Crl.A.29/2004 Page 1 of 30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. APPEAL NO.29/2004 Reserved on : 4th December, 2008 Date of Decision : 16.01.2009 SHAKALU …… Appellant Through: Ms.Charu Verma, Amicus Curiae. Versus STATE …… Respondent Through: Mr. M. N. Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.SHALI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes J U D G M E N T V.K.SHALI, J: 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 28th July, 2003 and the order of sentence dated 31st July, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 377/302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for an offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years Crl.A.29/2004 Page 2 of 30 and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In the event of default of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5000/- he is further directed to undergo imprisonment of 2 years and one year respectively. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case against the appellant is that on 16th September, 2001 PW 1 Rameshwar s/o Badri Prasad resident of Village Kadgi, PS Kasdol, District Raipur, Chattisgarh lodged a complaint with the police station of New Ashok Nagar that his son Viren aged about 5 years was missing since evening. On the basis of the aforesaid information a DD entry No. 59 B Exhibit PW 1/B was recorded by the police. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 19th September, 2001 PW 1 Rameshwar again visited the police station and lodged a fresh complaint Ex.PW1/A about the suspicion that his son might have been kidnapped/enticed by someone. On the basis of the said report a DD Entry No. 10A, exhibit PW 4/1 was recorded. Endorsement was made on the said statement by the police which is exhibit PW4/1 and an FIR Ex.PW4/2 was registered and the same was given to ASI Surender Pal Singh, PW4. The said FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC and the same was given to ASI PW4 for the purpose of investigation. It is alleged that PW-4 ASI Surender Pal Singh, as a consequence of this, visited the spot, made enquires and found the dead body of Viren lying in a room on the ground floor of a multistory building of SFS Flats which was under Crl.A.29/2004 Page 3 of 30 construction. It was found that on the dead body of the deceased Viren one cement pillar was lying on the head and face. On the basis of the detection of the dead body the FIR was converted from Section 363 to 377/302/201 IPC and investigations were carried out. A dog squad was summoned to the spot which had a dog by the name „Don‟ who had taken a smell of the stone which was purported to be found lying on the deceased and thereafter the dog is purported have taken the police party on to the first floor of the same building to a room where accused Sukalu was staying. The dog took the rounds of the said room and thereafter stood by the side of the appellant indicating as if the appellant was the person who is purported to have committed the crime. Then, the accused was arrested. The investigating officer collected and seized the blood stained pillar, blood stained earth and the same was sealed in a pullanda with a seal of G. S. vide seizer memo Exhibit P1. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital for the post mortem. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded. The appellant Sukalu, Davender, Salam Kumar and Sushil Kumar were living in the room in the same building under construction. They were interrogated and thereafter the accused is purported to have made a disclosure statement Ex.PW12/C admitting his crime as a consequence of which he was arrested. On the next day, the appellant was taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital where Dr. L. C. Gupta, PW-5 Crl.A.29/2004 Page 4 of 30 collected his blood sample and examined him physically as to whether he is fit to perform the sexual intercourse. It is also alleged by the prosecution that on the date of examination by Dr. Gupta, the appellant is purported to have made an extra judicial confession before the Dr. Gupta that he had committed the unnatural sex with five boys and six girls apart from subjecting the deceased Viren to unnatural sexual intercourse. After investigation the challan was prepared and filed in the competent court. 3. On 13th March, 2002 the charges under Sections 377/302 IPC was framed against the appellant, which were read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution in support of its case had examined 13 witnesses, PW1 Rameshwar S/o Badri Prasad the father of the deceased/ complainant who lodged the missing report about his son originally on 16th September, 2001 which was recorded by DD No. 59 B Exhibit which is PW1/B. It is further stated by him in his testimony that his son Viren who was aged five years, his body was found in a room on the ground floor in a building which was under construction in Kondli. This fact was informed to him by one Phool Singh whereupon he went to the said room and found his dead body lying with a three foot cement slab on his neck. He, thereafter, approached the police once again and lodged a fresh Crl.A.29/2004 Page 5 of 30 report with the police on the basis of which an FIR originally under Section 363 IPC was registered which is Exhibit PW 4/1 and the same was handed over to ASI Surender Pal Singh who came to the spot and thereafter got the said FIR converted from 363 to 377/302 IPC. Rameshwar has also testified to the effect that after detection of the dead body of his son, the appellant was interrogated. He is purported to have made a disclosure statement and also pointed out to the place of having committed the unnatural act on the deceased son. The appellant pointed to the place where this heinous act was committed by him exhibit PW 1/D, it is also stated by him that the police party had brought a dog squad, on 19th September, 2001 itself who had smelled the place where the dead body of the deceased was found and thereafter the dog took the lead and went to the room where the appellant was living. The police interrogated the appellant and other occupants of the said room whereupon the appellant is purported to have been arrested. He has proved various documents identification of the dead body of his son, receipt of dead body after postmortem which are Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G respectively. He has also identified slab Ex.P-1. The witness was cross examined but nothing has been brought about in his cross-examination which could discredit his testimony except that there is variation in the account furnished by him as to how the body of the deceased was detected as against the version given by PW-4 ASI Surinder Pal Singh. But it seems that the version Crl.A.29/2004 Page 6 of 30 given by PW-1 is more plausible whereas the version given by the IO seems to be concocted one. 5. PW 2 Godge Bai is the wife of Rameshwar who has also deposed on the lines of the husband though her examination is very short. She was subjected to cross examination but nothing has been brought about which could discredit her testimony. 6. A perusal of the testimonies of the PW 1 and 2 only prove the fact that the dead body of the deceased Viren was found on the ground floor of multistory building under construction in Kondli where the pillar of cement was lying on his face. On 19th September, 2001 it has also come in their evidence that they identified the dead body of their deceased son apart from the fact that the local police had brought a dog squad who had smelled the place where the dead body was found and thereafter taken the police party to the first floor by the side of the appellant so as to indicate as if the appellant has something to do with a commission of crime. This is not a case where PW 1 or PW 2 have seen the unnatural sex being committed by the appellant or the murder of their son being committed by the appellant. 7. PW 3 Raju is a public witness who has turned hostile and has denied that he had seen anything pertaining to this case. He resiled from previous statement made before the police and he was Crl.A.29/2004 Page 7 of 30 declared hostile and he was subjected to extensive cross examination by the prosecution and in his cross examination he stood very firm having denied that he had seen the incident. Therefore, his testimony is of no help to the prosecution. 8. PW 4 Surender Pal Singh was posted as ASI at PS New Ashok Nagar who was given DD No. 59 B which is exhibit PW 1/B for the purpose of making a search to find out the deceased son of the complainant PW 1. He has also proved the statement Exhibit PW1/A of PW 1 on the basis of which an FIR, on which he has made endorsement Exhibit PW 4/1 and thereafter FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC vide FIR 290/2001 at PS New Ashok Nagar. It is stated by him that after registration of the FIR he went to the spot where he found near DDA MIG flats, Mayur Vihar Phase-III the dead body of the deceased lying in a room on the ground floor with a piece of pillar (made of cement and iron sariyas) lying on the dead body. It is also stated by him that the complainant Rameshwar also met him and identified the dead body of his son Viren. The dead body is stated to have a kaccha and a shirt. The dead body was seized and sent for post mortem to the hospital and the slab of iron sariyas which is Exhibit PW4/B was taken into custody and seized. This witness was not subjected to any cross examination. A comparison of the testimonies of PW1 and PW 4 will show that there is a glaring disparity in the versions of the two witnesses as to Crl.A.29/2004 Page 8 of 30 how the dead body of the deceased was recovered. PW 1 the father of the deceased states that he was informed by one Phool Singh on 19th September, 2001 in the morning at about 09.00 A.M. that there was a dead body lying on the ground floor in a DDA flats under construction whereupon he identified the dead body of his son and sent to the police station upon which the FIR was registered. As against this, the version of the ASI PW4 is that on 19th September, 2001 he made an endorsement on the Ruqqa of the complainant and got an FIR originally registered under Section 363 IPC and thereafter went to the spot where he detected the dead body and also met the father of the deceased who identified the dead body whereupon the FIR of 363 IPC was got converted into Sections 377/302 IPC. Thus, the version which has been given by both these persons is totally divergent. It seems that the version which has been given by the PW 1 father of the deceased that he was informed by one Phool Singh about the dead body of his son lying on the ground floor whereupon an FIR was registered on his complaint at the police station seems to be more reliable as against the version which is given by the ASI PW 4 Surender Pal Singh. 9. PW 5 Dr. L.C.Gupta, a Specialist of Forensic Medicines conducted the post mortem on the body of Viren son of Shri Rameshwar. The accused was taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital where Dr. L. C. Gupta physically examined the accused Crl.A.29/2004 Page 9 of 30 and gave findings that the accused was capable of sexual intercourse. Dr. Gupta, PW-5, collected his blood sample and examined him physically as to whether he is fit to perform the sexual intercourse. On the date of examination by Dr. Gupta, the accused had made an extra judicial confession before him that he had committed the unnatural sex with five boys and sexual intercourse with six girls apart from subjecting the deceased Viren also to such an act of carnal and unnatural intercourse which resulted in his death. 10. PW 6 HC Gain Amba has testified that she was posted as Duty Officer at police station New Ashok Nagar on 19th September, 2001. She received rukka Exhibit PW 4/1 from SI Surender Pal Singh, she registered the FIR under Section 363 IPC. After registering the FIR the same was handed over to SI Surender Pal Singh PW-4 for the purpose of investigation. She proved the copy of the FIR Exhibit PW 4/A. She has identified her signatures at point A. 11. PW7 Gurmeet Singh was posted in the Dog Squad Cell of Crime Brach on 19th September, 2001. It was he who got the dog at about 1.45 P.M. to the place of occurrence in the capacity of the trainer of the dog, the dog smelled the spot and thereafter he went to the room of the appellant where he caught the appellant. It was he who testified that after smelling the stone slab which was lying on the deceased, the dog had taken the trainer, namely, PW7 to the Crl.A.29/2004 Page 10 of 30 first floor to a room of Chowkidar where he started circling the appellant which was as indication that he is involved in the commission of crime. The dog had stopped by the side of the accused with his mouth towards the appellant. He also identified the slab Exhibit PW1. 12. PW 8 Constable Suresh Kumar took the photographs of the spot where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. These photographs were proved as Exhibit PW 6 to Exhibit PW 10 on the basis of negatives Exhibit P1 to P5. 13. PW9 Constable Sonu Kaushik, Assistant Draftsman, Crime Branch who prepared the rough sketch of the place of incident on the pointing out of Inspector Gian Singh and thereafter the site plan was proved by Exhibit PW 9/A. 14. PW10 Constable Ravinder Singh joined investigation on 19.9.2001 along with SI Jaswant Singh. It was he who along with SI Jaswant Singh who had taken the dead body of deceased Viren to Lal Bahadur Shashtri Hospital. It was he who got the dead body send for the post mortem and after post mortem he received one parcel containing underwear and T-Shirt and Banyan along with the sample seal from the concerned doctor which he handed over to the Investigating Officer which was seized vide memo Exhibit PW 10/A. Crl.A.29/2004 Page 11 of 30 15. PW11 Constable Satender had recorded the DD No. 59B on 16th September, 2001 at police station New Ashok Nagar when the report was originally lodged by PW1. He informed the PCR and handed over the copy of the DD entry to ASI Surnder Pal Singh PW 4 which is exhibit PW 1/B. 16. PW12 Jaswant Singh, Sub Inspector is the person who along with Inspector Gian Singh Meena was on petrol duty near main market, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, when a wireless message was received from PW4 Surender Pal Singh, ASI about the detection of a dead body of the missing child. He along with Inspector Gian Singh Meena went to the spot and participated in the investigation of the case. It was he who had called the dog squad from the Crime Branch and he was present at the time when the dog squad had taken the smell of the stone slab and proceeded on to the first floor where the appellant was pointed out to be connected with the commission of crime. He proved Exhibit PW 12/A (Blood smeared soil and sample soil from the place of occurrence), Ex.PW12/B (piece of pillar), Ex.PW12/C disclosure statement, Ex. PW1/D site of the room where he committed the crime and Exhibit PW 1/B (from the where the dead body was thrown) on which he has put his signature. He also identified the baniyan Exhibit PW1 and Lungi Exhibit PW 2 which belonged to the appellant. He testified that lungi was smeared with blood stains. Crl.A.29/2004 Page 12 of 30 17. PW13 Gian Singh, Inspector is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the part investigation and after investigation he filed the charge sheet in court. 18. The entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused in the statement under Section 313 which was denied by him. The accused did not give any cogent explanation as to why the incriminating evidence was given against him. No witness was examined by the accused in his defence. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Charu Verma has submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt in as much as the complete chain of circumstances which will lead the Court to draw an irresistible conclusion against the appellant to the effect that he has committed the offence have not been fully established. It was, further, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that only three circumstances have been dealt with by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi on the basis of which the conviction has been handed down in respect of the appellant. Crl.A.29/2004 Page 13 of 30 20. The first piece of evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Trial Court is to the effect that a dog squad was called and the sniffer dog after taking the smell of the stone which was purported to be lying on the deceased and thereafter, the said dog had taken the police party to the room of the appellant and started circling the appellant and sat by his side. It was contended that this circumstance could not be treated as evidence. The help of the sniffer dog could be taken only as a tool for the purpose of investigation and by no stretch of imagination it could be treated as a circumstantial evidence. For this purpose the learned counsel placed reliance on case titled Dinesh Bharthakur Vs. State of Assam 2008 (4) SCALE 487. 21. The second piece of evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Additional & Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi is the extra judicial confession purported to have been made by the appellant to Dr. L. C. Gupta, PW-10 who is purported to had examined the appellant on the next day of the arrest that is on 20th July, 2001. The appellant is purported to have admitted that he had committed sexual and carnal intercourse with minor girls and boys in the past also. He is also purported to have admitted that in respect of the deceased he has also done the same. As regards, this piece of evidence it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the so called extra judicial confession was not put Crl.A.29/2004 Page 14 of 30 to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 and, therefore, could not be referred to or relied upon by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant in order to support her contention also placed reliance on the title Latu Mahto & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) [SC] 2008 [3] JCC 1800 wherein the Supreme Court has stated that the object of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to enable the accused personally to explain the circumstances appearing against him so as to benefit the Court in arriving at a final conclusion. This provision under Section 313 is enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of the principles of natural justice enshrined in maxim audi alteram partem and since this incriminating evidence was not put to the appellant, therefore, it could not be read against him. 22. Thirdly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the only independent witness cited by the prosecution was one Mr. Raju PW-3 who has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. Thus, it was contended that the only remaining evidence against the appellant is a recovery of a lungi and a banyan belonging to the appellant from his room in pursuance to the disclosure statement purported to have been made by him. The lungi is stated to be soaked in blood while the report of the FSL Exhibit PW13/G and PW13/H does not give any Crl.A.29/2004 Page 15 of 30 definite conclusion as to whether the said blood group matched with the blood group of the deceased or the appellant or is even the human blood at all. Therefore, these clothes were also not connected with the commission of the offence. 23. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the prosecution may have been able to create a suspicion against the appellant, but it has miserably fallen short of proof of the facts and the complete chain of circumstances so as to make any reasonable prudent person to draw an inference that appellant has committed the offence under Section 377/302 IPC. 24. As against this, Mr. M. N. Dudeja, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently contended that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned Additional & Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi and the prosecution has proved the entire chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt which will show that the appellant is the only person who could have committed this offence in question. The following are the circumstances which have been referred to by the learned APP for the State in support of his contention which shows that the appellant alone is guilty of having committed the offence. “A. Disclosure statement exhibit PW 12/C purported to have been made by the appellant Crl.A.29/2004 Page 16 of 30 on the basis of the recovery of a lungi which was smeared with blood and a banyan of the appellant was got recovered by the appellant. B. The extra judicial confession made by the appellant before the Dr. L. C. Gupta, PW-10 which was free from the vice of any threat pressure coercion or inducement wherein he had not only admitted the commission of the offence of carnal intercourse qua the deceased, but also the fact that he had done the same in the past with number of other children both male and female also. C. The factum of the place where the dead body was lying and recovered happen to be a room in a four storied building under construction where the appellant was living alone in another room on the first floor and it was within his exclusive knowledge as to how the dead body came to the ground floor and the onus was on him discharge the same by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to explain under what circumstances the dead body of the deceased had been found there. In order to further support his argument the learned counsel for the State also referred to the factum of the body of the deceased