Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Kumar Son Of Ganpat Singh ... on 29 April, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNITA GUPTA : DISTRICT JUDGE-VII-CUM-
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTH-EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C.No.80/2010
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0147552010.
State Vs. Vijay Kumar son of Ganpat Singh Resident of B-2/281, Gali No.16,
Harsh Vihar,Delhi.
FIR No.186/2009
PS Harsh Vihar
U/s 307 IPC & 25 Arms Act.
Date of Institution :- 07.09.2010
Date of reserving the Judgement :- 29.04.2011
Date of pronouncement :- 29.04.2011
J U D G E M E N T :-
1. The prosecution case emanates from the facts that on 14.09.2009, on receipt of DD No.9A regarding firing in a quarrel, ASI Raghuraj Singh alongwith Constable Ramesh reached Gali No.16, B-2 Block, Harsh Vihar, where complainant Ganpat got his statement recorded wherein he stated that he alongwith his family consisting of his wife and eleven children, out of whom four sons are married, are living in the same house. His second son Vijay is living alongwith his wife on the upper portion of the house. He keeps on quarrelling with regard to sharing the property. In the morning, Vijay was quarrelling with his wife Lakshmi Devi (mother of the accused) and eldest daughter in law Mamta Devi. Mamta asked him as to why he was quarrelling and that she was going to call the police. Thereupon Vijay went to his room upstairs and brought a katta. He tried to make the accused understand and not to quarrel. The accused thereafter stated that he too used to tease his wife and that he will not spare him and will finish him that day. He put the katta on his cheek and fired the bullet with an intention to kill him. The bullet passed through his cheek. Thereafter, he tried to run away from there. He raised alarm. The mohalla people S.C. No.76/2010 Page 1/6 2 apprehended the accused alongwith the katta and three live cartridges were recovered from his pocket. Police was informed. Accused alongwith katta and three live cartridges was produced before the police. On the basis of this statement of the complainant-injured, case u/S 307 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act was got registered. Case property was sealed and seized. Form FSL was filled in. Case property was sent to FSL and result was obtained. Investigation was handed over to SI Vijay Kumar. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused.
2. Charge for offences punishable under sections 307 IPC and 25 of Arms Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses in all namely, Ganpat (PW1), Mamta (PW2), Constable Ramesh (PW3) Dr.M.Dass (PW4), Insp.Virender Singh Punia (PW5), SI Vijay gupta (PW6), Consable Sanjeev (PW7), Rajesh Kumar, Addl. DCP (PW8), ASI Raghuraj Singh (PW9), ASI Rakesh Tyagi (PW10) and HC Sanjay Kumar (PW11).
4. I have heard Sh. ld. Prosecutor, Sh. Ravinder Khandelwal, and Shri H.K,Mahaur, Advocate, for the accused and have perused the record.
5. It is submitted by ld. counsel for the accused that both the public witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. There is no other independent witness who have substantiated the case of prosecution as such accused is entitled to be acquitted.
6. Per contra, it was submitted by ld. Addl. PP for the State that country made katta and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused and sanction was obtained for his prosecution as such charge for the offence under section 25 Arms Act is established against him and he is liable to be convicted for the said offence.
7. I have given my considerable thought to the respective submissions of ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
8. The police machinery in the instant case was set in motion on S.C. No.76/2010 Page 2/6 3 receipt of DD No.9A regarding sustaining bullet injury in a quarrel at house No.281, Gali No.16, B-2 Block, Harsh Vihar, Delhi in front of School Harsh Vihar on which ASI Raghuraj alongwith constable Ramesh went to the spot where he met Ganpat who made a statement Ex.PW1/A to the effect that accused is his son who is residing on upper floor of the same property. He keeps on quarrelling with him on account of sharing the property. On that day, he was quarrelling with his wife Lakshmi and daughter in law Mamta asked him as to why he was quarrelling and that she is going to inform the police. Accused went upstairs and brought a katta. When he asked him not to quarrel then Vijay told him that he has also teased his wife and therefore, he will finish him that day. He fired from the katta with intention to kill him. The bullet hit his cheek. Thereafter he started running. When he raised alarm then he was apprehended by the public alongwith country made katta and three live cartridges were also recovered from his possession. On this statement, a case under section 307 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act was registered.
9. Out of the eleven prosecution witnesses, PW1 Ganpat and PW2 Mamta are the most material witnesses. PW1 Ganpat is the complainant. Although this witness has deposed that wife of the accused quarrelled with him for getting share in the property and in-laws of accused also quarrelled with him. On the date of incident i.e. 14.9.2009, his wife again started quarrelling. When he asked not to do so then quarrel started. He heard the sound of bullet. He had a narrow escape and bullet passed through his cheek. He raised alarm 'pakro-pakro', public persons apprehended the accused. When police came, they recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. However, nothing was recovered in his presence. Since this witness did not support the case of prosecution, he was cross examined by ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and in cross examination, he admitted that on 14.09.2009, in the morning, accused was quarrelling with his wife Lakshmi and daughter in law Mamta. However, he denied having stated to the police that Mamta asked the accused as why he was quarrelling and she was going to call the police on which Vijay went S.C. No.76/2010 Page 3/6 4 upstairs and took out a katta from there. He further denied having stated to the police that accused started quarrelling with him by stating that he also teased his wife and he will finish him that day and thereafter with an intention to kill him kept the katta on his cheek or that three live cartridges were recovered from the pocket of accused or that he was apprehended with katta by the public persons. He was confronted with material portion of his statement Ex.PW1/A made to the police which he denied having made to the police. He admitted arrest of the accused in his presence. However, he denied that accused had fired one shot towards him or that he was deposing falsely in order to save him as he is his son. When he was shown katta and the cartridges, he denied that these are the same which were shown to him by the police at the time of preparing the sketch plan.
10. PW2 Mamta Devi is daughter in law of PW1 Ganpat. This witness has deposed that on 14.9.09 dispute had taken place in her family on the issue of partition of property between the accused and her father in law Ganpat. She asked them not to quarrel and thereafter since they did not agree she called the police at 100 number. When she came back, she saw many persons gathered over there but at that time neither her brother in law i.e. the accused nor her father in law were found present. Since this witness did not support the prosecution case, she was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP and in cross examination she denied having stated to the police that accused brought the country made katta and fired towards her father in law Ganpat or that the bullet passed through the face of her father in law or that accused was apprehended at the spot by mohalla persons who had gathered at the spot. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW2/A which she denied having made to the police.
11. PW9 ASI Raghu Raj Singh went at the spot on receipt of DD No.9A Ex.PW9/A and Ganpat produced the accused alongwith katta and three live cartridges. He prepared sketch of the same as Ex.PW3/C and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He also got the case registered. To the same effect is the testimony of PW3 Ct. Ramesh.
S.C. No.76/2010 Page 4/65
12. PW6 SI Vijay Kumar Gupta was entrusted with the investigation of this case after registration of the case and this witness has deposed that whenhe reached the spot. ASI Raghuraj Singh handed over to him custody of the accused and documents and sealed pullanda. He prepared site plan Ex.PW6/A, arrested the accused, recorded his disclosure statement. The remaining witnesses, as stated above, took part in the investigation of the case at one point or the other.
13. As regards the offence u/S 307 IPC is concerned, material witnesses were PW1 Ganpat and PW2 Mamta Devi. As seen above, both these witnesses have chose not to support the case of prosecution, may be due to close relationship with the accused but the fact remains that except these two witnesses, there is no other independent witness to the incident. Under the circumstances, keeping in view the fact that both these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, there is no option but to hold that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had fired at Ganpat with the intention to cause him such an injury which could have resulted in his death.
14. Similarly, as regards recovery of country made katta and three live cartridges, it is not even proved beyond reasonable doubt that same were recovered from the possession of accused, in as much as, as regards police witnesses are concerned, they have deposed that accused was produced by PW1 Ganpat alongwith country made katta and cartridges. However, as stated above, Ganpat has not supported the case of prosecution. Although he has deposed that the accused was apprehended by the mohalla persons, however, for the reasons best known to the police officials, no person from the mohalla were cited as witnesses or examined by the prosecution. It is not a case where the recovery was effected in pursuance to any disclosure statement made by the accused. As per prosecution version, it was handed over by the complainant to the police when accused was handed over to them. Complainant and his daughter in law have chosen not to support the case of prosecution even in regard to this fact. That being so, the totality of the facts and circumstances makes it S.C. No.76/2010 Page 5/6 6 clear that prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt and as such there is no option but to give benefit of doubt to him. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of all the charges against him. However, he is directed to furnish bailbond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for the period of six months, under section 437-A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Sunita Gupta) on this 29th day of April, 2011. District Judge-VII/NE-cum-ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
S.C. No.76/2010 Page 6/6