Delhi District Court
Fir No. 54/13 State vs . Sonu @ Monu Etc. 1 Of 401 on 6 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE (NE), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. 44552/15
FIR No. 54/2013
PS : New Usmanpur
U/s. 307/308/323/120B IPC
State
Versus
1. Sonu @ Monu
S/o Sh. Omkar
R/o H. No. H-1, Nahar Road,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
2. Kamal Singh
S/o Sh. Prakash Chand
R/o H. No. G-123, Main Road,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
3. Ashok
S/o Sh. Prakash Chand
R/o H. No. C-304, Gali no. 10,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
4. Omkar @ Omi
S/o Sh. Prakash Chand
R/o H. No. H-1, Nahar Road,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 1 of 401
5. Arun
S/o Sh. Ashok
R/o H. No. C-304, Gali no. 10,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
6. Anuj
S/o Sh. Ashok
R/o H. No. C-304, Gali no. 10,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
7. Devender
S/o Sh. Prakash Chand
R/o H. No. G-123, G Block,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
Date of Committal : 22.07.2013
Date of Arguments : 15.07.2016
Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2016
JUDGMENT :
1. Prosecution case: It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.02.2013, a DD no. 8A was received by PS New Usmanpur which was assigned to SI Arvind Kumar who along with Ct. Pushpender reached the spot of incident at main 40 foot road, F-Block Ganga Vihar, but no eye witness met there and it was revealed that injured had been removed to Hospital by PCR van. SI Arvind found one live cartridge and one empty cartridge case at main 40 feet road and blood was also lying there. SHO with staff also reached there who informed the Crime team. SI Arvind Kumar along with Ct. Pushpender reached GTB hospital and collected the MLCs of Brij FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 2 of 401 Pal, Sanjay and Santar Pal. Injured Santar Pal sustained fire arm injury but was fit for statement. MLC of Suresh was also collected. During interrogation, complainant Santar Pal disclosed that he was at his home, but suddenly accused namely Ashok, Omi, Kamal, Devender, Arun, Anuj, Sonu, Monu and along with other associates came to his house and accused Anuj and Omi @ Omkar had pistols and other persons were armed with lathies and dandas. It is further alleged that Anuj and Omi fired on him and one bullet hit in his right thigh and he also suffered injuries on his chin and finger in right hand. It is further alleged that all the above named accused persons caused injuries to all injured. SI Arvind prepared a rukka on the basis of statement of injured and also seized cartridges recovered from the spot and also prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, but blood earth control could not be collected due to sudden rain. All the accused persons were arrested and charge sheeted under Section 308/307/323/120B/201 IPC and 27 of Arms Act.
2. This charge-sheet committed to this court after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. This court has framed charges u/s 144/452/325/323/307 r/w Section 149 IPC against all accused persons and charge under Section 27 of Arms Act was also framed against accused Anuj and Om pal @ Omi on 02.05.2014. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 3 of 401
4. To prove the allegations, prosecution has examined PW1 Santar Pal, PW2 Brij Pal, PW3 Sanjay, PW4 Mohit, PW5 Deepak, PW6 Suresh, PW7 Kapil Rana, PW8 SI E. S. Yadav, PW9 HC Shyam Lal, PW10 Sh. Ajeet, PW11 Dr. Viras, PW12 Dr. Rohit, PW13 Ct. Mukesh, PW14 Ct. Arvind, PW15 HC Ashok Pal, PW16 Ct. Sandeep, PW17 Dr. Dhawal Narang, PW18 ASI Birham Singh, PW19 Ct. Shri Bhagwan, PW20 Ct. Varun Kumar, PW21 SI Gaurav Kumar, PW22 Ct. Virender Singh, PW23 Ct. Pushpender, PW24 SI Rajender Prasad, PW25W/Ct. Kavita, PW HC Bijender Singh, PW27 Dr. Inderdeep, PW28 Dr. Deepak Chahar, PW29 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, PW30 SI Arvind Kumar and closed PE.
5. After PE, entire incriminating evidence explained to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their statements were recorded. Accused have examined DW1 Harbir Singh, DW2 Sh. Naresh Kumar, DW3 Ravinder Kumar, DW4 Rishi Pal and closed DE.
6. To prove the case, prosecution has examined PW1 who has deposed that on 06.02.2013 at around 6.45 / 7.00 am, he was at his house when heard commotion outside his house and saw that accused Omi, Ashok, Kamal, Devender, Arun, Sonu, Monu and Anuj were present there. Omi and Anuj were having pistols in their hands and remaining accused persons were armed with dandas. Both accused namely Omi and Anuj fired on him and shot fired by Omi hit FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 4 of 401 in his right thigh and remaining accused beat him with dandas. It is further deposed that on hearing alarm, his son Mohit and Deepak arrived at the spot and when other persons started gathering, all the assailants ran away. It is further deposed that his son transported him to GTB hospital where he was treated. Police reached at GTB hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/1 which bears his signature. It is further deposed that he can identify the dandas used by accused persons, but the dandas produced by MHC(M) are not the similar dandas which were used during attack on him by assailants.
6.1.1. During cross examination, PW1 has deposed that he signed his statement Ex. PW1/1 at about 8.00 / 9.00 pm after reading it, but he did not disclose to doctor about the time of incident at about 7.30 am, whereas it was found recorded in his MLC. It is further deposed that he did not remember whether he disclosed the time of incident in his statement but disclosed the name of assailants. It is further deposed that he informed IO that bullet hit in his right thigh was fired by Omi, whereas this fact was not found recorded in his statement Ex.PW1/1 and on confrontation of his statement Ex.PW1/D1, it was found recorded that the bullet was fired by Anuj, but witness has denied to give any such statement to police. It is further deposed that he was discharged from hospital on same day at around 6.30 pm, but he did not go to PS on that day or thereafter. It is further deposed that police did not show lathies and dandas to him nor such items FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 5 of 401 were seized from the spot. Even the articles seized from the spot were not shown to him.
6.1.2. It is further deposed that in his presence Brij Pal and Sanjay did not suffer any injury nor they accompanied him to hospital but they reached hospital prior to his arrival. It is further deposed that his elder son Yogesh made a PCR call but he did not go to hospital with him. It is further deposed that PCR call was made in his presence but he did not hear as to what was informed to PCR. It is admitted that Yogesh arrived to spot of incident after incident, but Deepak did not make any PCR call. It is admitted that Deepak and Mohit removed him to hospital by WagnaR car, but police did not record number of WagnaR car nor took the photographs of same, however, Deepak drove that car to hospital. It is further deposed that there is no shop of Baba Property due to he cannot tell the distance between his house to Baba property, but distance between Dhalao of Gokul Puri / Ganga Vihar to his house is about 500-600 meters. It is admitted that except gunshot, he cannot tell which particular injury was caused by which particular accused to him, but it is denied that accused never assaulted him. It is admitted that on 26.12.2012, one FIR was lodged by Ashok and Kamal against him and it was a cross FIR but, it is denied that present FIR is just to compound that offence. It is further admitted that none of his neighbours had given any statement to police supporting him. It is further admitted that there was no property dispute with accused persons and police did FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 6 of 401 not record the statements of injured Suresh, Sanjay, Brij Pal, Mohit, Kapil and Deepak in his presence, however, all the above said persons came back from the hospital with him.
6.2. PW2 Brij Pal has deposed that on 06.02.2013 between 6.45 am to 7.15 am, he heard a commotion and came out of his house and few ladies told him that his brother Sanjay who was residing separately had been beaten up. He reached to the place of incident and saw that Anuj, Ashok and Arun armed with country made pistol and dandas in their hands were present at the spot and they immediately assaulted him. Arun gave first blow by lathi which landed on his left ear and Anuj gave fist blow on his head and he fell down. Thereafter, he was beaten up with sticks and lost consciousness. He regained conscious in GTB hospital where police recorded his statement, but he did not remember as to whether any other person also gave beatings to him. He has denied during cross examination by Ld. APP for State that other accused namely Omi, Sonu, Kamal and Devender were also present and accused Arun, Anuj and Ashok also gave beatings to him. It is denied on confrontation of his statement Mark PW2/A (denied statement) that he told to police that Sonu hit him by the danda with intention to kill and he suffered injuries during the assault on his forehead and ear.
6.2.1. During cross examination, PW2 has deposed that in the morning, on the day of incident, he had not gone to the house of FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 7 of 401 Santar Pal and Sanjay but he reached the hospital in unconscious state therefore cannot say whether Santar Pal reached hospital first or he reached there first, but, so far he could recollect he was removed to GTB Hospital by police vehicle. It is further deposed that he did not remember exact time when he returned back from hospital, but police did not record the statement of any one in his presence. He did not visit PS regarding this case and cannot tell as to whether his brother had visited PS or not. His statement was recorded by police somewhere at about 8.00 / 9.00 am, but he did not remember the exact time but his statement was recorded by Arvind. It is further deposed that around 1 ½ / 2 months after the incident police man came to his house but thereafter he never met him. Neither the concerned doctor nor IO made any enquiry about injuries received by him, but he disclosed during his statement that Anuj had a country made pistol, whereas it was not recorded in his statement. It is further admitted that Santar Pal, Sanjay, Mohit and Suresh did not receive any injuries in his presence. It is further deposed that no one called police in his presence. He was confronted with his statement Mark PW2/A, but it was not found recorded that Anuj gave him fist blow in his head. It is admitted that an FIR was registered on 26.12.2012 against causing injuries to accused Ashok and Kamal.
6.3. PW3 Sanjay has deposed that on 06.02.2013 at about 6.30 / 7.00 am, he was going to sell Milk at his dairy and near dhallan of FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 8 of 401 Gokul Puri, Ganga Vihar, he saw accused Omi, Kamal, Anuj, Devender and Sonu and realized that Omi had fired on him by a weapon and a loud sound of bullet passed through few inch of his face. He lost balance of his bike and fell down. Accused Anuj hit him on his head with a sharp edged weapon and he has shown his scar mark to the court which was caused by the accused Anuj. It is further deposed that he lost conscious when all the assailants hit him with dandas and lathies, but, again said, he became semi conscious and suffered fractures in his both hands and hips. Somebody called PCR which removed him to GTB hospital. He has identified the photographs Mark PW1/A1 to PW1/A4.
6.3.1. During cross examination, he has deposed that he was removed to hospital by PCR van. Police did not record statement of any public person in his presence. His brother Brij Pal was also transported by the same vehicle but he did not disclose to doctor as to how and by whom injuries were caused to him. On confrontation of MLC, it was revealed that he had disclosed to doctor about the alleged history of incident. It is further deposed that he had conversation with his brother Brij Pal in hospital, but local police reached hospital around half an hour of his arrival and his statement was not recorded there. He signed his statement at home at around 7.00/8.00 pm and, he left GTB hospital along with Brij Pal. It is further deposed that his motorcycle was not taken into possession by police, but one drum was taken into possession. It is further FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 9 of 401 deposed that he did not disclose to police that Omi fired a bullet from a distance of 5-10 paces by which he received injuries. He was confronted to his statement Ex. PW3/DA where it was not recorded that bullet fired by Omi passed away a few inch of his face. It is further deposed that he disclosed to police that Anuj caused injuries on his head by sharp edged weapon and it is denied that no injury was caused to him or that injury on his forehead was old one. It is also denied that he did not suffer any fracture injury on his hand.
6.3.2. PW3 has admitted that on 26.12.2012, an FIR was lodged against Santar Pal and Brij Pal at the instance of accused Ashok and Kamal who sustained injuries. It is further deposed that distance between the kudedan and Baba Properties was around 10 minutes walk. It is further deposed that no one from his family arrived to the spot where he sustained injuries and even he did not remember whether Brij Pal was already in PCR when he was placed in the van for transportation to GTB hospital. He did not know whether anybody from locality had given statement supporting to his version. It is further deposed that he told to police about the time of incident but it was not found recorded in his statement. It is denied that accused were not present at the spot.
6.4. PW4 Mohit has corroborated to PW3 that on the day of incident, he saw accused Omi and Anuj were having pistols and Ashok, Arun, Devender, Kamal, Sonu and Monu were armed with FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 10 of 401 lathies and dandas and they surrounded his father. Accused Omi and Anuj fired shot on his father and shot fired by Omi hit his father in his right thigh. It is further deposed that accused Ashok and Anil also assaulted him and when they tried to save their father, Ashok gave him fist blow on his left hand and Arun gave second blow on his shoulder. His brother was also assaulted but when public persons gathered at the spot all the accused ran away. It is further deposed that he along with his brother removed his father to GTB hospital by WagnaR car. His statement was recorded in hospital and police arrest accused Ashok, Omi, Kamal and Sonu, but he did not sign any documents regarding arrest of accused persons at the instance of police. Arrest papers of accused persons are Mark PW4/A to Mark PW4/H. 6.4.1. During cross examination, he has deposed that his uncle Brij Pal and Sanjay had already been removed to hospital when he reached the hospital along with his father at around 8.00 am, but his uncle Suresh reached hospital after their arrival to hospital, however, he did not remember as to how he reached there. He did not remember whether he provided his mobile number or mobile number of his brother to doctor, but police from PS Gokal Puri reached there within 15-20 minutes. He was not aware whose statement was recorded by the police first but his medical documents were got prepared by his uncle Suresh. He did not disclose the names of assailants to doctor because doctor did not make enquiry but he FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 11 of 401 remained in hospital till 6.30 pm. It is denied that he ran away from the hospital or that at about 8.30 pm, he reached PS where he signed certain documents. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC which is Ex. PW4/D1 but it was not recorded there that he told to police that accused Omi and Anuj fired on his father or that accused Ashok and Arun gave blows to him on his hands and shoulder. It is denied that no injury was caused by Ashok and Arun. He did not inform the police that in assault Ashok and Arun had also sustained injuries, but he told the police that he transported his father to hospital. It is denied that Rahul caused gun injury to his father or accused have been falsely implicated.
6.5. PW5 Deepak has also corroborated that on the day of incident, he saw the accused persons with hockey sticks and iron rods and they were giving beatings to his father outside his house. Public persons gathered at the spot but accused Omi fired on his father and bullet hit in his left thigh. He tried to save his father but he received a lathi blow and his brothers Mohit and Kapil also reached there and one labour called PCR. He was medically examined.
6.5.1. During cross examination, PW5 has deposed that his statement was recorded by police in the presence of his father and uncles Suresh and Brij Pal, but the statements of his uncles and father were not recorded in his presence. Police did not read over his statement but it was written as dictated. It is denied that he signed FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 12 of 401 any document in hospital, but he did not inform the doctor about the name of assailants or weapon carried by them, however he disclosed to doctor that a fight had taken place and he sustained injuries. He did not disclose to the doctor that his father had been shot. Doctor collected clothes of his father, but in his presence, doctor did not collect the clothes of anyone else, however, his maternal uncle Nirajan came to hospital with fresh set of clothes and his father changed them, but he did not remember whether clothes of his father were sealed or not. He did not remember where clothe were handed over to police but he did not see those clothes again and, it is denied that no clothes were seized by doctor or police. It is admitted that he informed police that accused were carrying danda and hockey sticks as well as rod, but it was not found recorded in his statement given to police. Even it is also not found recorded that Omi fired in left thigh of his father. It is denied that injuries were self inflicted.
6.6. PW6 Suresh has corroborated to other witnesses regarding the incident and he also saw that accused persons were beating Santar Pal and his sons by lathies and dandas and, accused Omi and Anuj were having pistols in their hands. All the assailants started giving him beatings and meanwhile Omi and Anuj fired from the pistols on Santar Pal and bullet hit in his left thigh, but they ran away when public started gathering. PCR van transported Santar Pal, Mohit and Deepak to the hospital and he was also treated there.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 13 of 401 6.6.1. During cross examination, it is admitted that one FIR was lodged against Santar Pal. It is further deposed that police did not make any inquiry from the neighbours about the incident, but police collect empty cartridges from spot at about 8.00 am, but he did not remember whether any parcel was prepared. He did not remember whether police went to hospital after collection of cartridges and even was not sure whether injured were present there or not, or they had already been removed to hospital. He was also not sure about the presence of Rahul at the time of seizure of cartridges. It is further deposed that he was not removed to hospital by same vehicle which transported Santar Pal, but PCR arrived at the spot in his presence and he reached hospital at around 8.00 am. He did not remember name of person who transported him to hospital. He did not state to police that police seized empty cartridge. He informed the police that Omi and Anuj fired on his brother in right thigh, but it was not recorded in his statement Ex. PW6/D1. He did not admit or deny that he reached hospital two and half hours after the alleged incident, but came back to his home alone. He signed statement but did not remember the date of statement which was probably recorded after 2-3 days of incident. He was not shown the cartridges collected from scene of crime.
6.7. PW7 Kapil Rana has corroborated the PW5 regarding presence of accused at the spot armed with lathi, danda and TMT rod and accused Omi was armed with pistol. Accused were beating FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 14 of 401 his uncle Santar Pal and his sons and when he tried to intervene he was also beaten up. Accused Omi fired from pistol and bullet hit in left thigh of his uncle Santar Pal, but accused ran away from spot on seeing the public persons and thereafter injured were removed to GTB Hospital.
6.7.1. During cross examination, PW7 has deposed that he told to police that accused were armed with lathies, dandas and iron rod, but same was not found recorded in his statement Ex. PW7/D1. It is further deposed that he told to police that Omi fired from a weapon and bullet hit his uncle Santer Pal in right thigh. He did not give answer as to when he came back to hospital and even it was not recorded in his statement Ex. PW7/D1 that his uncle Santar Pal, Brij Pal and Deepak had gone to hospital by the same car. Even the time of incident was not recorded there.
6.8. PW8 SI E. S. Yadav inspected spot of incident and observed one milk pot was lying there and he noticed some blood stains also on the said pot. He prepared crime team report which is not on record.
6.9. PW9 HC Shaym Lal was photographer who took the photographs Ex. PW9/A1 to Ex. PW9/A30 of which negatives are Ex.PW9/B1 to Ex.PW9/B33. During cross examination, he has deposed that bullet seen in the photographs Ex.PW9/A15 to FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 15 of 401 Ex.PW9/A17 is in the hand of ASI Surender Parsad and, ASI Surender Parsad did not lift fingers prints from those cartridges. The distance between live and fired cartridges was about 10-15 paces. He did not sign the SOC report.
6.10. PW10 Ajeet has deposed that Sonu and Monu is single person as well as single identity.
6.11. PW11 Dr. Viras has proved the MLC of injured Mohit which is Ex.PW11/1 and information of incident was recorded as given by patient.
6.12. PW12 Dr. Rohit examined injured Deapak vide MLC Ex.PW12/1, injured Suresh Vide MLC Ex. PW12/2 and injured Brij Pal vide MLC Ex.PW12/3. During cross examination, it is denied that injury mentioned at point E on MLC Ex.PW12/3 was result of sudden fall and, in reply to court question, it is explained that simple fall can not cause multiple injuries at different places as disclosed in MLC Ex.PW12/3 6.13. PW13 Ct. Mukesh has deposed that on 07.02.13, he joined investigation with Ct Sandeep and IO. Accused Sonu led them to his House at H-1, Nehar Road, Ganga Vihar, Gokal Puri and got recovered two dandas from box kept outside his house. IO seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/1 and dandas are Ex.P1 and Ex. P2.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 16 of 401 6.13.1. During cross examination, PW13 has deposed that he did not remember the time when they reached the house of accused Sonu, but 5-10 persons were present there. IO did not prepare site plan of place of recovery nor recorded the statements of public persons, however, his statement was recorded at spot along with Ct. Sandeep. IO did not seize dandas in his presence, but writing work was done while sitting on pavement outside the house of accused Sonu. Complainant was not called at the time of recovery and IO made departure and arrival entries but he did not remember the same.
6.14. PW14 Ct. Anand deposited the sealed parcel with FSL, Rohini vide RC Ex. PW14/1.
6.15. PW15 HC Ashok Pal was MHC(M) and has deposed that SI Arvind deposited three parcels vide entry Ex.PW15/1. On 07.02.2013 SI Arvind deposited two dandas vide entry Ex.PW15/2 and, on 17.04.2013, IO again two sealed parcels vide entry Ex.PW15/3. On 15.04.2013 sealed parcel were sent to FSL through Ct. Anand vide entry Ex.PW15/4. On 23.04.2013, four sealed parcels were sent to FSL through Ct. Sudhir vide entry and RC Ex.PW15/5 and Ex.PW15/6. On 26.08.2013 and 23.09.2013, he received the expert opinion and made endorsement Ex.PW15/7 and Ex.PW15/8.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 17 of 401 6.16. PW16 Ct. Sandeep visited the spot of incident alognwith ACP, SHO, Ct. Pushpender and SI Arvind and one live cartridge was lying on road in front of house no. F16, 40 foot road and, one empty cartridge was found in front of Sun light public school. Crime team was summoned and photographer clicked photographs which are on record. SI Arvind lifted fired and live cartridges and sealed them after preparation of the sketches Ex.PW16/1 and seizure memo Ex.PW16/2 besides seizure memo of milk pot Ex.PW30/4. One Mohit also came there and led to arrest of accused Sonu who was arrested on the pointing out of Mohit vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/3 and personal search Ex.PW16/4. Accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW16/5. He also witnessed the recovery of two dandas vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/1 at the instance of accused Sonu and IO prepared site plan of place of recovery of two dandas Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 which is Mark PW16/B. The cartridges collected from spot are Ex.P3.
6.16.1. During cross examination, PW16 has deposed that before his arrival to the spot, SHO and ACP had already arrived but SHO, ACP and SI Arvind did not make any enquiry from any residents of House no. F-16 that as to how live cartridge came in front of his house. Even no such inquiry was made from Sunlight Public school regarding the incident. It is admitted that in his presence no one had stated that an incident of firing had taken place. SHO and ACP did not record statement of anyone but SI prepared pullanda of FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 18 of 401 cartridges at 10.00 am. He did not remember whether any public person was joined into investigation and site plan also does not bear any signature. He has deposed that no one picked live cartridge in his hand to see prior to arrival of IO, but crime team arrived there after half an hour of his arrival to spot. No recovery was affected on 06.02.2013 at the instance of accused Sonu @ Monu and before sending the accused for medical examination, IO also did not conduct any such search. Accused was interrogated in PS, but in his presence no disclosure statement of accused was recorded. IO did not obtain the signature of family members of accused on seizure memo or site plan. It is admitted that IO did not put any identification mark on recovered articles and, it is admitted that such type of articles are easily available in market.
6.17. PW17 Dr. Dhawan Nagar has proved the MLC of injured Santer Pal which is Ex.PW17/1 and kurta and pajama of injured were seized by him. Patient was fit to make statement at the time of examination.
6.18. PW18 ASI Braham Singh has proved the DD entry no. 8A which is Ex.PW18/1.
6.19. PW19 Ct. Shri Bhagwan took Santer Pal and Sanjay to GTB Hospital for their blood sample under the directions of IO and blood samples were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/1.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 19 of 401 6.20. PW20 Ct. Varun Kumar witnessed the formal arrest of accused Anuj and Arun on surrender before the court and they were arrested vide memo Ex.PW20/1 to Ex. PW20/4.
6.21. PW21 SI Gaurav Kumar verified the identify of accused Sonu @ Monu on 07.03.2013 and Sonu and Monu is single identity.
6.22. PW22 Ct. Virender was handed over sealed parcels containing clothes of injured Santer Pal on 06.02.2013 which were seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW22/1. During cross examination, he has deposed that he did not remember whether injured disclosed the name of assailants or manner of incident, but at around 9.30 am, sealed parcels were handed over to him by the doctor.
6.23. PW23 Ct. Pushpender joined investigation alongwith SI Arvind and also noticed blood stains on the road besides empty cartridge lying at the spot. In GTB hospital, SI Arvind recorded statement of injured and prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR. He did not remember where he handed over the FIR and rukka to SI Arvind, but has identified the cartridges as Ex. P3 and one milk pot as Ex. P4.
6.23.1. During cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he has admitted that one live cartridge and milk pot having blood stains were seized and, Ct. Sandeep was deputed guard to the spot when FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 20 of 401 he along with IO went to GTB Hospital where IO collected the MLC. On the same day, clothes of Santar Pal were also seized vide memo Ex.PW22/1 and has also admitted that accused Ashok, Sonu, Kamal and Omkar were also arrested in his presence. During cross examination, he has deposed that Ct. Saneep was not present at the time of signing the documents and cartridges were sealed in PS. He did not see dandas in the Police Station and even on the day of recovery, he had gone to the house of accused Sonu @ Monu but did not see any such danda there.
6.24. PW24 SI Rajender Parsad has proved FIR no. 509/12 which is Ex.PW24/1 and FIR No. 510/12 which is Ex.PW24/2 and those FIRs were registered as cross cases between the parties.
6.25. PW25 W/Ct. Kavita recorded the PCR entry vide Ex.PW25/1 and certificate of correctness u/s 65 of Evidence Act is Ex.PW25//2.
6.26. PW26 HC Bijender was posted on PCR and received the call of a quarrel and saw that one injured was lying on road and 2-3 milk drums were also lying there near to the injured. Blood was also lying near to injured and milk was lying spread on the road. He removed the injured by his vehicle to hospital and after some distance away one more injured was also lying who was also removed to hospital.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 21 of 401 6.27. PW27 Dr. Inderdeep has proved CT Scan and X-ray reports of injured Brij Pal, Santar Pal and Sanjay as Ex.PW27/1 to Ex. PW27/6.
6.28. PW28 Dr. Deepak has proved MLC of injured Sanjay as Ex.PW28/1.
6.29. PW29 Dr. Parmeshwar has proved the MLCs of injured Sanjay and Kapil as Ex.PW29/1 and Ex.PW29/2 and details of injuries of both patients alongwith X-ray are at point X, but no external injury was seen on the body of injured Kapil.
6.30. PW30 SI Arvind was assigned DD no. 8A (wrongly written as 8) which is Ex.PW18/1 and he alongwith Ct. Pushpender reached the spot of incident where blood and one live and fired cartridges were lying, but no eye witness met there and injured had already been removed to GTB Hospital. He alongwith Ct. Pushpender reached the hospital and collected the MLC of injured and recorded the statement of Santer Pal and prepared rukka Ex.PW30/1 and got registered FIR through Ct. Pushpender. He prepared site plan Ex.PW30/2 and, Ct. Pushpender handed over FIR Ex.C1 of which certificate of correctness is Ex.PW30/3. He lifted the articles from spot and also informed crime team and prepared sketch of fired and live cartridges which is Ex. PW16/1 and seized them vide memo Ex.PW16/2. He has identified both cartridges as Ex.P3. He seized FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 22 of 401 milk pot vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/4 which is Ex.P4 and also collected MLCs of injured persons namely Deepak, Suresh, Mohit and Kapil Rana. PW30 sealed the parcel containing clothes of injured Santar Pal along with sample seal vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/1, but blood sample from the spot could not be lifted due to rain.
6.30.1. PW30 arrested the accused Omkar, Kamal and Ashok on the same day of incident, at around 7.00 pm, at the instance of PW Mohit vide arrest memos Ex.PW30/5 to Ex. PW30/10, and also recorded the disclosure statements Ex.PW30/11 and Ex.PW30/12. Accused Sonu @ Monu was also arrested vide memos Ex.PW16/3 and Ex.PW30/4 and made his disclosure statement Ex.PW16/5 which led to the recovery of two dandas from his house which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and seized vide memo Ex.PW13/1. He also prepared site plan of place of recovery which is Ex.PW13/12. He collected FSL reports Ex.PW30/13 to Ex.PW30/15.
6.30.2. On 25.04.2013, accused Arun and Anuj surrendered before court and they were arrested vide memos Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/4 and also made their disclosure statements vide Ex.PW30/16 and Ex. PW30/17, but weapon could not be recovered. On 02.05.2013, accused Devender also surrendered who was arrested vide memos Ex.PW30/18 and Ex.PW30/19 and made his disclosure statement Ex.PW30/20.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 23 of 401 6.30.3. During cross examination, it is admitted by PW30 that it came into his notice that both parties had previous enmity and cases are pending against each others. Injured Sanjay and Brij Pal were not discharged on the same day of hospitalization, but they were fit for statement. It is further admitted that no eye witness of incident was found during his visit to the spot of incident and he also made inquiry about it but none agreed to join investigation nor disclosed about the incident. Even informant of DD no. 8A was not found at the spot nor he collected CDR of number of the informant. It is denied that cartridges were sealed in PS, but it is admitted that he did not move any application for medical opinion regarding the injuries sustained by Santar Pal. It is further admitted that the names of assailants and manner of causing injury were not disclosed by witnesses. It is admitted that ASI S. P. Singh was posted with PS, but his statement was not recorded by him nor cited witness him as witness. It is admitted during cross examination that ASI Surender visited the spot of incident but it is denied that he picked up the cartridges from spot to hand over to photographer. It is denied that scene of crime was tempered with by anyone.
6.30.4. PW30 has deposed that both cartridges were lying with a distance of 2-3 meters from each others, but he did not remember their exact locations, but two places of incident had a distance of about 400 meters. Cartridges were lying at a distance of about 10 meters away from the house of Santar Pal and even he made inquiry FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 24 of 401 from the occupants of the house in front of which cartridges were found but they did not disclose anything. Crime team and photographer did not visit the spot in his presence, but they were present at the spot when he reached there from hospital. Ct. Virender handed over pullandas of doctor to him at about 9.00 pm and he recorded his statement during his second visit. It is further deposed that when he reached the spot of incident, no firing or quarrel was going on between the parties. He did not remember at whose instance the site plan was prepared, but it is admitted that either dumping site Baba Property Dealer's office at D-5, Ganga Vihar was not visible from F-10. He did not interrogate the occupants of F-16 and Sun Shine School where cartridges were found. He did not come to know during investigation that complainant was present near dumping site where Sanjay sustained injuries or that Santar Pal was not present at Baba Properties where Brij Pal sustained injures. He did not obtain the signature of public witness on site plan.
6.30.5. PW30 has admitted that Sonu and Monu is the same person. It is further admitted that no public person was present except Mohit at the time of arrest of accused Omi and Ashok and Sonu @ Monu. It is further admitted that as per disclosure statement of accused Omi, Santar Pal did not sustain gunshot injury by his firing and he sustained injuries by firing of Anuj as per his supplementary statement. It is further admitted that at the time of his statement, Santar Pal was conscious and made his statement FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 25 of 401 voluntarily. It is further admitted that no recovery of weapon was affected in pursuance of disclosure statement or Omi and Anuj. It is further admitted that he did not collect certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act regarding the registration of FIR. He did not know that on 07.10.2015, Mohit lodged an FIR against accused after sustaining self inflicted gunshot injury or any cross FIR was lodged. It is further admitted that he made inquiry in the locality from public persons but they did not support the incident. It is admitted that Santar Pal and other injured did not give the description of dandas recovered at the instance of accused Sonu@ Monu and even no specific identification mark was put on the dandas after recovery except putting his signatures. He did not remember how many persons were present there at the house of accused Sonu at the time of recovery. He did not collect the ownership of milk container but he sent milk container to FSL for examination, but blood sample was not lifted from it.
7. DW1 Harbir Singh has deposed that accused Anuj and Arun are his nephew who were with him to attend a Jagran ceremony organized at his house on 05.03.2013 and they stayed there till 06.02.2013 at about 12.00 noon.
7.1. DW2 Naresh Kumar has also deposed that he had been purchasing milk from the dairy of accused Omkar @ Omi and on 06.02.2013 at about 7.00 / 7.30 am, Omkar and his son Sonu were present at their dairy in his presence.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 26 of 401 7.2. DW3 has also deposed the similar facts as deposed by DW2.
7.3. DW4 Ravinder Kumar has also deposed that on 06.02.2013 at about 6.45 / 7.30 am, he purchased the milk from the dairy of Omkar @ Omi and Sonu @ Monu and both were present there at the time of alleged incident.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. After going through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it is revealed that testimonies of PWs are full of contradictions and improvements. PW1 Santar Pal is the victim of incident and has deposed that accused persons namely Ashok, Kamal, Devender, Arun, Sonu, Omi, Monu and Anuj were present outside his house and accused Omi and Anuj were having pistols in their hands and other persons were armed with dandas, accused Omi and Anuj fired him and shot fired by Omi hit in his right thigh, whereas his statement is contradictory to his supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr. PC as per which accused Anuj fired on him which caused injuries in his thigh. As such, this statement is materially contradictory and also against his earlier statement given to police which creates a doubt about the incident. The testimony of PW1 has material contradictions in his statements Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/D1.
9. Contrary to it, PW2 has disputed the presence of all the accused persons at the spot during incident. He has deposed that he FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 27 of 401 saw accused Anuj, Ashok and Anuj at the spot and has denied the presence of other accused at the spot. He has been examined as an eye witness to the incident but his deposition is contradictory to the complainant/PW1. The testimony of PW2 is evasive and has not corroborated the PW1. He has deposed that he became unconscious at the spot and thereafter regained conscious at hospital but it was not recorded in his earlier statement. He has further contradicted to his earlier statement given to police that accused Anuj had a country made pistol. He has admitted in affirmative that Santar Pal, Sanjay, Mohit and Suresh did not receive any injury in his presence which suggests that either he was not present at the spot during incident or other witnesses have deposed falsely.
10. Similarly, PW3 Sanjay has also disputed the testimony of PW1 that accused Omi and Anuj fired on his father and bullet fired by Omi hit his father in his right thigh. PW5 has corroborated to PW3 that bullet hit in right thigh of his father, but that shot was fired by Anuj which is again materially contradicted. In fact, both the testimonies are contradictory to PW1 who sustained injury in right thigh. PW3 was also injured but description of his sustaining injury is also materially different. He has deposed that accused Omi fired on him by a weapon and bullet passed through a few inches away of his face and he lost balance and his motorcycle skid. It is further deposed that Anuj hit on his head with a sharp edged weapon, but FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 28 of 401 his statement before this court is contrary to his earlier statement u/s 161 Cr.PC in which it was recorded that bullet fired upon him hit on his head and he sustained injuries, whereas he did not sustain bullet injury. Contrary to it, PW4 Mohit has deposed that he became unconscious and was not aware about anything till reaching to hospital and even has denied his statement given to police.
11. Further, PW6 Suresh has also contradicted that bullet fired by Omi hit in the left thigh of Santar Pal which is also not recorded in his statement Ex.PW6/D1. However, PW7 Kapil Rana has again contradicted PW1 and has deposed that Omi fired on the PW1 and bullet hit him in his left thigh, but again changed his version that bullet hit his uncle in his right thigh, but it is again not found recorded in his statement. Even the involvement of accused with description of arms is also not recorded in his statement Ex.PW7/1. As such, the testimonies of all these witnesses have disputed the entire incident. Contrary to it, PCR form Ex. PW25/1 has disclosed that a quarrel had taken place between the parties which also could not be verified from any neighbor as per the testimony of IO and it suggests that incident is doubtful.
12. All the PWs have deposed that accused Omi @ Omkar fired gunshot which hit in the right thigh of Santar Pal but the disclosure statement of the accused Omi has not disclosed that he fired any such gunshot which hit the complainant and it has also fortified the FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 29 of 401 supplementary statement of PW1 and has disputed his testimony given before this court and disputed the incident.
13. Further, the testimony of PW1 regarding his transportation to hospital after sustaining injury is also contradictory. He has deposed that he was removed to hospital by his sons namely Mohit and Deepak. PW Mohit has also corroborated this fact that he transported his father to hospital by his WagnaR car, whereas, PW5 Deepak and PW6 Suresh have deposed that PCR transported Santar Pal, Mohit and Deepak to hospital and both the testimonies are against to each others, but police have neither seized nor inspected that WagnaR car to ascertain the blood stains to prove that the same was used during transportation of the injured to hospital. It is very strange that all the Pws were present at the spot of incident at the same time but they have deposed their own version of incident and it creates doubt about the incident.
14. PW1 has deposed that he did not disclose the names of assailants to the doctor whereas alleged history of incident was given to doctor by him as deposed by PW17. He was conscious at the time of medical examination. PW3 also did not disclose the names of the assailants and the manner of sustaining injury despite disclosing the entire history of case. Even his statement has improvised the version of incident and has disclosed that he sustained sharp injury caused by accused Anuj, whereas it was FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 30 of 401 recorded in his earlier statement given to the police that he sustained bullet injury. He was not aware whether Brij Pal was removed to hospital by same PCR van whereas he allegedly sustained injuries at the spot where Brij Pal also sustained injuries. It is beyond explanation if entire case history was given by PWs to doctors then why they did not disclose the names of assailants who were well known to them and why PW3 was not aware about Brij Pal whereas he also sustained injuries at the same spot, which suggests that they were not present there.
15. Further, PW5 Deepak has denied that the statements of injured Suresh and Brij Pal were recorded in his presence whereas it is also against his earlier deposition. He has denied his earlier statement and has deposed that he signed the same without going through it and even it was not read over to him. PW4 Mohit has also denied his statement substantially regarding the arrest of accused in his presence, whereas accused were arrested in his presence and all the documents are bearing his signatures. He has also denied of recording his statement after the day of incident He has further improved his statement that he had given the description of assailants carrying weapon which is not found in his statement Ex.PW4/D1 and even details of accused and manner of injuries caused to him were also not given. He did not remember as to whether he informed the police that his brother had also sustained injuries by the hands of accused Ashok and Anuj which is also FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 31 of 401 against his statement.
16. Further, doctor collected the clothes of PW1 and one Niranjan brought a set of clothes for Santar Pal as per the testimony of PW5 but he has not been examined in this case. PW6 has failed to admit or deny that he reached the hospital at about 2.30 hours after the alleged incident or was not shown the cartridges allegedly collected from the spot or that his statement was probably recorded after 2-3 days of incident. In the absence of any denial of these facts by the PW6 and also in the absence of any explanation by prosecution, this testimony is fatal to this case as PW6 has not only denied his earlier statement but also his presence at the spot during incident.
17. As such, the contradictory testimonies of PWs have created a serious dispute about the incident especially when none of the neighbors of the injured or public person has verified the incident. In fact, Pws including injured have failed to prove the incident beyond doubt.
18. Police have recovered one empty and one fired cartridge from the spot, but no fire weapon has been recovered from the accused or their instance despite the fact that all the PWs have deposed that accused Anuj and Omi were carrying pistols in their hands. In such circumstances, in view of contradictory testimonies of PWs, it could not be proved which accused used fire arm. One empty and one FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 32 of 401 fired cartridges were recovered from the spot, but it again creates a doubt about the recovery and suggests tempering. PW9 has deposed that bullets seen in photographs Ex.PW9/A-15 to Ex.PW9/A-17 were in the hands of ASI Surender Prasad of concerned PS, but he did not lift the finger prints from the cartridges which were recovered from a distance of about 10-15 paces from the house of the complainant. PW16 Ct. Sandeep has deposed that one live cartridge was lying in front of House No. F-16, 40 foot road but empty cartridge was lying on road in front of Sunlight Public School as shown in photographs Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A13. SI Arvind Kumar lifted fired and live cartridge and sealed then and there after preparation of their sketches, but police officials or IO did not make any enquiry from the occupants of the house no F-16 or Sun Shine School about those cartridges, whereas the spot of recoveries were not the spot of incident.
19. PW16 has admitted during cross examination that no one had stated that there had been any incident of firing at that place. He has denied against the testimony of photographer and has deposed that no one picked up the cartridges in his presence including ASI Surender Pal. Contrary to it, PW23 Ct. Pushpender has deposed during cross examination that PW16 Ct. Sandeep was not present at the spot when he signed the documents regarding seizure of these cartridges. Rather he has deposed that IO sealed the cartridges in PS, which is against the testimony of IO and other police officials that FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 33 of 401 the cartridges were seized and sealed at the spot. As such, the testimony of PW23 Ct. Pushpender has disputed the recoveries of cartridges as well as presence of Ct. Sandeep at the spot at the time of recovery and, recovery of cartridges at the spot has become doubtful especially when it was made in broad day light, but in the absence of public witnesses.
20. Further, if ASI Surender Prasad picked up the recovered cartridges as shown in the photographs, then a plausible explanation was supposed to be tendered by the prosecution to it, but it has not been tendered. Rather prosecution lost an opportunity to lift finger prints to nail the person who used them. Even ASI Surender Prashad joined the investigation but he has not been examined or cited witness to this case and it is also fatal to this case.
21. Two dandas have also been recovered from the house of accused Sonu @ Monu in the presence of PW4 Mohit. PW4 has not supported the prosecution regarding the arrest of the accused persons and has disputed his statement whereas recovery of dandas was made after the arrest and in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Sonu. Similarly, PW23 Ct. Pushpender has also disputed the recovery at the instance of accused Sonu @ Monu and has deposed that that he did not see any danda at the house of accused Sonu @ Monu, whereas this recovery was made in his presence. PW16 Ct. Sandeep has proved this recovery made by IO FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 34 of 401 at the instance of accused, but PW23 has disputed his presence at the spot at the time of that recovery and it created a doubt about that recovery.
22. Again, PW1 has disputed this recovery of dandas thereby deposing that these dandas were not similar to the dandas used during incident and this fact itself suggests that this recovery of dandas may be planted one. Admittedly, this recovery was affected from the house of accused Sonu @ Monu but no family member or neighbor has been joined into recovery proceedings which suggest that recovery of dandas may be planted. Even otherwise, the manner of recovery is also doubtful, which was made from a box lying outside the house. If a box was lying outside the house then it may not be ruled out that someone might have put dandas into the box especially when no identification mark put on the dandas to distinguish them. Dandas were not sealed after recovery and tempering may not be ruled out. Even, admittedly, dandas were easily available in the market and recovery was made in the absence of public witnesses despite their availability. In such circumstances, recovery of the dandas is doubtful.
23. Further, the recovery of dandas was made in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Sonu @ Monu, but accused did not disclose the complete description of spot from where recovery could have been affected and it was only disclosed that he could get FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 35 of 401 recovered dandas from his house but recovery was made outsider of his house from box, due to such recovery is doubtful.
24. Admittedly, both parties were having previous enmity and cases were pending between them, but IO did not try to ascertain the incident. IO did not examined the informant whose instance DD No. 8A was lodged nor obtained the CDR of mobile number of informant to ascertain as to whether it was a normal quarrel or such incident of firing as reported took place. He did not seek subsequent opinion regarding the nature of injury nos. 1 and 4 sustained by Santar Pal to ascertain as to whether it was self inflicted or caused by anyone.
25. Further, the investigation is also indicating regarding tempering with the seized articles as well as spot. PW30 was not aware about the posting of ASI Surender Prasad with PS whereas he picked the cartridges from the spot to hand over to photographer which suggests that it may not be ruled out that scene of crime was not tempered with by anyone including ASI Surender Prasad. PW30 prepared the site plan but site plan is admittedly not proving the exact position of the assailants or spot of incident. As such, by the testimony of PW30, it stands proved that the injury was not caused by accused Omi and injury was caused by accused Anuj as per supplementary statement of Santar Pal and this testimony is against the testimonies of other PWs who have deposed that injury was caused by accused Omi. Investigation has a lot of lapses followed by FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 36 of 401 the contradictory testimonies of PWs and incident could not be proved beyond doubt.
26. So far the arrest of accused is concerned, accused Omkar @ Omi was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW30/5 and personal search vide memo Ex.PW30/6 in the presence of Ct. Pushpender and at the instance of Mohit. Accused Kamal was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW30/7 and Ex.PW30/8, accused Ashok was arrested vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW30/9 and Ex.PW30/10 and again in the presence of Ct. Pushpender and at the instance of Mohit. Accused made their disclosure statements Ex.PW30/11 and Ex.PW30/12. Accused Sonu @ Monu was arrested vide memo Ex.PW16/3 and Ex.PW16/4 and made disclosure statement vide Ex.PW16/5. However, PW4 Mohit has denied that arrest of accused persons at his instance and has also denied his statement regarding it. PW23 has also disputed arrest of accused as well as recoveries at the instance of accused Sonu @ Monu. Even he has disputed the presence of Ct. Sandeep at the time of recovery and has deposed that he signed the documents at the PS. Again the arrest was made in the absence of public persons, accordingly the manner of arrest of all the above accused persons is doubtful.
27. Further, on 25.4.2013, accused Anuj and Arun surrendered before the court and were formally arrested vide memos Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/4. They made their disclosure statements vide FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 37 of 401 Ex.PW30/17 and Ex.PW30/16. Again, on 02.05.2013, accused Devender surrendered before the court and was formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW30/18 and Ex.PW30/19 and made disclosure statement vide Ex.PW30/20. The arrest of these accused is not disputed. Though all the accused have been arrested in this case, yet the mode and manner of the arrest of accused Omi @ Omkar, Kamal, Ashok and Sonu @ Monu is highly doubtful.
28. So far the identity of accused persons is concerned, all the accused were well known to each others being near relative as admitted by IO as well as PWs including injured, accordingly, identity of accused persons stands proved.
29. Accused have taken a defense that they have been falsely implicated in this case and even have taken a plea of alibi that they were not present at the spot of incident during incident. They have even examined DW1 to DW3 to prove this fact, but the testimonies of DW1 to DW3 have failed to prove their plea of alibi as all the witnesses were of such nature that they could not prove that accused had no occasion to move outside of their premises. Yet the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt due to it stands proved that accused have not committed the offences for which they have been charged.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 38 of 401
30. Now, I summarized the charges proved against the accused persons as under:
Under Section 144 IPC- Prosecution has failed to prove with the contradictory testimonies of the PWs that all the accused persons ever formed any unlawful assembly to commit any offence or they were part of any such unlawful assembly, accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove this charge.
Under Section 452/149 IPC- Prosecution has also failed to prove this charge as all the PWs have deposed that the incident took place outside the house of the injured and they sustained injuries on the street. None of the witness has deposed that accused ever entered into his premises to assault or to cause injury; accordingly, this offence also could not be proved.
Under Section 323/325/307/149 IPC- Prosecution has failed to prove these offences with the testimonies of all PWs that accused persons caused any injury to the injured including gunshot injury to the complainant and these charged also could not be proved beyond doubt.
31. Keeping in view of the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 39 of 401 all accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. I hereby acquit all the accused persons of all charges framed against them. Their bail Bonds cancelled. Sureties discharged. File is consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Devender Kumar)
today on 06.08.2016 Additional Sessions Judge-03
(NE): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 54/13 State Vs. Sonu @ Monu etc. 40 of 401