Delhi District Court
State vs . Surender Kumar on 29 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. ROHIT GULIA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 200/16
PS: Palam Village
State Vs. Surender Kumar
Date of Institution: 13.04.2017
Date of commission of the offence: 28.04.2016
Name of the Complainant: SI Sandeep Kumar,
No.D-4240, PS Palam
Name and address of accused: Surender Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mannu Ram,
R/o : WZ-626A, Raj Nagar,
Part-I, Palam Colony, Delhi.
Charge framed against accused: u/s : 336 IPC
Plea of accused person: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Convicted
Date for announcing the orders 29.10.2018
JUDGMENT
1. FIR under Section 336 IPC was registered against accused Surender Kumar and after completion of usual investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 336 IPC.
2. Notice under Section 336 IPC was framed against the accused that on 28.04.2016 at about 12:30 AM near H.No.WZ-626A, Raj Nagar-
State Vs. Surender Kumar FIR No.200/16 1/8 I, Palam Colony, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Palam Village accused acted negligently while unloading his licenced revolver so as to endanger human life due to which a shot was fired to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the said incident, the accused got injured in his leg.
3. To prove the allegations, prosecution has examined five witnesses and thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed on 18.04.2018.
4. PW-1 SI Khajan Singh deposed that on 28.04.2016, he was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team and on that day, he received wireless message regarding the incident of firing at WZ-626-A, Gali no.4, Raj Nagar-I, Palam Colony and thereafter, he along with his team consisting of HC Banwari Lal (Photographer), ASI Nitin Kumar (finger print expert) and HC Rajender (driver) reached at that the spot. SI Sandeep along with police staff from PS Palam Village were present at the spot and one car Ford bearing no.DL-8CK-4852 was also stationed there which was already washed from inside. One revolver was found at the sofa inside the house which was containing four empty cartridges and four live cartridges. HC Banwari Lal took photographs of the spot. Revolver along with cartridges were handed over to SI Sandeep who prepared the sketch of those bullets and revolver and seized the same. PW1 prepared his report Ex.PW1/A and handed over to SI Sandeep. PW1 was cross-examined by the defence counsel of accused.
State Vs. Surender Kumar FIR No.200/16 2/8
5. PW-2 HC Banwari Lal deposed that 28.04.2016, he was posted in Mobile Crime Team as Head Constable and was working as photographer and on that day, he along with SI Khajan Singh, Incharge, Crime Team and other members had gone to Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, Syndicate Market, Gali No.4. PW2 failed to tell the exact address. PW2 further deposed that there was one Eco Sport Car and they had inspected the car and PW2 took the photographs of the car from front angles. Photographs of the car are on record and he brought the negatives. Photographs are collectively Ex. P-1 and negatives are Ex. P-2. PW2 was cross-examined by the defence counsel of accused.
6. PW-3 SI Sandeep Kumar deposed that on 28.04.2016, he received DD No. 14A Ex. PW3/A and he along with Ct. Dharmender went to Rockland Hospital where injured Surender Kumar s/o Sh. Munna Ram Tanwar was found admitted vide MLC NO. 58/16. In the MLC doctor has mentioned alleged history of self inflicted injury over left leg following gun shot injury. Injured was unfit for statement. PW3 collected the MLC 58/16 already Ex. P1. In the hospital, Sanjay, brother of injured met him and informed that Surender got injured while unloading his revolver in his car bearing no. DL-8CAK-4852 in front of his house. Doctor handed over PW3 two sealed pulindas. One pulinda was containing pant of injured and second pulinda was containing piece of bullet. Both the pulindas were sealed with seal of RHLDWK. PW3 further deposed that he seized both pulindas through one seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. PW3 got inspected the car of injured through crime team officials and photographs of car were also taken State Vs. Surender Kumar FIR No.200/16 3/8 by Crime Team. PW3 collected crime team report. PW3 deposited sealed pulinda in the malkhana. PW3 further deposed that in the evening of 28.04.2016, he inquired from injured Surender Kumar who informed him that he accidentally got injured while unloading his revolver in his car. Thereafter, PW3 returned to PS and made his endorsement Ex. PW3/B on DD entry 14A and presented the tehrir to DO for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, DO handed over him the orignal tehrir and copy of FIR. PW3 further deposed that on 29.04.2016, he visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW3/C on his observation. Anil Kumar Tanwar, brother of Surender produced revolver with which Surender got injured while unloading. PW3 checked the revolver and he found four empty cartridges/bullets and four live cartridges/bullets. PW3 prepared sketch of revolver and bullets Ex. PW3/D and Ex. PW3/E respectively. Revolver was kept in plastic container and same was sealed with the seal of SS and PW3 prepared seizure memo of sealed pulinda Ex.PW3/F. Cartridges/bullets(empty and live) were kept in small container and same was sealed with the seal of SS and PW3 prepared seizure memo of sealed pulinda Ex. PW3/G. Anil also produced arm licence of revolver which was seized by PW3 through seizure memo Ex.PW3/F. PW3 sent sealed pulinda containing the lead of bullet which was handed over to him by doctor, sealed pulinda containing revolver, sealed pulinda containing bullets(empty and live) to FSL vide RC No. 81/21/16 Mark B1 through Ct Shambhu on 18.05.2016. Ct. Shambu deposited the exhibits in vide FSL No. 2016/F-3765 and handed over the copy of receipt Mark B2 to PW3. PW3 got verified the arm licence of Surender and he also gave information through Addl DCP State Vs. Surender Kumar FIR No.200/16 4/8 to Licensing Authority in respect of present case. After receiving the FSL result Mark B3, PW3 filed charge-sheet against Surender without arrest in the court through SHO. PW3 recorded statements of witnesses during investigation. PW3 was cross-examined by the defence counsel of accused.
7. PW-4 Ct. Shambhu deposed that on 18.05.2016, he took the sealed exhibits along with forwarding letter from MHC(M) vide RC no.81/21/16 to FSL Roihini and deposited the sealed exhibits in FSL Rohini and took the receiving and handed over the same to MHC(M). PW4 was cross-examined by the defence counsel of accused.
8. PW5 Shri V.R.Anand, Assistant Director (Ballistic) FSL Rohini deposed that on 18.05.2016, three sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL for examination. PW5 further deposed that parcel no.1 was containing one deformed bullet, parcel no.2 was containing one revolver and parcel no.3 was containing four ".22" cartridges and four ".22" cartridges. PW5 further deposed that he examined the said exhibits and found that revolver was in working order and test fire conducted successfully. The cartridges cases EC-1 to EC-4 were fired empty cartridges. The cartridges A1 to A4 were test fired through revolver and marked as TC1 to TC4 and recovered bullets were marked as TB1 to TB4. PW5 further deposed that he compared the individual characteristics of firing pin to test fired cartridges and found identical and same were fired through the revolver Mark F-1. PW5 further deposed that he compared individual characteristics of firing pin to test fired cartridges and were found insufficient and no State Vs. Surender Kumar FIR No.200/16 5/8 opinion can be given whether the cartridges case EC2 had been fired through the revolver F-1 or not due to insuffi8cinet data. PW5 further deposed that he also compared individual characteristics of firing to recovered bullets and found identical and the bullet EB-1 had been fired through revolver F-1. PW5 further deposed that all the exhibits were sealed with the seal of VRA FSL Delhi after examination and his detailed report dated 23.02.2017 is Ex.PW5/A and he sent the report to SHO PS Palam Village vide forwarding letter dated 27.02.2017 Ex.PW5/B. PW5 was cross-examined by the defence counsel of accused.
Statement of accused and defence
9. Prosecution Evidence stood closed on 18.04.2018. Statement of accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C was separately recorded. All the incriminating evidence were put to him. In his statement, he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent and further stated that he has not acted rashly or negligently and had taken all due care while unloading the revolver and that he was inside his room in his house and no one was present there except him and that it was an accident. However, he preferred not to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions
10. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the record.
State Vs. Surender Kumar FIR No.200/16 6/8
11. In the present case, prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the accused was so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others. The case of the prosecution is that the accused while unloading his gun in his car outside his home acted rashly and negligently and thereby a shot was fired from the gun which injured the accused and thereby the said rash and negligent act of the accused was of such a nature so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others.
In the statement under Section 281 Cr.P.C by the accused, it has not been disputed by the accused that while unloading his gun, the same went off and he was injured and the defence of the accused is that he has taken all due care and was not rash and negligent and he was inside his room in his house and no one else was there. But even if we consider the statement of the accused as true then also it is quite clear that due to the said act, the accused got injured by gun shot injury in his leg and therefore, his said act was of such a nature so as to endanger the human life and as far as rash and negligence is concerned, the act i.e the accidental fire, itself shows that the accused acted in a rash and negligent manner with his revolver due to which it fired accidentally and it is not the defence of the accused that the revolver has fired due to some mechanical default in the same and in the examination of PW5 i.e., V.R.Anand, Assistt. Director (Ballistic) FSL Rohini, it was stated by him that the revolver was in working condition and test fires were conducted successfully and it further corroborates that the revolver was in working condition and therefore, it becomes clear that the accused was rash and negligent State Vs. Surender Kumar FIR No.200/16 7/8 while unloading the same due to which it got fired accidentally and injured the accused himself and it could have also injured any other person if anybody was present near the place of the incident.
12. Therefore, from the abovementioned facts and circumstance, it can be said that the accused acted rashly and negligently while handling his revolver due to which the accused got shot in his leg and after hearing the rival contentions raised at bar as well as on careful scrutiny of material on record, I am of considered opinion that prosecution has successfully brought home guilt against the accused and has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of Section 336 IPC. Accordingly, the accused Surender Kumar is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC. Copy of this judgment be provided to accused free of cost. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Announced in the Open Court (ROHIT GULIA) on this 29th of October, 2018 MM-01: Dwarka : Delhi ROHIT Digitally signed by ROHIT GULIA Date: 2018.10.29 GULIA 15:42:35 +0530 State Vs. Surender Kumar FIR No.200/16 8/8