the flat is in my possession. I have come here at Lajpat Nagar Police Station to inform you, because I knew about the Lajpat Nagar Police Station only. (The underlined portion of the DD entry is admissible)”

56. In view of the law discussed above, it is clear that, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable, if confessional statement leads to discovery of some new facts. It is further not in dispute that a fact discovered on information furnished by an accused in his disclosure statement is a relevant fact and is admissible in evidence if something new is discovered or recovered from the accused which was not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused (Ref: Kamal Kishore Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1997) 2 Crimes 169 (Del).

57. From the perusal of the record, we find that the prosecution in the present case has relied upon recovery of the knife at the instance of Appellant/Rahul. The version of the prosecution is supported by the testimony of PW-23 (ACP Vir Singh), PW-17 (Retired SI Sukhdev Singh) and PW-11 (brother in law of the deceased). PW-23 (ACP Vir Singh) stepped into the witness box and deposed that: “….On interrogation, accused Rahul gave disclosure statement which was recorded by me vide disclosure statement already Ex.PW 11/D which bears my attestation at point Z and signed by accused Rahul at point Y. In pursuance to his disclosure statement, accused Rahul led us to slaughter house and got recovered one blood stained knife beneath the stone piece near the broken wall of the slaughter house. The said knife was measured with the help of scale and its sketch already Ex.PW11/E was prepared on a plain paper, same bears my attestation at point Z and accused signed at point Y. The recovered knife was converted into cloth pullanda sealed with the seal of VST and thereafter taken into possession vide pointing out cum seizure memo already Ex.PW11/F which bears my attestation at point Z and accused signed at point Y…”

58. PW-17 (Retired SI Sukhdev Singh) stepped into the witness box and deposed that: “….At around 7.25pm, aforesaid accused persons were apprehended on the pointing out of informer. Arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused Rahul was prepared.. Arrest memo of accused Rahul is already Ex.PW11/B which bears my signature at point B and personal search memo of accused is Ex.PW11/C…. As per the disclosure of accused Rahul, he got recovered one knife from beneath a stone piece inside the slaughter house’s broken wall. The said knife was having blood stain mark. The sketch of the said knife was prepared by IO and same is already Ex.PW11/E which bears my signature at point A. The said knife was seized through a sealed pullanda. Seizure memo of the same is already Ex.PW11/F which bears my signature at point B.”

59. PW-11 (brother in law of the deceased) stepped into the witness box and deposed that: “…He also disclosed that he had hidden the knife used by him in the commission of offence in tabela under the stone beneath the broken wall. Accused led us to the place where he had hidden the said knife and he took out the knife used in the commission of offence. He handed over the same to the police who wrapped the same in a piece of cloth which was covered into pullanda which was sealed with the seal of VST. Police prepared pointing out and seizure memo of the knife and the sketch of the same was prepared. The sketch of knife is Ex.PW11/E which bears my signature at point A and seizure memo of the same is Ex.PW11/F bearing my signature at point A. Accused led us to the place of occurrence and pointed out the pace of occurrence and the pointing out memo is Ex..PW11/G bearing my signature at point A.”

60. Conjoint reading of the aforementioned testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the bloodstained knife was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant/Rahul from the slaughter house (beneath the stone piece near the broken wall), which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW11/F) and the sketch of the knife was prepared (Ex.PW11/E).

61. Learned counsel for the appellants extensively argued that the recovery of knife which was effected in the presence of police officers is not reliable, as no genuine and sincere efforts were made by the investigating officer to authenticate the recovery with the presence of an independent witness.

62. In relation to recovery of articles at the instance of the accused, the Apex Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recovery and the pointing out memo which directly link the alleged weapon with the commission of the alleged offence is relevant and is admissible in the eyes of law. While dealing with such a case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Debapriya Pal vs. State of West Bengal reported at (2017) 11 SCC 31 has held as under: -

63. During the course of argument, an apprehension was expressed by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the story of the prosecution, Appellant/Rahul & Appellant/Nandu were armed with separate knifes while inflicting injuries on the deceased, wherein the prosecution is totally silent on the recovery of the second knife, hence fatal to the case of the State.

64. Dealing with a similar issue the Hon’ble Apex Court very recently in the case of Prabhash Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar reported at 2019 SCC Online SC 1236 has held that the version of prosecution cannot be disbelieved merely because the weapon of assault was not recovered. The germane portion of the judgment is extracted below:

65. There is no good reason for this Court to disbelieve the said recoveries merely because the recovery witnesses PW-23 (ACP Vir Singh), PW-17 (Retired SI Sukhdev Singh) happen to be police officers. In this context, we rely on the case of Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana reported as (2015) 17 SCC 554, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: -

66. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a very recent judgment titled as Kripal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 646. The germane portion of the judgment is extracted below: “17. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the Appellant that recovery has not been proved by any independent witness is of no substance for the reason that in the absence of independent witness to support the recovery in substance cannot be ignored unless proved to the contrary. There is no such legal proposition that the evidence of police officials unless supported by independent witness is unworthy of acceptance or the evidence of police officials can be out rightly disregarded.”

67. We are thus of the opinion that in the instant case, non-joining of any public witness at the time of recovery of knife is not a sufficient ground to doubt the truthfulness of the testimonies of the police witnesses on the above aspect or discard their evidence completely as the testimonies of the police witnesses inspires confidence.

68. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as on the basis of corroborative testimonies of the material police witnesses, we find no cogent reason to disbelieve the recoveries made by the Investigating team at the instance of the appellant/Rahul. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in relation to the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statement are consistent, trustworthy and corroborative; as such the ground raised by learned counsel for the Appellants in relation to the non-recovery of second knife and the inadmissibility of the recovery of knife made at the instance of the Appellant/Rahul holds no ground.

DEFECTIVE INVESTIGATION

69. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the investigating agency failed to conduct a fair and transparent investigation, as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel has pointed out following discrepancies in the investigation: a) That the police mechanism in the present case was set in motion on registration of DD No.42A (Ex.PW5/A) and DD No. 43A (Ex.PW5/B), on receipt of the information from telephone number 92899375618 & 9211379946, but the investigating agency made no endeavor to ascertain the identity of the caller and no attempt was made to place on the record the call detail records of the aforesaid numbers. b) That no crime team was called to the spot for obtaining the chance prints, from the place of incident on 28.04.2010 and from the materials objects (empty water bottle, the cigarette packet) recovered from the spot. c) That appellant/Rahul & appellant/Nandu were armed with separate knives and only one knife was recovered whereas no effort was made to recover the second knife d) That the place of incident is a densely populated area and despite the fact that there were 50-60 tenants living in the building, none of the independent witnesses joined the investigation. e) That the FIR is embellished and registered after an unexplained delay of 2 Hours 50 Minutes to falsely implicate the appellants. f) That the investigating agency failed to seize the clothes of PW-6 Dharamvir (father of the deceased) and PW-11 Sunil Kumar (brother in law of deceased) stained with the blood of the deceased while they were carrying his dead body down from the roof. g) That neither site plan of the place of recovery was prepared nor perceptible efforts were made by the investigating officer to validate the recoveries with the presence of an Independent/Public witness. h) That the prosecution set up a story that the deceased had illicit relations with wife of appellant/Nandu and mother of Juvenile Sachin, which eventually accelerated the aforesaid incident but the prosecution failed to make her part of the investigation though the said facts had been narrated in the Rukka Ex.PW6/A.

70. In this context, we find that a fair investigation is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, wherein an investigation has to be unbiased, and without any prejudice for or against the accused because if the same is partial and unfair then the whole criminal justice system will be at stake and the same will erode the confidence of the common citizen. To discuss the law with regard to defective investigation, reliance can be placed on State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy reported in 1999 8 SCC 715 wherein, Supreme Court considered the similar question of defective investigation and observed that criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers. Supreme Court, in Paragraph 19, held as follows: “19. But can the above finding (that the station house diary is not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the Court be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously. It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the Court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is wellnigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinised independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by the investigation officers. Criminal Justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the Court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the Court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer's suspicious role in the case.”

71. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2004) 10 SCC 598, reiterating the judgment of Karnel Singh v. State of M.P reported in (1995) 5 SCC 518 had observed as under: - “in case of defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect while evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigation officer if the investigation is designedly defective”

72. As a general principle, it can be stated that error, illegality or defect in investigation cannot have any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice is caused to the accused. If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful. If direct evidence is credible then failure, defect or negligence in investigation cannot adversely affect the prosecution case, though the Court should be circumspect while evaluating the evidence. In the present case, as discussed above, we have accepted the testimony of the PW-6 (father of the deceased) and PW-11 (brother in law of the deceased) being the eye witnesses, hence, the plea of the counsel for the Appellants seeking benefit of doubt to the appellants on the ground of defective investigation, is bereft of any merit and declined.

PLEA OF ALIBI

73. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Manoj @ Kale contended that the defence has been able to place on record the Attendance Register (Ex.DW-1/A) disclosing the presence of the appellant/Manoj @ Kale in the School at the relevant time but the learned Trial Court failed to consider the testimony of DW-1 Smt.Brij Bala in its correct perspective.

74. Undoubtedly, when a plea of alibi is set up, the burden is on the accused to lend credence to the defence and the same has to be tested like any other testimony, always keeping in mind that a person is presumed innocent until he or she is found guilty.

75. Enumerating the essence of a plea of alibi, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1981 SC 911 that: "The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed."

76. This was more elaborately explained in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1997 SC 322 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following words: "We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Indian Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant." Illustration (a) given under Section 11 of the Evidence Act is then partially reproduced in the decision, but it is fully reproduced below: "The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain date; the fact that on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant." This Court then went on to say, "The Latin word alibi means "elsewhere" and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi.”

77. The plea of the accused in such cases needs to be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden, it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened.

78. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene of crime, then the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi and this view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2002 SC 3569.

79. On the standard of proof, Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) goes a step further and seeks to bury the ghost of disbelief that shadows alibi witnesses, in the following words: "Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and, courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses." Keeping in view facts of the case and applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the statement of the defence witness is to be analyzed on the same pedestal as any other prosecution witness.

80. Applying the aforesaid test, it is relevant to examine the testimony of defence witness produced by the appellant. The appellant got examined DW-1 Brij Bala in his defence who deposed that: “I am posted in MC Primary School, WEA, Chaina Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as school incharge. MC primary school, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi merged with MC Primary School, WEA, Chaina Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the year 2008. Today I have brought the attendance register from May, 2006 to June, 2012 of MC Primary School, WEA, Chaina Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the attendance register from March, 2008 to September, 2012 of MC primary School, sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The copy of entry in register of MC Primary School, WEA, Chaina Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi of the month of April, 2010 is Ex. DW1/A (OSR). The copy of entry in register of MC Primary school, Sat Nagar, Delhi of the month of April, 2010 is Ex DW/B (OSR).”

81. During cross-examination DW-1 Brij Bala deposed as under:- “It is correct that I was not posted in the said school in the year as school incharge, however, I was teacher in the said school at that time. I do not know accused Manoj Kumar. I have not seen the accused ever in the school. It is correct that I do not used to keep the record of the arrival and departure of 4th class employee of the school in the year, 2010. Principal used to keep the record. It is correct that I cannot identify signature of the accused. It is correct that as per DW1/A the signature purported to be of Manoj appears on dated 29.4.2010 and on 30/4/2010 and not on 28.4.2010. It is correct that I have not seen the accused Manoj on 28.4.2010 in the school. It is correct that in case an employee leaves the school without informing the authorities, I am not aware regarding the same. The timing of our school is from 07:45am to 01:15pm for the teachers and students. I do not remember the exact timings of the school in the year, 2010, however, the school used to be closed during that period in afternoon itself. After the school hours we do not stay in the school”

82. From the perusal of the aforesaid testimony, it is evident that the facts enumerated by DW-1 Brij Bala do not corroborate with the version of Appellant/Manoj @ Kale. The defence witness clearly negates the presence of the appellant at M.C. Primary School and has categorically deposed in her cross-examination that “I do not know accused Manoj Kumar. I have not seen the accused ever in the school”. The testimony of the defence witness clearly demolishes the version of the Appellant/Manoj@Kale that he was on his official duty from 3pm of 28.04.2010 to 8am of 29.04.2010 at M.C. Primary School, at the relevant time.

83. Moreover, accused Manoj in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C did not take the defence that he was present in the school. Therefore, the plea taken by him appears to be an afterthought and is an additional circumstance against him.

84. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1, has held that the accused would not be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when his/her presence at the scene of crime has been satisfactorily established by the prosecution and the court would be slow to believe any counterevidence to that effect. The germane portion of the judgment is extracted below: “Acceptability of the plea of alibi

247. Presently, we shall deal with the plea of alibi as the same has been advanced with immense conviction. It is well settled in law that when a plea of alibi is taken by an accused, the burden is upon him to establish the same by positive evidence after the onus as regards the presence on the spot is established by the prosecution. In this context, we may usefully reproduce a few paragraphs from Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283: 1997 SCC (Cri) 333]: (SCC p. 293, paras 22-23) “22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Penal Code, 1860 or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Illustration (a) given under the provision is worth reproducing in this context: ‘(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain date. The fact that, on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant.’

23. The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. …” The said principle has been reiterated in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana [Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 18: 2003 SCC (Cri) 186], Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra [Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 8 SCC 430: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 906], Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana [Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 204: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 67] and Vijay Pal [Vijay Pal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2015) 4 SCC 749: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 733].”

85. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as on the basis of testimony of the defence witnesses, we find no cogent reason to believe the version of the Appellant/Manoj @ Kale that he was not present at the alleged place of incident and was on his official duty in the School. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant raising plea of alibi, is rejected.

MOTIVE

86. During the course of argument, an apprehension was expressed by the learned counsel for the Appellants that motive is of paramount importance and absence of motive, in a case of direct or circumstantial evidence is critical to the version of the prosecution. It was further emphasized that as per the version of the prosecution, appellant/Nandu @ Ram Kishore, had a motive to commit the alleged offence, as there was illicit relation between the deceased and his wife Usha, but the prosecution failed to bring any substantial evidence on record to prove the same.

87. It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence of motive as alleged, is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. However, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved but the evidence is worthy of reliance, the testimony of the witness as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive.

88. There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Our view is fortified by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2002 SC 3462 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the motive which is not always capable of precise proof, if proved, may only lend additional support to strengthen the probability of commission of the offence by the person accused, but the absence of proof does not ipso facto warrant an acquittal.

89. While dealing with a similar issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Kishanpal and Ors. reported in (2008) 16 SCC 73 held as under “…..The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction…”

90. Further, with regard to the importance of establishing motive, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment titled as Khurshid Ahmed Vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir reported in 2018 7 SCC 429, has held that the motive is a double edged weapon and the same loses its importance when there are direct and reliable evidence available on record. Relevant part from the aforesaid judgment is

19. As regards to the importance of existence of motive in a criminal case, here it is worthwhile to look at the ratio laid down by this Court in Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra [Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 3 SCC 219: 1973 SCC (Cri) 214: AIR 1973 SC 55]: (SCC pp. 224- 25, para 12)

28. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the direct oral evidence available on record coupled with the medical evidence, points at the guilt of the accused and not proving the motive for commission of the offence lost its significance in the facts of the case.”

91. Herein, it is relevant to highlight that the present case is based on direct evidence and proof of motive will be an additional corroborative piece of evidence but the inability of the prosecution to establish motive is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution and does not render any benefit to the accused persons.

MEDICAL & SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

92. PW-1 (Dr. C.B Dabas) HOD, Forensic Medicine, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and proved the report (Ex.PW1/A) wherein he opined that “death in this case was due to hemorrhage and shock subsequent to injuries”. The relevant portion from his testimony is as under:- “On 29.4.2010 I conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Pradeep @ Deru aged about 20 years male. The body was brought by HC Ram Dutt of Police Station Bazar alongwith the inquest papers and request for postmortem examination by IO. The dead body was identified by Dharambir and Sunil. There was history of being stabbed during quarrel. On examination I observed following external injures on the body of deceased:

1. Multiple incised wounds (13 in number) present over left parieto occipital region, frontal region of scalp, forehead, nose (3 injures), lips (2 injures),- cheek right side, chin (2 injures), left mandible (2 injures) of various sizes. The wounds were skin deep.

2. Multiple superficial incised wounds (09 in number) present over outer aspect of right arm, elbow, forearm and back of wrist (2) of various sizes.

3. Incised wounds (2 in number) over front and inner aspect elbow of different sizes. The wounds were superficial.

4. Superficial linear incised wounds (2 in number) over palmar aspect of right ring and little fingers and on back of right middle and ring fingers of different sizes.

5. Incised wounds over front of left elbow skin deep.

6. Two incised wounds present on front and back part of let shoulder of different sizes wounds were skin deep. Injuries no-1 to 12 were incise wounds on the various parts of the body. Injures no. 13,14,15, & 16 were stab wounds on the various parts of the body. Injures no-17 was also incise wounds on the chest. Injury no-18,19,20,21,22,23, & 24 were stab wound on the various parts of the body. Injury no-25 was incise wound on front of abdomen. Details of these injuries have been described in my postmortem report EX. PW-1/A, which bears my signature at point-A. On internal examination- there was about 400 gm semi digested food material were present in the stomach. Liver showed cuts on right lobe. There were fracture on 2nd, 4th, 8th and 9th rib of right side of chest and 4th & 5th rib of left side of the chest. Plural cavity was full of blood. Both lungs had multiple cuts and left lung was collapsed. The diaphragm also showed cuts. There were incise wounds on the scalp. I preserved the underwear and blood sample of the deceased and sealed them with the seals of ‘FM HRH’ and handed over to the I.O. OPINION: - Death in this case was due to haemorrhage and shock subsequent to injures. The injures no.1 to 25 had been caused by sharp edged weapon and are collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injures are ante mortem and time since death is approximately 13-4 hours. The Postmortem Report is already EX.PW-1/A, bearing my signature under the opinion at point-1. On 4/6/2010 Inspector V.S. Tyagi, the IO of the case forwarded the sealed parcel containing the weapon of offence i.e. knife and the original postmortem report for opinion whether the injures on the person of the deceased Pradeep @ Deru could have been caused by this weapon. I opened the parcel and it was found contained one knife wrapped in a white paper sheet and prepared diagrammatic sketch of this knife on the back of my report. Sketch of knife is EX. PW-1/B which bear my signature at point-A. On the basis of examination of this knife and perusal of injures mentioned in the postmortem report of the deceased, it was opined that injures no-1to 25 appear to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like this knife. The Diagrammatic sketch of which is EX. PW-1/B. The weapon of offence was re-sealed with the seals of ‘FM HRH; and handed over to the IO alongwith original postmortem report. My opinion in this regard is EX. PW-1/C, bear my signature at point-A.”

93. Post Mortem Report of the deceased reads as under:- HINDU RAO HOSPITAL, DELHI (Deptt. Of Forensic Medicine)

POST MORTEM EXAMINATON

P. M. No. HRH/39/10

Conducted by Dr. C. B. Dabas Case (FIR) No.81/10/ U/s 302/34 IPC P.S. Sadar Bazar Date & Time: 29.04.10 at 12.30 PM Body brought by: H/Ct. Ram Dutt-296/N Name: Pradeep @ Deru Age 20 yrs. Sex Male Father’s Name: Sh. Dharam Vir Address: 2019, Basti Jhullan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Date & Time of Admission brought Dead on 28/04/10 at

11.30 PM Date & Time of Death ------------------- Casualty No./CR No. Cy 163003 M. L. C. 3278/10 Body Identified by: (1) Dharam Vir s/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal-Father (2) Sunil s/o Man Singh-Brother-in-law Alleged History: of being stabbed during quarrel brought to hospital where he was declared Brought Dead on 28.04.10 at

11.30 PM (one blue jeans and shirt sealed by CMO) External Examination: Body identified Clothes: One Right green underwear only: (1) Identification marks (in unidentified bodies/clothing’s) (2) Height 158 cm. Weight 57 kg. Built Average Condition of Body

1. Rigor Mortis: Present

2. Post Mortem Staining: Present on back parts except contact pt

3. Eyes closed/open: Closed Cornea: Hazy Conjuctiva: Pale

4. Natural orfices (Nose, Mouth, Ear, Vagina, Anus)- n. ad

5. External Injuries (1) Multiple Linear incised wounds (13 in number) present over (L) (-sic-) region, Frontal region of scalp, forehead, Nose (3) Lips (2), Cheek (R) side, chin (2) (L) maudible (2), measuring 3 x 0.[4] cm, 5 x 1 cm, 5 x 0.[8] cm, 4 x 0.5cm, 2.[5] x 1 cm, 3cm x 1.[5] cm, 3cm x 2 cm; 1.[5] x 0.[5] cm, 2cm x 0.5cm, 2cm x 0.[5] cm, 4cm x 1cm, 1 x 0.[5] cm, 1x 0.[5] cm, respectively. The margins of the wounds are clear cut and skin deep. (2) Multiple superficial incised wounds (09 in number) located on outer aspect of ® arm, elbow and forearm and back of wrist (2), measuring 4 x 2 cm, 3 x 1.[5] cm, 4 x 2 cm, 5 x 2.[5] cm, 3.[5] x 1.[5] cm, 9 x 4 cm, 4 x 1.[5] cm, 3.[5] x 2 cm and 4 x 1.[5] cm respectively the margins of the wounds are clear and are skin and muscle deep. (3) Incised wounds (02 in number) located over front and inner aspect of (R) elbow measuring 3 x 1.[5] cm, and 4 x 2 cm respectively. The wounds are superficial and margins are clear cut. (4) Superficial linear incised wounds (02 in number) over plamar aspect of (R) ring and little fingers horizontally placed, measuring 1 x 0.[5] cm each. There are (02) incised wounds on back of (R) middle and ring finger, measuring 1 x 0.[5] cm each. Margins are clear cut. (5) One incised wound, 2.[5] x 1.0 cm over front of (L) elbow, skin deep. (6) Two incised wounds located on front and back parts of (L) shoulder measuring 4 x 2 cm and 3 x 1. 5 cm respectively. Wounds are skin deep/ (-sic-) (7) One incised, 3 cm x 1 cm on outer aspect of (L) wrist. (8) One incised 3 x 1.[5] cm located (l) buttock on lower part, horizontally placed, wound is muscle deep. (9) One incised deep 4 x 2 cm located on outer upper of (-sic-) of (R) buttock wound is muscle deep. (10) Multiple incised wounds (03 in number) on front and left lateral aspect, measuring 6 x 0.[5] cm, 7 x 1 cm, 2 x 2 cm, respectively. Wounds are horizontally placed (-six-) (11) One incised wound 2.[5] x 1.[5] cm x skin deep, located over outer part of (R) chest, 9 cm below axilla and 15 cm outer and post of (R) nipple. Margins are clear cut. (12) One incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm located on outer front part of (R) chest, 12 cm below (R) nipple and 11 cm outer to mid line and 105 cm above (R) heel. Wound is much deep, margins are clear cut. (13) One stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm x ? depth located over outer aspect of (R) chest 16 cm outer to mid line, 107 cm above (R) heel, the wound is placed vertically, the upper angle is round and lower angle is acute, margins are clear cut. (14) One stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm x ? depth located on outer aspect of (R) chest behind injury M(13), 15 cm below axillary fold, and 108 cm above (R) heel upper angle is round and lower angle is acute, margins are clear cut. (15) Stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm x ? depth located on (R) side front of chest just below clavicle 10 cm outer to mid line and 127 cm above (R) heel wound is vertically placed with upper angle being round and lower angle acute. Margins are clear cut. (16) Stab wound 4 x 1.[3] cm x ? depth, located on (R) side front of chest, 3.[5] cm above (R) nipple and 126 cm above (R) heel, horizontally placed, outer angle acute and medial angle is round. Margins are clear cut. (17) Incised wound (02 in number) over right side chest over ant. Axillary fold measuring 8 cm x 2 cm and 2.[5] x 1 cm respectively. Margins are clear cut and skin deep. (18) One stab wound 4.[5] cm x 1.[3] cm x ? depth over right side chest on front aspect, 4 cm outer to mid line, 7 cm below (R) clavicle upper inner angle is acute and outer angle is round. Located 124 cm above (R) heel. (19) One stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm x ? depth over right side chest front of chest, 3 cm outer to mid line, 6 cm below and inner to (R) nipple 122 cm above (R) heel, upper angle is acute and lower angle is round. (20) Stab wound 4 cm x 1.[3] cm x ? depth over (L) side front of chest in upper part 2.0 cm outer to mid line 130 cm above (L) heel, horizontally placed, outer angle being round and inner angle being acute. (21) Stab wound 4.[2] x 2 cm x ? depth obliquely placed on

(L) side front of chest, just below injury No. (20) 5 cm outer to mid line, 129 cm above (L) heel, upper angle is round and lower angle is round. (22) One incised wound 3 x 1.[5] cm over front of (L) chest over lying outer axillary fold. (23) Stab wound 4 x 2 cm x ? depth over middle front of

(L) chest, 3 cm outer to mid line and 6 cm below (L) nipple, 102 cm above (L) heel, upper angle is round, lower angle is acute. (24) Stab wound 8 x 2 cm x ? depth located over front of chest epigastric region of abdomen & adjoining (sic-) in mid line, lower angle is acute and upper angle is round. 116 cm (R) heel. (25) Incised wound 3 x 2 cm, muscle deep on front of abdomen, in mid line 12 cm above (-sic-) and 102 cm above left heel. Tracks of injuries: On deeper desertion and exploration, it is observed that: Injury No.1 (-sic-): It has cut through 8th rib on ( R ) side and penetrated through (R ) (-sic-) and perforated through & through lower lobe of (R) lung in lower part, depth of the wound is 8.0 cm, direction being from right to left and downwards. Injury No. 14: It has cut through 9th rib on ( R ) side of chest and then penetrated the diaphragm and entered into posterior superior surface of liver ( R ) lobe and ended here. Depth of the wound is 9.0 cm, direction being from behind to front and downwards. Injury No.15: The wound has entered the chest cavity after cutting through 2nd rib of ( R ) chest and ended in upper lobe of ( L) lung. Depth of the wound is 7.0 cm, direction being from front to behind and downwards. Injury No.16: The injury has entered the chest cavity through 2nd inter (-sic-) space and ended in ( R ) pleural cavity. Total depth is 5.0 cm and direction being from front to behind and downwards. Injury No.18: The injury has cut into the chest muscles, obliquely and has not entered the chest cavity, direction being from front to behind and downwards. Injury No.19: It has cut through 4th rib on ( R ) side chest and entered the chest cavity and penetrated into upper lobe of ( R ) lung, total depth is 8.0 cm. direction being from front to behind and downwards. Injury No.20: It has entered the chest cavity after cutting through 2nd inter (-sic-) space on (L) side and penetrated into upper lobe of (L) lung, depth is 7.0 cm. direction being from front to behind. Injury No.21: It has entered the chest cavity after cutting through 4th inter (-sic-) space on (L) side and ended in upper lobe of (L) lung, depth is 7.[2] cm. direction being from front to behind. Injury No.23: It has cut through (L) side 6th rib and entered the (-sic-) and penetrated the lower part of lower lobe of (L) lung, depth is 8.0 cm, direction being from front to behind and downwards. Injury No.24: It has cut through abdominal muscles and penetrated the diaphragm and ended in medial and superior surface of liver and ended her. Depth is 8.0 cm, direction being from left to right and downwards. Remaining injuries are incised wounds and skin to muscle deep. X xx Opinion: Death in this case due to haemorrhage& shock consequent to injuries. The injuries 1 to 25 have been caused by sharp edged weapon and are collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injuries are ante mortem and recent. Time since death is approximately 13 to 14 hours. Sd/- (illegible) Dr. C. B. Dabas

94. After examining the testimony of PW-1 (Dr. C.B Dabas) and the post mortem report (Ex.PW1/A), it is observed that deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock and injuries no. 1 to 25 appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

95. Herein, it is relevant to highlight that as per the post mortem report injuries were also inflicted on the (arms, elbow, forearm, back of wrist, fingers) right and left hands of the deceased. The medical analysis draws a constructive approach and corroborates with the version of the prosecution witnesses that Manoj @ Kale had caught hold the head of deceased, whereas accused Manoj s/o Ashok had caught hold of the shoulder of deceased, accused Akash and Arjun caught hold his legs and accused Nandu and Rahul had repeatedly stabbed him and Accused Sachin (JCL) was exhorting ‘sale ka kaam tamam kar do aaj’, leading to the suggestion that the hands of the deceased were free and during the assault the deceased had resisted the attack, resulting in thrusting of the aforesaid injuries on his arms, elbow and fingers.

96. Perusal of the aforesaid testimony also reveals that the Investigating Officer PW-23 (ACP Vir Singh) had forwarded a sealed parcel containing the weapon of offence (knife) and the original postmortem report for the expert opinion that whether the injuries on the deceased could have been caused by said weapon. Relevant portion of the ‘Opinion regarding the weapon of offence’ (Ex.PW1/C) is reproduced herein below:- “Subject: Subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence in above said case (FIR) Inspector V. S. Tyagi, I.O. of the case forwarded a sealed parcel bearing 4 intact seals of V. S. T. containing weapon of offence i.e. knife allegedly used to inflict injuries on the person of the deceased Pradeep @ Deru whose post mortem examination was conducted vide PM Report No.HRH/39/10 noon 29.04.2010. The sealed cloth parcel bears the label “Case FIR No.81/10 dated 29.04.10 /s 302/34 IPC PS Sadar Bazar Sd/- Inspector V. S. Tyagi SHO SB. Dt. (-sic-) ‘Chaaku (Chhura)-(Knife) On opening the parcel, it is found to contain one ‘Knife’ wrapped in a white paper sheet. A diagrammatic Sketch of the knife has been prepared overleaf. Opinion: On the basis of examination of this knife and perusal of injuries, mentioned in above said PM Report of the deceased, it is opined that injury No.1 to 25 appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like this knife, a diagrammatic sketch of which has been prepared overleaf and signed by me. The weapon of offence resealed with seal of ‘PMHRH’ and handed over to IO alongwith original PM report. Sd/- (illegible) Dr. C. B. Dabas M.D. HOD Forensic Medicine Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi”

97. Perusal of the aforesaid Opinion reveals that PW-1 (Dr. C.B Dabas) opined that injuries no. 1 to 25 appear to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like knife and proved his opinion as Ex.PW1/C. Further the weapon of offence (knife) was sent to forensic science laboratory for analysis wherein it was opined that blood was detected on exhibit ‘6’ (One weapon of offence having brown stains, described as ‘knife’). Relevant portion of FSL.2010/B- 2544(Ex.PX[1]) is reproduced below: RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

1. Blood was detected on exhibits ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘4’, ‘6’, ‘7’, ‘8’, ‘9’ and ‘10’.

2. Blood could not be detected on exhibits ‘3’ and ‘5’.

3. Report of serological analysis in original in attached herewith.

98. Relevant portion of Serological report (Ex.PX[2]) reads as under:- Exhibits Species of Origin ABO Grouping/Remarks ‘1’ Blood stained gauze cloth piece Human ‘B’ group ‘2’ Blood stained cemented material Human No reaction ‘3’Earth Control No reaction --- ‘4’ Plastic Bottle Human No reaction ‘6’ weapon of offence’ Human No reaction ‘7’Pants Human B’ group ‘8’ Shirt No reaction ---- ‘9’ Blood stained gauze cloth piece Human B’ group ‘10’ underwear Human B’ group

99. Consequently, from the perusal of the FSL Report, it is evident that the blood stains found on the weapon of offence were those of human blood, however, the serological report does not provide a conclusive finding connecting the blood of the deceased on the weapon of offence. Attention of this court was directed towards the decision rendered in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari V. State of Madhya Pradesh reported at AIR 1991 SC 1853 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the absence of determination of blood group on the weapon of offence is of no significance and is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution. The germane portion of the judgment is

100. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266 has held as under: -

101. The aforesaid judgments were followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a very case of Balwan Singh vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Reported in (2019) 7 SCC 781. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:

102. In view of the ratio of the judgments cited above, as well as on the basis of material available on record, it is established, that the doctors who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased and the FSL report in the present case, corroborate the version of the prosecution witnesses and establishes the fact that weapon of offence (knife) which was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of Appellant/Rahul was used to kill the deceased by the appellants.

COMMON INTENTION ‘UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE’

103. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants shared common intention to commit the alleged offence and hence, they can not be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 IPC.

104. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to discuss the relevant provisions which are involved in the present case. Section 34 of the IPC reads as under:

105. To bring an offence within the ambit of Section 34 IPC, the following factors are necessary to be present there: (1) The criminal act (consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person, but more than one person. (2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal offence should have been in furtherance of the common intention of all such persons.

106. Therefore, in order to constitute an offence under Section 34 IPC, the accused is to be fastened with liability on the strength of Section 34 IPC, that they should have done some act which has nexus with the offence. Such an act need not be very substantial. It is enough that the act is only for guarding the scene for facilitating the crime. The distinction between a “common intention” and a “similar intention” which is real and substantial, is also not to be lost sight of. The common intention implies a prearranged plan or a plan developed on the spur of the moment. Such common intention which is developed on the spur of the moment is different from the similar intention actuated by a number of persons at the same time.

107. In other words, the act need not necessarily be overt, even if it is only a covert act, it is sufficient, provided such a covert act is proved to have been done by the co-accused in furtherance of the common intention. Even an omission can, in certain circumstances, amount to an act. So, the act mentioned in Section 34 IPC need not be an overt act, even an illegal omission to do a certain act in a certain situation can amount to an act.

108. The Apex Court in the case of Suresh & anr V. State of UP reported in 2001 3 SCC 673, has held as under: -

109. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Apex Court in the case of Asif Khan v. State of Maharashtra &Anr reported in 2019 5 SCC

210. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:

19. The test for applicability of Section 34 in a fact situation of an offence has been clearly and categorically laid down by this Court. Section 34 IPC provides as follows: “34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

20. The judgment of the Privy Council in Mahbub Shah v. King Emperor [Mahbub Shah v. King Emperor, 1945 SCC OnLine PC 5: (1944-45) 72 IA 148: AIR 1945 PC 118] has elaborately considered the ingredients under Section 34 and the said judgment of the Privy Council has been relied on and approved by this Court time and again. The Privy Council in the above case laid down that under Section 34, the essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. In para 13, the following has been laid down:

21. In Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad [Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216: 1955 Cri LJ 572], Vivian Bose, J., speaking for the Bench considered the ingredients of Section 34 and relying on the Privy Council judgment in Mahbub Shah v. King Emperor [Mahbub Shah v. King Emperor, 1945 SCC OnLine PC 5: (1944- 45) 72 IA 148: AIR 1945 PC 118] laid down the following in paras 31 to 33: (Pandurang case [Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216: 1955 Cri LJ 572], AIR pp. 221-22)

110. In view of the legal position laid down in the judgments cited above, as well as on the basis of evidence borne out from the previous part of the judgment, it is established that all the appellants in furtherance of their common intention with each other, were actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants that there was no common intention under Section 34 IPC among the appellants to commit the alleged offence holds no ground.

CONCLUSION

111. In our view, in the instant appeals before us, coupled with the law laid down by the Apex Court unerringly lead to one conclusion and that is the guilt of the appellants. Accordingly, in the background of such a scenario, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case through oral evidence of the eye witnesses, which were found to be creditworthy and reliable and also consistent with the testimonies of other material witnesses, that the appellants in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of the deceased.

112. Hence, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and we find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and we see no cogent reason to interfere with the same. The conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. The appellants are stated to be in Judicial Custody. Let them serve their sentence.

113. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed

114. Trial Court Record be returned along with a copy of this order.

115. A copy of this order be also sent to Superintendent of Jail, Tihar Jail Delhi. Crl.M.(BAIL) 574/2019 in CRL.A. 379/2019, Crl.M.(BAIL) 851/2019 in CRL.A. 619/2019, Crl.M.(BAIL) 897/2019 in CRL.A. 642/2019, Crl.M.(BAIL) 834/2019 in CRL.A. 606/2019, Crl.M.(BAIL) 838/2019 in CRL.A. 610/2019 and Crl.M.(BAIL) 1177/2019 in CRL.A. 775/2019

1. In view of the above order passed in the appeals, the present applications are rendered infructuous.

2. Applications stand disposed off.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. MANMOHAN, J. NOVEMBER 6, 2019 SU