Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Gurpinder Singh @ on 15 February, 2012
:1:
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 26/09
State versus 1) Gurpinder Singh @
Pinda
S/o Sh. Gulzar Singh
R/o D40A, Rajgarh
Colony,
Gali No. 4, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi
2) Sukhpinder Singh @
Raju
S/o Sh. Gulzar Singh
R/o D40A, Rajgarh
Colony,
Gali No. 4, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi
3) Parminder Singh @
Babba
S/o Sardar Manmohan
Singh
R/o H. No. 170, Jheel
Khuranja, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi
4)Pankaj Saini@ Pankaj @
Pinkay
:2:
S/o Sh. Gulab Chand Saini
R/o X3442, Gali No. 1,
Raghubar PuraII,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
5) Fizaz Ahmed @ Babu @
Soraj
S/o Sh. Mizaz Ahmed
R/o B41, New Zafrabad,
Welcome, Seelampur, Delhi
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 484/98
Police Station : I. P. Estate
Under Section : 307/186/399/402/34 IPC
Judgment reserved on : 28.1.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 15.2.2012
JUDGMENT
1. Stating briefly the facts of the case as disclosed from the chargesheet are that on 04.10.98 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia received a secret information at his office regarding presence of one Pinda who is involved in several cases of bank robberies and his associates near I. G. Stadium, Shubham Restaurant, Yamuna Velodrome in a white colour Maruti car. On receipt of this :3: information, the matter was discussed with ACP Ravi Shankar who immediately constituted raiding party comprising of Insp. Ramesh Sharma, ASI Harbir Singh, ASI Ashok Sharma, ASI Mahipal, HC Rajeshwar, HC Joginder Singh, Ct. Rishipal Singh and driver Ct. Rakesh Kumar. The members of the raiding party were briefed about the matter and were given necessary firearms. Driver Ct. Rakesh and Ct. Rishipal accompanied ACP in his official gypsy No. DL1V 3508 and whereas Insp. Rajinder Bhatia and the remaining staff came in Govt. vehicle DL1C 4238 driven by ASI Ashok Sharma.
2. At about, 10.10 AM, they reached the aforesaid spot where one Maruti car bearing No. DL2CA 4337 was found standing and some boys were going to sit in the said car. As soon as they sat in the car, the driver has just started the said Maruti car, Insp. Rajinder Bhatia brought his aforesaid vehicle directly in front of Maruti car and ACP Ravi Shankar parked his car behind the said car. Insp. Rajinder Bhatia and Ct. Rishipal got down from the :4: vehicle and told the driver of the Maruti car to stop the said car while disclosing their identity and by showing their identity cards. Immediately, thereupon the driver of the said vehicle whose name was later revealed as Sukhpinder Singh took out his right hand from the window and fired towards Insp. Rajinder Bhatia. However, Insp. Rajinder Bhatia immediately caught hold of his hand and turned direction of the pistol and thereafter managed to save himself. The driver of the vehicle namely Accused Sukhpinder thereafter turned his car towards Yamuna River at fast speed with an intention to escape, upon which Insp. Rajinder Bhatia fired from his official firearm upon rear tyre of the maruti car and car stopped at some distance. Insp. Rajinder Bhatia along with Ct. Rishi Pal quickly apprehended Accused Sukhpinder who was sitting on the driver seat along with pistol which was in his possession while trying to overpower, the Insp. Rajinder Bhatia sustained injury on his right hand.
3. The remaining members of the police party :5: surrounded the aforesaid Maruti car and all the four other persons who were sitting in the said car were also apprehended. Their names were revealed as Parminder Singh, Gurpinder Singh @ Pinda, Pankaj Saini @ Pintu, Fizaz Ahmed @ Babu. On taking cursory search of the aforesaid persons, one pistol was recovered from back pocket of the wearing pant of Accused Parvinder Singh, upon unloading the said pistol, 07 live cartridges were found inside its magazine. From the left side back pocket of his wearing pant, two more magazines were recovered, on unloading the magazines, seven live cartridges each were recovered along with one cloth like thaili of pink colour which was found containing twenty four 7.65 bore rounds. Accused Gurpinder Singh @ Pinda was found carrying 315 bore riffle on his left shoulder containing nine .315 bore cartridges. On checking the magazine, it was found containing four live cartridges. Accused Gurpinder was also found wrapping one belt around his waist containing 25 live cartridges. On cursory search of Accused Pankaj Saini, one pistol was recovered from the back pocket of his wearing pant. Upon :6: unloading the same, six live cartridges were recovered from it magazine. Two more spare loaded magazines containing each live cartridges each were recovered from wearing pant of Accused Pankaj Saini. Further, on the cursory search of Accused Fizaz Ahmed, one loaded pistol was recovered from right side pocket of his wearing pant and its magazine contained six live cartridges. From the front pocket of wearing shirt of Accused, two loaded magazines were recovered. On checking the same, six live cartridges each were recovered. Besides this, Accused Sukhpinder was found having loaded pistol in his right hand which upon checking found having five live cartridges and one round was found in its chamber. From back pocket of his wearing pant, two loaded magazines and one thaili like bag of maroon colour with words 'Aakash' written on it in English was also recovered. The said bag was found containing three live cartridges and two magazines having seven live round each.
4. The recovered arms and ammunition were measured :7: and their sketches were prepared at the spot. The empty shell of the bullet fired by Accused Sukhpinder was also recovered from the ground which was seized separately. The empty shells of the two rounds fired by Insp. Rajinder Bhatia on the tyre of the Maruti car were also recovered from the spot and seized by the police party.
5. On checking the Maruti car in which Accused persons were sitting, four caps, coloured spectacles, two helmets, one brass rod, kinfe, two gunny bags and one screw driver were recovered which as per the case of Prosecution were used by them in committing various bank robberies. It is further case of the Prosecution that Accused disclosed their involvement in various other cases of Vivek Vihar, Anand Vihar, Seema Puri, Sahibabad, Indirapuram, Link Road (UP) and also got recovered the stolen articles pertaining to the said cases. During the course of interrogation, Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda got recovered two hand grinades from flat at Loni Road which was also seized by the :8: police.
6. Recovered arms and ammunition were sent to FSL/CFSL. Upon receipt of the FSL result and requisite sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act, besides this separate supplementary chargesheet was also filed against Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda under Section 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act after obtaining sanction under Section 7 of the said Act in respect of hand grenades allegedly recovered at his instance.
7. As per record, all the Accused persons were charged for offences punishable under Section 399/402 IPC and 186/353/34 IPC on 20.9.99 Besides this Accused Sukhpinder was separately charged for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC on 20.9.99. Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda was charged for offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. All the Accused persons were charged for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act vide order dated 20.9.99. Besides this :9: Accused Sukhpinder was charged for offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act vide order dated 20.9.99. Accused pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges when the charge was read over and explained to them.
8. Prosecution in order to substantiate the aforesaid allegations against Accused examined as many as 35 witnesses on record. Statements of Accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC on 20.8.11. They pleaded innocence and false implication. Two witnesses were examined by Accused Gurpinder Singh and Sukhpinder in their defence as it was claimed by them that they were lifted from their houses on 03.10.98. Accused Gurpinder also claimed to have arms licence in respect of arms and ammunition and allegedly recovered from his possession. Similarly, Accused Sukhpinder while claiming false implication alleged that he was picked up from his house on 03.10.98 along with his brother Gurpinder and licence arms and falsely implicated them in this case.
:10:
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP as well as by Ld. Defence Counsels and have also considered the rival submissions filed on behalf of Accused Sukhpinder and Gurpinder.
10. It is borne out from the record that Prosecution examined as many as 15 Duty Officers of various PS in support of its case that stolen articles related to various cases were recovered from the possession of Accused persons. However, since Accused were admittedly facing trial separately in all these cases, no further evidence in respect of respective cases was led except the deposition of the various Duty Officers who were examined as PW3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26 and 27.
11. Besides the aforesaid witnesses, Prosecution also examined PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia, Complainant in this case. The members of the raiding party examined by the Prosecution :11: include PW8, PW14, PW28, PW29 and PW30.
12. PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia deposed that on 04.10.98 while he was posted in Interstate Cell, Chanakya Puri, Delhi, he received secret information at about 9.30 AM regarding presence of Pinda and his associates near Subham Restaurant, Yamuna Velodrome in Maruti Car. The information was entered in the roznamcha vide DD No. 3 dated 04.10.98, copy of which is Ex. PW9/A. He also deposed that information was given to the ACP concerned i.e. ACP Ravi Shankar (PW32) who constituted raiding party comprising of SI Ramesh Sharma (PW29), SI Rajbir Singh, ASI Mahipal (PW13), HC Rajeshwar (PW38) SI Harbir (PW28), Ct. Rishipal and besides the driver namely Ct. Rakesh.
13. PW9 further deposed that the raiding party left the office at 9.40 AM vide making entry No. DD No. 4 in this regard Ex. PW9/B and reached the Shubham Restaurant near Yamuna Veledrome where one Maruti car was found standing. In the said car, all Accused were found sitting. He deposed that he parked the :12: vehicle in front of said Maruti car whereas ACP parked his vehicle behind the said Maruti car. PW9 further deposed that he disclosed his identity and also showed his identity card. In the meantime, driver of the said Maruti car namely Sukhpinder Singh (correctly identified) took out a pistol in his right hand and fired at him. However, he was able to save himself as he changed the direction of the firing with his hand by catching hold of the wrist of the Accused. Then Accused Sukhpinder tried to take away the vehicle by driving at fast speed and changing its direction towards Yamuna Vellodrome. He further deposed that upon this he used his official pistol and fired two rounds i.e. two shots aiming the back tyre of the Maruti car because of which Maruti car stopped after some distance. Then he accompanied by Ct. Rishipal tried to apprehend Sukhpinder by going nearer to the car and was able to overpower Sukhpinder but while doing so, he sustained injuries on his finger of right hand. PW9 further deposed that in the meanwhile rest of the police party also reached there and surrounded the car and apprehended the other Accused persons. :13: Then personal search of Accused Parminder @ Babba was conducted and one pistol having inscription of Chechoslavakia, two spare magazines, one pouch containing 45 rounds were recovered from him. PW9 further deposed that he prepared sketch of the pistol, magazines and one round which is Ex. PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A. The recovered articles were sealed with the seal of 'RB' vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C.
14. PW9 further correctly identified Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda and deposed that he was found having a riffle on his left shoulder and 38 rounds of the same riffle which was loaded. The sketch of the riffle and one round was prepared vide Ex. PW9/C and the seizure memo of recovered articles is Ex. PW9/D.
15. PW9 also identified Accused Pankaj Saini and deposed that he was found in possession of one pistol with loaded magazine containing six rounds. Besides this, two other spare magazines were also recovered from him. The sketch of the pistol, :14: one round and three magazines is Ex. PW9/E and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/F.
16. As regards Accused Fizaz Ahmed, PW9 deposed that said Accused was found in possession of one loaded pistol containing one magazine of six rounds and two spare magazines containing six rounds each. The sketch thereof is Ex. PW9/G and the same were sealed with the seal of 'RB' and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/H. As per PW9, Accused Sukhpinder was found in possession of one pistol besides 15 rounds including the rounds which were in the pistol out of which one rounds was in the chamber. The sketch of the pistol, one round and magazine is Ex. PW9/J and the articles recovered from Accused Sukhpinder were seized vide memo Ex PW9/K.
17. PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia also seized the round fired by Accused Sukhpinder separately vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/M :15: after preparing its sketch Ex. PW9/L. The empty fired rounds which were also recovered from the spot were seized vide memo Ex. PW9/E after prepAring its sketch Ex. PW9/N.
18. He further deposed that thereafter he prepared rukka Ex. PW9/E and sent the same for registration of FIR through HC Joginder (PW14) and on the basis thereof present case was registered. He returned to the spot along with rukka and copy of FIR which is Ex. PW9/Q. He further deposed that on checking Maruti car four caps, coloured spectacles, two helmets, one brass rod, kinfe, two gunny bags and one screw driver were recovered. He prepared sketch of the empty round Ex. PW9/R and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW9/S. The sketch of the recovered knife is Ex PW9/T. Maruti car was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW9/U. He further deposed that he prepared site plan of the spot Ex. PW9/V and further deposed that investigation of this case was also marked to him after registration of FIR. The pistol with which he had fired two shots was also taken into police possession :16: alongwith remaining five rounds, one of which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/W. The Accused persons were arrested and their personal search was prepared vide memos Ex. PW9/X1 to PW9/X5.
19. Insp. Rajinder Bhatia further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of all the Accused persons and Accused disclosed about their previous involvement in other robberies incidents.
20. As per PW9, Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda also got recovered other articles in pursuance of his disclosure statement which are pertaining to other cases, as aforesaid. He further deposed that on 10.10.98 Accused made disclosure statement while in police custody and stated that he can also get recovered two hand grenades from premises No. C954, Loni Road, DDA Flats. His disclosure statement is Ex. PW8/C. He also got recovered three keys of his house which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. :17: PW8/D. PW9 also deposed that pursuant to his disclosure statement Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda got recovered two hand grenades from a house at Loni Road which were seized after vide Ex PW8/E. Insp. Rajinder Bhatia also deposed that he seized GPA and will pertaining to flat No. C954 Loni Road Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C during the course of investigation and got the Accused persons medically examined. He sent the arms and ammunition and hand grenades to the FSL on 23.10.98 and 01.11.98 vide RC No. 112 and 114 respectively. He further deposed that since there was possibility of explosion of hand grenades, he sought permission of the concerned court and moved an application to the Bomb Disposal Squad after which hand grenades were sent to the Bomb Disposal Squad and the same were destroyed. The application before the concerned court is Ex. PW9/X15.
21. PW9 correctly identified all the Accused persons present in court and the respective arms and ammunition recovered :18: from their possession during the course of trial and two empty shells and the fired cartridges fired by him.
22. In support of the deposition of the PW9, Prosecution also relied upon testimony of PW8 HC Rajesh who was member of the raiding party. On going through his deposition, I find that he has more or less corroborated the testimony of PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia. He has also correctly identified all the Accused persons and has deposed about the recoveries effected from their possession while also identifying the arms and ammunition recovered from respective Accused persons at the time of his deposition.
23. PW13 ASI Ashok Kumar who was also member of the raiding party was also brought into the witness box by the Prosecution. However, it is apparent on going through the record of the case that his deposition remained in complete and he was not examined by the Prosecution after 24.11.06 thus making his :19: testimony incomplete and thereby inadmissible in evidence.
24. Besides the aforesaid witnesses, other members of the raiding party examined by the Prosecution including PW 29 SI Ramesh, PW30 SI Mahipal. Both the said witnesses also corroborated the deposition of PW8 and PW9 deposed regarding firing by Accused Sukhpinder. They also deposed regarding factum of firing two rounds on the rear tyre of Maruti Car by Insp. Rajinder Bhatia and the recovery of the aforesaid arms and ammunition from the possession of the Accused.
25. Besides the aforesaid witnesses, Prosecution also relied upon deposition of PW14 HC Joginder Singh who was member of the raiding party and deposed regarding the incident in question and about the recovery of aforesaid arms and ammunition from the possession of the Accused persons. He also deposed Insp. Rajinder Bhatia prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got the case :20: registered after which he returned to the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to IO. The other witness examined by the Prosecution is PW31 SI Satya Prakash who was posted as SI in Crime Bomb Disposal Squad, Crime Branch, Delhi. He deposed that on 06.4.99 at request of Insp. Rajender Bhatia regarding defusing/destroying of hand grenades, Ct. Rishi Pal produced two hand grenades. He deposed that said hand grenades were defused/destroyed with the assistance of NSG staff and report was prepared in this regard which is Ex. PW9/X17.
26. PW32 ACP Ravi Shankar who was examined by the Prosecution to prove the complaint made by him under Section 195 CrPC for prosecution of the Accused persons under Section 185/353 IPC. The said complaint is Ex. PW32/A. PW33 Addl. DGP Karnail Singh deposed that he accorded the sanction under Section 39 Arms Act which is Ex. PW33/A to PW33/E in respect of the prosecution of the case as per recoveries effected from their :21: respective possession. PW34 and 35 who are ballistics expert proved their report that arms and ammunition recovered in this case vide report Ex. PW34/A and PW35/A respectively.
27. The other witnesses examined by the Prosecution include PW10 Dr. Mrinal Kaushik. He deposed that he had medically examined Insp. Rajinder Bhatia on 05.10.98 and found following injuries on his person:
i) Wound on the palmer aspect of right ring finger.
ii) Wound from the middle surface of the palmer aspect of right little finger. He proved MLC of Insp. Rajinder Bhatia Ex. PW9/X14.
28. The Prosecution also examined PW2 Sudesh Kumar who was owner of Flat No. C954, East of Loni Road, Shahdara. He deposed that he contacted PW1 Harbans Singh, the proprietor of Master Property Dealers with an intention to sell the said flat. He further deposed that in August 1994, the said flat was sold by :22: him to one Vikram Kumar S/o Madan Lal R/o C954 LIG Flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara on 08.8.94 vide GPA and will Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C respectively.
29. On the basis of deposition of aforesaid Prosecution witnesses, it has been strongly contended by Ld. APP that Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused persons had on 04.10.98 used criminal force against Insp. Rajinder Bhatia and has obstructed police party including Insp. Rajinder Bhatia from discharging their official duty. Further, Accused Sukhpinder had committed offence punishable under Section 307 IPC as he had fired upon Insp. Rajinder Bhatia who, however, managed to escape. It was further contended that recovery of the various arms and ammunition from possession of the Accused persons has also been duly established on record by way of testimonies of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses.
:23:
30. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsels have strongly opposed the case of the Prosecution. Sh. R. P. TyagiLd. Counsel representing Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda and Sukhpinder pointed out that the Prosecution has not led evidence to establish its case that all the Accused persons in furtherance of their common intention were making preparation of committing dacoity or that they are member of any gang. He submitted that there is no material on record whatsoever for establishing the allegations of Section 399/402 IPC against the Accused persons.
31. I have considered the aforesaid arguments in the light of the evidence on record and I find myself inclined to accept this contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that Prosecution has not led even an iota of evidence to prove the charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 399/402 IPC and there is no material except the secret information as mentioned in DD No. 3 Ex. PW9/A. Certainly the mere presence of five or more persons armed with deadly weapons cannot be said to be sufficient to hold :24: that they had gathered there for committing any robbery. None of the Prosecutions' witness have even whispered in their deposition that they either overheard making any preparation for committing any decoity nor have they led any evidence to substantiate this allegation. Hence, for want of any evidence to this effect, I find that there is no ground for Convicting all Accused persons under Section 399/402 IPC.
32. During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsels also sought to point out various contradictions as regards deposition of Prosecution witnesses. It was contended that with regard to charge under Section 307 IPC against Accused Sukhpinder, there are material contradictions in the statements of PWs 8, 9, 14, 28, 29 and 30. It was pointed out that PW9 stated in his examination in chief that he had parked his vehicle in front of the said Maruti car and ACP parked his vehicle behind the said Maruti car and all the Accused persons were found sitting in that car at that time and then he disclosed his identity by showing his :25: identity card on which Accused Sukhpinder took out pistol and fired on him but he changed the direction of the fire by holding his hand and saved himself.
33. On the other hand, PW8 HC Rajeshwar stated in his examination in chief that as soon as they reached at place of incident some boys were about to sit in that Maruti car and when Accused Sukhpinder started driving the Maruti car, at this juncture Insp. Rajender Bhatia swiftly brought his tempo traveler in front of Maruti car and driver of another car of ACP R. S Kaushik brought his car in the back of Maruti car and then Insp. Rajender Bhatia came down from Tempo Traveler and Ct. Rishipal from gypsy and thereafter PW9 flashed his identity card and asked the driver of Maruti car to stop, upon which Accused Sukhpinder fired towards Insp. Rajinder Bhatia while sitting on the driver seat but PW9 changed the direction of the pistol by holding the hand of Accused Sukhpinder.
:26:
34. He also pointed out that PW14 HC Joginder on the other hand deposed that some persons were sitting in the Maruti car and the driver of the car was starting the car then their vehicle was stopped in front of that Maruti car. In his crossexamination dated 03.11.01 he also deposed that the said fire had touched the hand of Insp. Rajender Bhatia after it was fired by Insp. Rajinder Bhatia whereas PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia deposed that he sustained injuries on his right hand finger while overpowering Accused Sukhpinder. PW8 did not say anything about the injuries sustained by PW9.
35. He further contended that PW28 SI Harbir Singh deposed that Maruti car with some persons sitting in it was parked in front of Shubham Restaurant and as soon as Insp. Rajinder Bhatia got down from the tempo traveler and Ct. Rishipal from the gypsy the driver of Maruti car started the vehicle and Ct. Rishipal had showed his identity card and asked the occupant of Maruti car to stop and PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia informed the :27: presence of public officials on which driver of Maruti car took out his right hand from the window and tried to fire a shot but PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia pushed his hand upward and changed the direction of the shot.
36. He further pointed out the contradictions in the deposition of PW29 SI Ramesh Sharma that when they reached the restaurant, they found one white Maruti Car near a pole in front of the restaurant and all the Accused persons went to sit in that car. He deposed that Insp. Rajinder Bhatia locked the Maruti car by parking his gypsy in front of it and ACP Ravi Shankar put his gypsy behind the Maruti car. Insp. Rajinder Bhatia showed his identity card and called out for the Accused with Ct. Rishipal. He further stated that PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia and Ct. Rishipal had not shown their identity cards but had revealed their identity to Accused persons orally.
37. Ld. Defence Counsels further pointed out that as per :28: the deposition of PW30 SI Mahipal they saw a white Maruti car standing at the spot with number plate No. 4237. The occupant of the car started running towards Yamuna Veledrome and PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia asked the occupants of the car to stop but the said Maruti car was stopped by parking vehicle in front of it and the gypsy by ASI on rear side of the car. PW30 further deposed that Ct. Rishipal introduced himself as member of the staff of ISC Branch on which driver of the car Accused Sukhpinder Singh popped out firearm and also tried to fire, meanwhile, Insp. Rajinder Bhatia (PW9) held the driver by his hand and, therefore, he could not fire.
38. I have considered the said arguments. However, it was a matter of record that PW30 was declared hostile by the Prosecution. The disparity/discrepencies sought to be highlighted by Defence in the deposition of remaining Prosecution witnesses also in my opinion cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the Prosecution. It is well settled law that some discrepencies in the :29: narration of prosecution witnesses is bound to occur and in this regard reliance may be placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Kanda Gopaludu 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 686 wherein it has been held that every discrepancy in the statement of witness cannot be treated as fatal to Prosecution case. The discrepancy which is not fatal to the Prosecution does not create any infirmity. Discrepancy in statement of witness, human memories are apt to blur wit the passage of time. After lapse of almost four years, it cannot be expected that a witness can depose with mathematical precision. Further in Leela Ram Vs State of Haryana and another AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3717 (1), it has been held that corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. :30:
39. The case of the prosecution has also been assailed on the ground that police did not join any independent witness despite the fact that they received alleged secret information in advance in the office of Crime Branch and had ample time to join independent public witness and the case of the Prosecution thus become unreliable. It was further pointed out that as per the own case of the Prosecution complainant Rajinder Bhatia was himself the Investigating Officer of this case and in these circumstances impartial and biased investigation cannot be ruled out. It was contended that IO in order to get the gallentry award falsely implicated the Accused persons in this case and in support of his arguments reliance was placed on the testimonies of DW1 and 2 by Ld. Defence Counsel.
40. It was also contended by Accused Gurpinder and Sukhpinder that as per DW2 Accused Gurpinder had valid armed licence in respect of arms allegedly recovered from his possession and he was thus falsely implicated in this case. :31:
41. The next contention of the Defence is that the Prosecution failed to produce the any evidence regarding firing on the rear tyre of the Maruti car and it was contended that photographs of the car Ex. PY/14 showed that car was not having any of its rear tyres. The Prosecution did not send any such tyres to FSL to prove the incident of firing upon rear tyre by Insp. Rajinder Bhatia.
42. I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the evidence on record. Insofar as the allegations of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against Accused Sukhpinder are concerned, I find that PW8, 9, 14, 29 and even 30 have deposed that Accused Sukhpinder who was driving the aforesaid Maruti car fired from his pistol towards Insp. Rajinder Bhatia who, however, caught hold of the hand of Accused Sukhpinder and changed the direction of the pistol. :32:
43. It is noticeable that PW30 SI Mahipal who had earlier deposed that Accused Sukhpinder had tried to fired, admitted upon being crossexamined by Ld. APP that Accused Sukhpinder had fired upon Insp. Rajinder Bhatia. He had also deposed that Insp. Rajinder Bhatia hold the Accused Sukhpinder by his hand and to this extent the deposition of PW30 supports the case of the Prosecution.
44. As aforesaid, the remaining PWs including complainant and other members of the raiding party categorically and consistently deposed that it is Accused Sukhpinder who had fired from his pistol towards Insp. Rajinder Bhatia who, however, managed to escape as he caught hold of the hand of the Accused Sukhpinder and thereby changed the direction of the pistol. It has also come on record that spent cartridge which was fired by Accused Sukhpinder was also recovered from the spot and was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/N after preparing sketch thereon which is Ex. PW9/L. From the report of :33: Ballistic Expert Ex. PW35/A, it has also been established on record that empty shell of cartridge was fired from 7.65 mm calibre pistol recovered from Accused Sukhpinder vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/K.
45. In the light of the deposition of aforesaid Prosecution witnesses which is consistent and cogent coupled with the recovery of empty shell and which categorically established that it is Accused Sukhpinder who had fired from his pistol towards Insp. Rajinder Bhatia who, however, managed to change the direction by catching hold of the hand of the Accused Sukhpinder, Proscution has been able to prove the allegations of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against Accused Sukhpinder.
46. All the Accused, as aforesaid, are also facing trial for offence punishable under Section 186/353/34 IPC. It is the case of the Prosecution that Accused persons had tried to run away in Maruti Car in which they were sitting and Insp. Rajinder Bhatia :34: fired two rounds i.e. two shots aiming the back tyre of the Maruti car because of which Maruti car stopped after some distance. Thereafter, Accused persons were overpowered by the members of the raiding party and were arrested. In order to establish this allegation, reliance may again be placed on the deposition of PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia who clearly deposed that when he changed the direction of firing with his hand by catching hold of the wrist of the Accused. Then Accused Sukhpinder tried to take away the vehicle by driving at fast speed and changing its direction towards Yamuna Vellodrome. Thereupon, PW9 used his official weapon and fired two shots aiming the back tyre of the Maruti car because of which Maruti car stopped after some distance.
47. To the similar effect is the testimony of PW8 HC Rajeshwar who deposed that after Insp. Rajinder Bhatia caught hold of hand of Accused Sukhpinder and changed the direction of the pistol, Accused Sukhpinder while sitting on driver seat tried to :35: accelerate the speed of the car in order to stop the flee Maruti car. Insp. Rajender Bhatia fired at the rear tyres of the Maruti car with his service revolver for two times, due to which Maruti car stopped after some distance. The Accused persons were thus overpowered. The other members of the raiding party including PW14 HC Joginder also deposed that Accused Sukhpinder started driving car towards Yamuna river after firing upon Insp. Rajinder Bhatia and when Insp. Rajinder Bhatia changed the direction of the firing by catching hold the hand of Accused Sukhpinder. PW29 SI Ramesh also deposed that Accused Sukhpinder tried to get away in the Maruti car but Insp. Rajinder Bhatia fired two shots on the rear tyres of the Maruti car due to which the vehicle was stopped and both the tyres were damaged.
48. From the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, it is thus clearly borne out that when the police party including PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia disclosed his identity to the Accused persons, Accused Sukhpinder tried to fire at him, but Insp. Rajinder Bhatia :36: managed to escape. Thereupon, Accused Sukhpinder tried to drive the Maruti car at fast speed by changing its direction in order to flee from the spot. The Accused persons were, however, apprehended at the spot by the police party.
49. It is thus clear from the deposition of the aforesaid PWs that when the members of the police party were trying to discharge their public function by trying to apprehend Accused Sukhpinder tried to speed up the Maruti car in order to escape from the place of occurrence and could be stopped only by firing by PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia on the rear tyres of the Maruti car in which they were sitting. The fact that members of the police party were discharging their public function, as already been established on record by way of deposition of Prosecution witnesses coupled with the fact that information regarding presence of the Accused persons at the place of occurrence was duly informed to senior officers and also recorded in DD register which has already been duly proved on record.
:37:
50. The mere fact that Prosecution failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that rear tyres were in fact punctured by the firing of two shots by PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia, to my mind, cannot be said to be fatal to the Prosecution case. Even if it is accepted that punctured tyres were not brought on record and photographs Ex. PY/1 to PY/4 of the Maruti car does not show any rear tyres, even then the fact that Accused Sukhpinder had tried to flee from the spot by changing direction of the Maruti car has been duly proved by the deposition of PW8,9,14,28 and 29. It has thus been established that when the members of the police party including PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia tried to apprehend the Accused persons while discharging their public function, Accused Sukhpinder obstructed the same by trying to flee from the place of incident.
51. It has further been established that Accused Sukhpinder fired towards PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia, who, :38: however, managed to escape. Further, from the deposition of PW9, it is also established that when PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia was trying to overpower Accused Sukhpinder, he sustained injuries on his right hand. The injuries sustained by him also stand proved by way of his MLC Ex. PW9/X14, duly proved by PW10 Dr. Mrinal Kaushik.
52. It is further the contention of the Defence that Prosecution has not led any evidence to establish that tyres which were allegedly fired by PW9 were not, however, got examined by an expert nor there is any evidence whatsoever on record to show as to how the Maruti car having two punctured tyres was taken from the spot to the PS thereby raising doubt on the entire case of the Prosecution. To counter this argument, Ld. APP has submitted that although the non production of the punctured tyres of the Maruti car and the fact that same were not sent for expert examination was lapse on part of the Investigating Agency, yet same cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the Prosecution case. :39: Ld. APP submitted that there is no merit in the argument that entire case of the Prosecution is fabricated.
53. I have considered the submissions made. It cannot be doubted that it was lapse on part of Investigating Agency that neither tyres were sent for expert examination in order to ascertain that the same were fired upon from the service weapon of PW9 or from what distance. However, at the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that it is well settled law that lapse on part of Investigating Agency should not be a ground for acquittal. Reference may be made to AIR 2004 SC 1920 and Karnel Singh Vs State of MP 1995 Crl. L. J. 4173 Similarly, in Paras Yadav and Ors. Vs State of Bihar 1999 Crl. L. J 1122 it has been held: "While commenting upon certain omissions of the investigating agency, it was held that it may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence and hence the prosecution evidence is required to be :40: examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials, otherwise, the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice".
54. In the case of State of Bengal Vs Meer Mohd. Umed and Others JTD 2000 (9) SC 467, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "The function of the Criminal Courts should not be wasted in picking out the lapses in investigation and by expressing unsavoury criticism against investigating officer. If offenders are acquitted only on account of flaws or defects in :41: investigation, the cause of criminal justice becomes the victim. Effort should be made by Courts to see that criminal justice is salvaged despite such defects in investigation....."
55. I also am unable to subscribe to the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that Prosecution has failed to prove that PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia was not carrying his service weapon with him on 04.10.98 as the same is not mentioned in DD No. 4 which is Ex. PW9/B. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the cross examination of PW32 ACP Ravi Shankar wherein he has stated that he and Insp. Rajinder Bhatia have been issued permanent service weapon from the security and that is why it is not mentioned in DD No. 4 Ex. PW9/B that Insp. Rajinder Bhatia was having service weapon with him on the date of the incident i.e. 04.10.98. In view of the aforesaid explanation furnished on record by ACP Ravi Shankar (PW32), I find that mere fact that the service :42: weapon carried by PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia on the date of the incident does not find mention in Ex. PW9/B cannot be said to affect the case of the Prosecution. Moreover, the two empty cartridge cases recovered from the spot were opined to be fired from pistol of 9 mm No. 1534453 of Insp. Rajinder Bhatia seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/N. Thus, offence under Section 186/353 IPC stand established as against Accused Sukhpinder.
56. As regards the other Accused persons namely Gurpinder, Parminder, Pankaj Saini and Fizaz Ahmed, I find that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to establish their role in either obstructing police party for discharging their public function or used any criminal force by any of the said Accused persons against police party. It is the own case of the Prosecution that Accused Sukhpinder was driving the aforesaid Maruti car and the remaining Accused persons were merely sitting therein. None of the Prosecution witnesses have deposed as regards any covert or overt act on part of any Accused persons other than Accused :43: Sukhpinder. It is the own case of the Prosecution that there was no exortion by any of the other Accused persons nor any of the Accused persons is shown to have made any attempt to cause any harm to any member of police party by use of any force whatsoever. In this regard reliance may be placed on Satish Kumar Vs State in Crl. A. No. 162/07 and Geeta Vs State in Crl. A. No. 257/07 DOD 31.3.2008, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is well established law that in order to bring home the charge of common intention, the Prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the Accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34 IPC, be it prearranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. Reliance may be placed on Mittu Singh Vs State of Punjab 2001 (2) CC Cases (SC) 12.
57. In the present case, no evidence has been led to :44: establish that Accused shared any common intention for committing the alleged offence and the mere presence of the Accused persons at the place of occurrence cannot be said to be sufficient for Convicting them with the aid of Section of 34 IPC.
58. Accordingly, in the light of the aforesaid observations and the settled law, I find that Prosecution has failed to prove its case for offence punishable under Section 186/353/34 IPC as against Accused Gurpinder, Pankaj Saini, Parminder and Fizaz Ahmed.
59. Apart from the aforesaid offences, all the Accused are also facing trial for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act except Accused Sukhpinder who is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act in addition to Section 25 Arms Act. However, on the basis of evidence on record and in the light of the submissions made, I am inclined to agree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel that there is not even an iota :45: of evidence regarding use of any firearm by any of the Accused persons namely Accused Gurpinder, Pankaj Saini, Parminder and Fizaz Ahmed.
60. Insofar as Accused Sukhpinder is concerned, it has already been held herein above that he had fired from his pistol towards Insp. Rajinder Bhatia (PW9) though he managed to escape by turning the hand of Accused Sukhpinder and changed the direction of firearm.
61. The possession of aforesaid pistol and ammunition from Accused Sukhpinder has also been duly proved by way of deposition of PW8, 9, 14, 29 and 30. It is borne out from the deposition of PW8 that one pistol was recovered from hand of Accused Sukhpinder and upon being unloaded, it contained one live round in the chamber. The said pistol was fitted with magazine and the said magazine was unloaded and it contained five rounds. From the right back pocket of his pant, two :46: magazines and one purse type thaila was recovered. On being unloading the same, magazine was found containing seven live cartridges each. The said thaili was also checked and it was found to be contained 30 rounds and in all 50 rounds were recovered from the possession of Accused Sukhpinder @ Raju. The aforesaid case property was correctly identified by PW8 when produced before the court. The Ballistic Report in respect thereof has also been proved on record as Ex. PW34/A and the requisite sanction under Section 39 Arms Act was also proved by the Prosecution by examining PW33 Karnal Singh. The sanction is Ex. PW33/C. The said allegations against Accused Sukhpinder also stand proved by way of deposition of the complainant PW9 Insp. Rajinder Bhatia. Similarly, other members of the raiding party including PW28 have also supported the case of the Prosecution by corroborating the deposition of aforesaid PWs regarding recovery of aforesaid arms and ammunition from possession of Accused Sukhpinder. PW30 upon being cross examined by Prosecution has also admitted that from possession of :47: Accused Sukhpinder one loaded pistol containing five live cartridges, two magazines containing seven live cartridges each were recovered and one cloth pouch containing thirty live cartridges were recovered.
62. In order to prove its case for offence punishable under Sectio 25 Arms Act as against Accused Parminder Singh, Fizaz Ahmed, Pankaj Saini and Sukhpinder, reliance has again been placed on deposition of the aforesaid PWs i.e PW8, 9, 14, 29, 33 and 34. On going through their testimonies, I find that Prosecution has also able to establish the recovery of one pistol fitted with magazine was recovered and magazine contained six live cartridges and from right side front pocket of the shirt two magazines were recovered from possession of Accused Fizaz Ahmed and recovery of one loaded pistol containing six rounds and two magazines containing six rounds each was recovered from possession of Accused Pankaj Saini and one pistol containing seven live cartridges were recovered from the magazine from the :48: possession of Accused Parminder Singh @ Babba along with two loaded magazines, one purse type thaili made of cloth containing 24 live cartridges.
63. Apart from the aforesaid, Accused Gurpinder Singh as per Prosecution case was found to be in possession of one riffle of .315 bore, 09 cartridges were found lying in the cover which was attached with the butt of the riffle. The riffle was also fitted in the magazine which was unloaded and it contained 04 live cartridges. Accused Gurpinder was also found wrapping one belt around his waist containing 25 live cartridges. In all 38 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda. Ld. APP states that the possession of aforesaid firearms with Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda has also been duly established by the testimony of aforesaid Prosecution witnesses namely PWs 8, 9, 14, 29, 33 and 34.
64. However, Ld. Defence Counsel strongly contended :49: that Accused Gurpinder has been falsely implicated, inasmuch as the firearms allegedly recovered from his possession was his licenced firearm. In support of his contention, Accused Gurpinder Singh and Sukhpinder examined two witnesses including father Guljara Singh who deposed as DW1. He stated that crime police officials took away armed licence of his son Gurpinder along with his licenced weapon i.e. one pistol, one double barrel gun and one . 315 rifle and some jewellery of his wife and daughter in law from their house and falsely implicated his sons. In his cross examination, however, DW1 deposed that he did not make any complaint to any senior officer or to the court about alleged taking away of his sons by the police till date. He also failed to assign any reason why no such complaint has been made by him. In view of the aforesaid crossexamination, Prosecution has vehemently pressed that plea of the Accused Gurpinder and Sukhpinder regarding false implication and having picked up from their house stands completely demolished.
:50:
65. Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the fact that admittedly after the Accused has not made any complaint as regards their alleged false implication before any senior officer or court, this plea seems to be an afterthought and sham.
66. Insofar as plea of Gurpinder Singh @ Pinda regarding his licensed firearm is concerned, Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon the deposition of DW2 Avtar Singh, who was summoned from the office of the District Magistrate, Sangroor, Punjab. He prove three armed licence in respect of three weapons in the name of Accused Gurpinder Singh @ Pinda i.e. one 12 bore double barrel gun No. 2140796, second arm of 315 riffle No. AB961745 and the third arm was entered into their record regarding .32 bore pistol No. 1696. The arm licence was Ex. DW2/A. Ld. Defence Counsel while relying on the deposition of DW2 and the record produced by the said witness strongly contended that Accused Gurpinder was falsely implicated in this case despite the fact that he was :51: having valid armed licence with him.
67. On the other hand, Ld. APP pointed out that DW2 admitted in his crossexamination that said arms licence was applicable in State of Punjab in view of the deposition of DW2 wherein he admitted that arms licence in respect of aforesaid firearm was only applicable in State of Punjab. I am inclined to accept the submissions of Ld. Prosecutor that the fact that Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda was found in possession of the aforesaid firearm and ammunition in Delhi cannot be said to be covered under the arms licence proved on record by deposition of DW2 which was admittedly applicable only in the State of Punjab.
68. In these circumstances, argument of Defence cannot be accepted that Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda was having valid arms licence in respect of firearm and ammunition recovered from him on the date of incident.
:52:
69. Insofar as contention of Defence regarding non joining of public witnesses is concerned, I am of the opinion that law is well settled that if the deposition of the police witnesses is found to be cogent, credible and trustworthy, same can be relied upon and nonjoining of public witnesses cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the Prosecution. It has been proved in the present case by the witnesses examined by the Prosecution that the secret information received by Insp. Rajinder Bhatia was reduced into writing, shared with senior officers and thereupon raiding party was constituted. The witnesses who were members of the raiding party have consistently and cogently deposed and have withstood test of lenghty crossexamination, thus making their deposition worthy of reliance. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the contention that merely nonjoining of public witnesses should result in acquittal of the accused or raise any doubt as regards the case of the Prosecution. In this regard, I may also refer to Ishwar Singh Vs State of Punjab 1985 Crl. L. J. 1625. In the :53: light of statements of PWs 8, 9, 14, 29, 33 and 34, I am of the view that offence under Section 25 Arms Act is duly proved against Accused Gurpinder.
70. The contention of the Defence that the IO of the case is also complainant and thus it cannot be ruled out that entire case has been manipulated and in support of this contention reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Defence titled as Megha Singh Vs State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 2339 and Rajesh and others Vs State of Haryana 2010(4) RCR (Criminal). On the other hand, Ld. APP has strongly argued that said judgment is distinguishable on facts from the present case. Moreover, the allegations against the accused have been duly established by way of deposition of Prosecution witnesses and thus there is no merit in the argument that merely because IO is also the complainant, the case of the Prosecution is completely failed or manipulated.
Having considered the submissions made, coupled :54: with the fact that deposition of witnesses examined by the Prosecution has been found to be credible, I am of the opinion that case of the Prosecution cannot be totally thrown out or disbelieved merely on this score.
71. In the light of the above discussion, all the Accused are hereby Convicted for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. In addition thereto Accused Sukhpinder is also Convicted for offence punishable under Section 25 and 27 Arms Act.
72. As is already stated above, Accused Gurpinder also allegedly got recovered to hand grenades from his flat at Loni Road, Shahdara pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex. PW8/C. It is the case of the Prosecution that pursuant to the said disclosure statement, Accused Gurpinder was taken to his house at D40 A near Krishna Nagar from where he got recovered keys of flat situated at Loni Road and he got recovered two hand grenades :55: from the said flat. Thereafter, Accused Gurpinder was taken to the said house on 10.10.98 at C954, Loni Road and the lock was opened by Accused Gurpinder with the help of keys which were got recovered from the said house some jewellery which was found lying in the locker of one iron almirah which was lying in the room. From the second room of the said flat, Accused Gurpinder Singh got recovered the papers of arms licence, two hand grenades which were found lying in the box of double bed. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/D.
73. Prosecution also examined PW31 SI Satya Prakash who later defused/destroyed the two hand grenades with the assistance of NSG Staff allegedly recovered at the instance of Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda. Ld. APP vehemently contended that recovery of the two hand grenades at the instance of Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and Accused should be Convicted under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel pointed :56: out that as per PW30, two hand grenades were allegedly lying in the box of double bed. He submitted that there is contradiction in the deposition of Prosecution witnesses and the case of the Prosecution cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
74. It was further pointed out that as per deposition of PW1 Harbans Singh and PW2 Sudesh Kumar, the documents pertain to flat No. C954 Loni Road were not in the name of Accused Gurpinder Singh @ Pinda and no evidence has been led to establish that the said flat was either owned or run by Accused Gurpinder or that he had any properity right over the said property. PW1 was also declared hostile and the case of the Prosecution as regards alleged recovery of two hand grenades at the instance of Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda can thus not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt thus entitling benefit to Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda to benefit of doubt as far as offence under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act is concerned. :57:
75. On the basis of above discussion, evidence led on record and the submissions made, all the Accused are hereby Convicted for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, besides this Accused Sukhpinder is also Convicted for offence punishable under Section 307/186/353 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. Accused Gurpinder @ Pinda is acquitted under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act. Let all Accused be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the Open Court on February 15, 2012 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
:58:In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 26/09
State versus 1) Gurpinder Singh @
Pinda
S/o Sh. Gulzar Singh
R/o D40A, Rajgarh
Colony,
Gali No. 4, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi
2) Sukhpinder Singh @
Raju
S/o Sh. Gulzar Singh
R/o D40A, Rajgarh
Colony,
Gali No. 4, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi
3) Parminder Singh @
Babba
S/o Sardar Manmohan
Singh
R/o H. No. 170, Jheel
Khuranja, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi
4)Pankaj Saini@ Pankaj @
Pinkay
:59:
S/o Sh. Gulab Chand Saini
R/o X3442, Gali No. 1,
Raghubar PuraII,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
5) Fizaz Ahmed @ Babu @
Soraj
S/o Sh. Mizaz Ahmed
R/o B41, New Zafrabad,
Welcome, Seelampur, Delhi
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 484/98
Police Station : I. P. Estate
Under Section : 307/186/399/402/34 IPC
Judgment pronounced on : 15.2.2012
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Vide separate judgment dated 15.2.12, all the accused persons have been Convicted for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. Besides this accused Sukhpinder is also Convicted for offence punishable under Section 307/186/353 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
2. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Defence :60: Counsels and Ld. APP on the point of sentence.
3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel representing Convicts Gurpinder, Pankaj Saini, Fizaz Ahmed and Parminder that they are facing trial for the last about 14 years. It is stated that accused Gurpinder and Pankaj Saini has remained in custody during investigation, enquiry and trial of this case for 03 years whereas Convict Fizaz Ahmed has already remained in custody in this case for 02 years. Accused Parminder is stated to remained in custody for approximately 13 months. It is submitted that all the Convicts are well settled in life and have families to support. It is also stated that there is no previous involvement of all Convicts in any other case. In these circumstances, it has been contended on behalf of above named Convicts that a lenient view be taken.
4. The submissions made on behalf of Convicts has been opposed on behalf of Prosecution. It has been submitted that considering the nature of arms and ammunition recovered from :61: the possession of the above named Convicts, there is no scope for leniency and they be awarded maximum prescribed punishment.
5. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of material on record.
6. All the above named Convicts are facing trial in this case since 1998. They have already remained in custody for considerable period of time during pendency of this case.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct that Convict Gurpinder, Pankaj Saini, Fizaz Ahmed and Parminder shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year each for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 3000/ each. In default of payment of fine, The Convicts shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 months :62: each. They shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 CrPC.
8. Insofar as Convict Sukhpinder is concerned, it has been contended by Ld. Counsel for said Convict that he is sole bread earner of his family which includes his aged and ailing parents. It is submitted that there is no other case pending against said Convict and he has already remained in custody for more than 03 years during pendency of this case. It is also submitted that he lost his job due to the pendency of present case and presently doing business. In these circumstances, he prays that lenient view may be taken against Convict Sukhpinder.
9. I have considered the submissions made. The allegations for offence punishable under Section 307/186/353 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act have been duly proved against above named Convict. However, having regard to the fact that he is facing trial in this case since 1998 and has already remained in custody for more than 03 years, Convict Sukhpinder :63: is sentenced as under:
i) For the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, Convict Sukhpinder is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 01 years in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 3000/ in default whereof, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 months.
ii) For offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act, above named Convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 03 years in addition to fine of Rs. 3000/ in default whereof, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 months.
iii) For offence punishable under Section 186 IPC, Convict Sukhpinder is sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months.
iv) For offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, Convict Sukhpinder is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 02 years in addition to fine of Rs. 1000/ in default whereof, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 01 month.
v) For offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the above named :64: Convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 03 years, in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/ in default whereof, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 months. Convict Sukhpinder shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 CrPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to all the Convicts.
Announced in the Open Court on February 17, 2012 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
:65: