State vs . on 27 August, 2020

[Cites 34, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . on 27 August, 2020

IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
                    (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 57341/2016
CNR No. DLNT010000322014

State               Vs.
                                                   1. Prem Parkash Rana
                                                   S/o Sh. Pyare Lal
                                                   R/o H.No. 334, Vill. Mukhmailpur,
                                                   Delhi.

                                                   2. Pushpak Rana @ Bunti
                                                   S/o Sh. Prem Prakash Rana
                                                   R/o H.No. 334, Vill. Mukhmailpur,
                                                   Delhi.

                                                   3. Rupak Rana
                                                   S/o Sh. Prem Parkash Rana
                                                   R/o H.No. 334, Vill. Mukhmailpur,
                                                   Delhi.


                    FIR No.        : 246/2014
                    Police Station: Alipur
                    Under Sections: 302/34 IPC & u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
                                     & u/s 30 Arms Act

Date of committal to Sessions Court :                                    30/06/2014
Date of institution             :                                        04/07/2014
Date of Argument                :                                        20/08/2020
Date of reservation of order    :                                        20/08/2020
Date on which Judgment pronounced :                                      27/08/2020

                                         JUDGMENT

1. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 14/03/2014, at about 10.21 p.m., DD no. 30A was recorded at PS Alipur on receipt of information from L/Ct SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 1 of 82 Sheela of PCR, mobile no. 9716489591 that at 'Mukhmailpur', Union Bank, H.No. 333 one person had been shot in a quarrel. The contents of said DD were telephonically conveyed to SI Ravinder for taking necessary action. Accordingly, SI Ravinder along with Ct Vijender reached at the spot, whereas Inspector Jitender Singh along with HC Praveen Kumar reached at Village 'Mukhmailpur' near Union Bank on receipt of information through wireless. At the spot, SI Ravinder, Ct Vijender and beat Constable Mahesh were found present. It was revealed that injured Rajveer s/o Siwal Singh was taken to MAX Hospital, Shalimar Bagh in a private vehicle. SI Ravinder and Ct Vijender were left at the spot for its safeguard. Crime team was called at the spot. Thereafter, Inspector Jitender Singh along with HC Praveen and Ct Mahesh reached at MAX Hospital, Shalimar Bagh and collected MLC of injured Rajveer Singh Rana @ Rajveer son of Siwal Singh, R/o VPO Mukhmailpur, aged 50 years, wherein alleged history of "gunshot at around 9.50 p.m. on 14/03/2014 at VPO Mukhmailpur, Delhi" & "patient brought dead" was mentioned. The dead body was inspected at the emergency ward and one gunshot entry wound having blackening around it was found on the right side of abdomen, one gunshot entry wound was found at left side below the waist, one gunshot entry would was in the middle of the chest, one gunshot entry would was towards the left side of chest near the armpit and there were scratches on the nose of the dead body. The dead body was sent to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, under the supervision of Ct Mahesh.

1.1. In the hospital, Rajpal Rana, elder brother of deceased Rajveer was found present and Inspector Jitender Singh along with Rajpal Rana came back at the spot, where crime team had already reached. The spot was got inspected through crime team with the help of search light and at the road, in front of the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 2 of 82 house of Prem s/o Pyare, one steel type bullet was found lying, which was kept in a plastic 'dibbi' and its pullanda was prepared, which was sealed with the seal of "JS" and was seized. Statement of Rajpal, brother of deceased, was recorded.

2. In his statement, Rajpal Rana has stated that he is residing at Village Mukhmailpur, Delhi and is doing his own work. They are six brothers, out of which, Rajveer was the youngest, aged 50 years, who lives by his house and works as property dealer. At about 9.30 p.m. (of 14/03/2014), he was inside his house and on hearing the noise, he came out and saw that Prem s/o Pyare Lal, who was residing in front of his house, was abusing his brother Rajveer and was saying "saara rasta rok rakha hai aur meri gaadi nahi mudti hai" (whole of the path has been obstructed as a result of which his vehicle could not move). He further stated that his brother Rajveer asked Prem not to abuse him, then Prem called his sons namely Pushpak @ Baity and Rupak @ Nikki to bring the revolver and started grappling with his brother Rajveer. Rajpal Rana further stated in his statement that when he told Prem not to do so, in the meanwhile, son of Prem namely Pushpak, made 34 gunshot fire after coming in close contact of his brother Rajveer. Prem and his son caught hold of him (Rajpal Rana) and his brother (Rajveer) fell on the ground. Then Rupak exhorted that he (Rajveer) should not survive". On hearing the noise of fire, lots of people gathered and both father and sons managed to ran away from there. He further stated in his statement that he with the help of his nephew Joginder took his brother Rajveer to MAX Hospital in the car of Joginder, where doctor checked his brother and declared him dead, who was sustaining one gunshot on right side of his abdomen, one shot on the left side of the back, one gunshot on the middle of his chest and one gunshot was on the left side of armpit. He further claimed that Pushpak on the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 3 of 82 exhortation of his brother and father had shot at his brother and killed him.

3. On the basis of DD entry, inspection of MLC, dead body, inspection of spot and statement, offences u/s 302/34 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act were found committed. Accordingly Inspector Jitender Singh prepared a tehrir and got registered the FIR of the present case through Ct Bijender. After registration of FIR, further investigation was carried out by Inspector Jitender Singh.

4. During investigation, Inspector Jitender Singh prepared site plan of the occurrence at the instance of complainant Rajpal Rana. Brief facts were prepared. Rajpal Rana (brother of deceased) and Rajvir (brotherinlaw) of deceased have identified the dead body of deceased. Their dead body identification statements were recorded in this regard. On 15/03/2014, postmortem of dead body was got conducted at the mortuary of BJRM hospital and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to its claimants. Exhibits related to deceased were seized by preparing a memo. Clothes of deceased along with sample seal of "MSSH" were also seized by preparing a memo. Statements of witnesses were recorded.

4.1. During investigation, it was revealed that accused persons got themselves admitted in different hospitals at Delhi and Faridabad.

4.2. On 16/03/2014, accused Pushpak (A2) was arrested in the present case. His disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he confessed his guilt and further disclosed that his brother Rupak also sustained one bullet injury on his hand when he tried to stop him during the quarrel and that he and his father also SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 4 of 82 received injuries during the scuffle. Pursuant to his disclosure, accused Pushpak also got recovered weapon of offence i.e. revolver along with one live cartridge and four empties. Its sketch was prepared. Site plan of the place of recovery of revolver was also prepared. The said accused also pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo in this regard was prepared. On the basis of disclosure statement of accused Pushpak, Sections 336/337 IPC were added against him. Documents related to medical treatment of said accused were also obtained.

4.3. On 17/03/2014, accused Prem Prakash (A1) was arrested in the present case. His disclosure statement was recorded. At his instance, one Arm License and one Mercedes car no. DL6CM5153 were recovered and seized. One copy was extracted from the License Register no. 17 of the PS and was filed. The said accused also pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo was prepared in this regard. Documents related to medical treatment of the said accused were also collected.

4.4. On 18/03/2014, accused Pushpak (A2) got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident from behind the almirah kept in a room at the ground floor of H.No. 374, Sectr17, Faridabad. The same were seized by preparing a pullanda with the seal of "JS". Accused Prem Prakash (A1) also got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident from H.No. A/88, Majlis Park, which were also seized by preparing a pullanda with the seal of "JS". Exhibits related to accused 4.5. On 19/03/2014, accused Rupak Rana (A3) was arrested in the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 5 of 82 present case after he was discharged from Metro Hospital, Faridabad. He also made disclosure statement, wherein he confessed about his involvement in the commission of offence and receiving of gunshot injury on his hand at the hands of his brother Pushpak (A2). He also pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo was prepared in this regard. The said accused also got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence from one of the room of house of his maternal uncle i.e. H.No. 674, Sector17, Ground Floor, which were seized by preparing a pullanda with the seal of "JS".

4.6. On 20/03/2014, subsequent opinion qua gunshot received by accused Rupak Rana from autopsy surgeon was obtained.

4.7. On 02/04/2014, scaled site plan was got prepared.

4.8. Exhibits were sent to FSL for expert opinion.

5. On completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 302/34 IPC, u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and u/s 30 of Arms Act was filed against all the three accused persons before the concerned Duty Magistrate, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, on 13/06/2014. Cognizance for the offences u/s 302/34 IPC, u/s 27 & u/s 30 of Arms Act was taken by the concerned CMM, North, Delhi, on 20/06/2014, while observing that since the sanction u/s 39 Arms was not obtained, the accused persons cannot be prosecuted for the offence u/s 25 of Arms Act and prosecution was given liberty to proceed against the accused persons after it obtains sanction and to file the same through supplementary chargesheet. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 30/06/2014 and was received on SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 6 of 82 assignment by this Court on 04/07/2014.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that till the filing of the chargesheet, FSL result was awaited. On 25/07/2014, FSL report dated 21/05/2014 of chemistry division was filed.

7. On 27/09/2014, supplementary chargesheet qua FSL result and sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court, which was committed to the Court of Sessions on the same day itself, which was ordered to be tagged with the main chargesheet vide order dated 07/11/2014 by the then ld. predecessor of this Court. On 07/11/2014, DNA analysis report dated 31/10/2014 was also filed by the IO. On 05/12/2014, it was submitted on behalf of State that certain clarifications were required to be sought from FSL Rohini and accordingly on 23/02/2015, Sh. Puneet Puri, Ballistics Expert, FSL Rohini, has filed photocopy of extracts of the book "Gunshot Wounds' Practical aspects of Fire Arms, Ballistic and Forensic Techniques by VINCENT J.M. DID MAIO and photocopy of extracts of the Book "Firearms in Criminal Investigation and Trials"

by Dr. B.R. Sharma.

8. Vide order dated 23/02/2015, charge u/s 302/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, whereas separate charge u/s 30 Arms Act was framed against accused Prem Prakash Rana & charge u/s 25 of Arms Act & also u/s 27 of Arms Act were framed separately against accused Pushpak Rana @ Bunty, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 32 witnesses in SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 7 of 82 all. It is pertinent to mention here that inadvertently, PW19 ASI Ajay Kumar was also examined as PW33. The details of said witnesses are as under: S.No. Name of prosecution witness Purpose of examination 1 PW1 Joginder Rana Who came to prove the factum that on 14/03/2014, at about 9.30 p.m., he saw his uncle Rajbir Rana lying on a road in a pool of blood and he took him to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh in his Ritz Car.

2 PW2 Dr. Mohd. Nabi, Clinical Associate Who came to prove the MLC Ex. PW2/A of Internal Medicines, Max Hospital, Rajbir Singh Rana @ Rajbir s/ o Shival Shalimar Bagh, Delhi Singh, who was brought dead and upon diagnose, he opined gunshot/brought dead.

He also observed wounds present over the body of patient and has proved his observations at portion X to X1. He has also proved his observation at portion Y to Y1 qua systematic examination given to the injured and his observation at point Z to Z1 qua the fact that patient could not be revived and also proved LTI and RTI of patient at portion A to A1 on the MLC.

3 PW3 Pradeep Rana Who came to prove the 100 number call made by him from his mobile no.

9716489591 qua the incident and qua taking of his uncle Rajbir Rana to hospital in injured condition by Joginder Rana and his uncle Rajpal Rana.

4 PW4 ASI Ram Kumar, Incharge Mobile For proving inspection report Ex. PW4/A Crime Team, Outer District, Delhi.

5 PW5 Ct. Sandeep Kumar, Who came to prove the 8 photographs of the Photographer, Mobile Crime Team, place of occurrence took by him from Outer District, Delhi. different angles Ex. PW5/B1 to Ex. PW5/B8 and negatives thereof Ex. PW5/A1 to Ex.

PW5/A8.

6 PW6 Ct. Harpal Who came to prove the record in respect of Arms License No. 030043 (New no.

NWAP/3/1991/143 issued in the name of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1), SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 8 of 82 computerized copy of which is Ex. PW6/A. He further identified the aforesaid Arms License Ex. PW6/B. 7 PW7 Dr. Bishwa Nath Thakur, the then Who came to prove the MLC of accused CMO, Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Prem Rana (A1) Ex. PW7/A , who was Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. brought to the said hospital on 15/03/2014 by his Nephew Sparsh with alleged history of physical assault at Mukhmelpur, Delhi, as told by patient and brought by. He further proved that the said patient was found suffering from clean lacerated wound over forehead about 2 cm x 0.5 cm, swelling and tenderness over left middle finger and was referred for xray and CT scan and was admitted under Ortho. He further proved discharge summary dated 17/04/2014 prepared by Dr. Rahul Aggarwal Ex. PW7/B. 8 PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh, the then in Who came to prove the postmortem report charge Mortuary, BJRM Hospital, no. 221/14 dated 15/03/2014 Ex. PW8/A and Jahangir Puri, Delhi. his expert opinion on MLC no. 1302/14 dated 15/03/2014 of accused Rupak Rana (A3) Ex. PW8/B and marks of identification of patient mentioned at portion X to X1 in report Ex. PW8/B. 9 PW9 ASI Rajinder Singh, duty officer Who came to prove computerized copy of FIR Ex. PW9/A, his endorsement on rukka Ex. PW9/B, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW9/C & kayami DD entry no. 3/A with regard to registration of FIR 10 PW10 HC Raj Kumar, DD Writer Who came to prove DD entry no. 30A dated 14/03/14 Ex. PW10/A, DD no. 23A dated 15/03/14 Ex. PW10/B, DD no. 26A dated 15/03/14 Ex. PW10/C and DD no. 29A dated 15/03/14 Ex. PW10/D. 11 PW11 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, Who came to prove scaled site plan Ex.

Draftsman. PW11/A. 12 PW12 Raj Pal Singh, complainant Qua the incident. 13 PW13 Rajbir, brotherinlaw of Who came to prove his dead body SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 9 of 82 deceased. identification statement Ex. PW13/A and receiving of dead body vide memo Ex.

PW13/B. 14 PW14 Ct. Dushyant Who came to prove that after registration of FIR, he delivered the computerized copies of FIR to concerned Ilaqa MM and senior police officers.

15 PW15 Dr. R.S. Narwal, Medical Officer, Who came to prove the MLC no. 886/14 of Sonia Hospital, Nangloi, Delhi. accused Pushpak Rana (A2). 16 PW16 Ct. Yogesh Who came to prove that on 17/03/2014, on the instructions of Inspector Jitender Singh, he visited Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, where accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) was admitted and on his discharge from the hospital, he brought the said accused to PS Alipur and produced him before the IO and also that he handed over the relevant medical documents/discharge papers of said accused before the IO.

17 PW17 Ct Saroj Mishra Who came to prove that on 19/03/2014,on the instructions of IO Inspector Jitender Singh, he visited Metro Hospital, Faridabad, Haryana, where accused Rupak Rana (A3) was admitted and on the discharge of said accused, he brought him at PS Alipur and produced before the IO and that he collected two sealed envelope, sealed with the seal of 'Sector 16A FBD' containing treatment papers and sealed pullanda containing one bullet sikka, one sample seal and one CD containing footage of admission of accused Rupak Rana in the aforesaid hospital, which were produced by him before IO and which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.

PW17/A. 18 PW18 Ct Bijender Who came to prove the part investigation conducted in his presence and also the factum of registration of FIR.

19 PW19/PW33 ASI Ajay Kumar, MHC(M) Who came to prove the relevant entries qua depositing of case property with him vide Ex.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 10 of 82

PW19/A to Ex. PW19/E/Ex.PW33/A to Ex.

PW33/E and sending of case property to FSL vide RC No. 40/21/14 (through PW21 Ct Mahesh), 44/21/14 (through PW29 Ct.

Narender) & 48/21/14 (through Ct. Rajender) Ex. PW19/F to Ex. PW19/H/Ex. PW33/F, Ex.

PW33/H & Ex.PW33/J respectively & acknowledgement of FSL Ex. PW33/G, Ex.

PW33/I and Ex. PW33/K. 20 PW20 Dr. Sarfaraj Ahmad, Medical Who came to prove the MLC no. 1302/14/SA Officer, Metro Heart Institute Multi Ex. PW20/A of accused Rupak Rana (A3) Speciality Hospital, Sector16A, and requisite proforma bearing no. 01431 Faridabad. dated 15/03/2014 Ex. PW20/B. regarding medico legal case and information regarding MLC.

21 PW21 Ct. Mahesh Who came to prove the part investigation conducted in his presence by the IO, also about handing over of one sealed pullanda containing blood sample, one sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased and two sealed envelopes along with sample seal of FMT BJRM Hospital by the concerned Autopsy Surgeon to him after postmortem of deceased, which were further handed over by him to IO and were seized vide memo Ex.

PW21/A and about collecting of one sealed pullanda and one sample seal from MHC(M) and depositing the same at FSL, Rohini, acknowledgement of which was deposited with MHC(M).

22 PW22 SI Satish Kumar Who came to prove that on 15/03/2014, pursuant to DD no. 26A, he visited Sonia Hospital, Nangloi, where accused Pushpak Rana (A2) was admitted in injured condition, collecting of his MLC no. 886/14 & making enquiry from the said accused, deploying Ct.

Arun and Ct Yogesh in the said hospital, receiving of DD no. 29A qua admission of accused Rupak Rana (A3) in Metro Hospital, Sector16, Faridabad, visiting Meytro Hospital, where accused Rupak Rana (A3) SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 11 of 82 was found admitted in surgical ICU, making of enquiry from the said accused, perusing of MLC wherein alleged history of gunshot injury on right wrist joint on palmer surface was mentioned, regarding making enquiries from the said accused, deploying Ct Saroj & Ct Krishan at the Metro Hospital and handing over the aforesaid MLCs and other documents to IO.

23 PW23 SI Ravinder Who came to prove that he initially reached the place of occurrence along with Ct Bijender on receipt of DD no. 30A, part investigation conducted by Inspector Jitender Singh in his presence and seizing of one used bullet of silver colour vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/A. 24 PW24 HC Praveen Who came to prove the investigation conducted by the IO in his presence and memos Ex. PW23/A qua seizure of one sikka/lead found present at the spot, seizure memo Ex. PW24/A qua clothes of deceased and sample seal, arrest memo, personal search memo & disclosure statement of accused Pushpak Rana (A2) Ex. PW24/B, Ex. PW24/C and Ex. PW24/D, recovery of revolver by accused Pushpak Rana (A2) which was found containing four empty shells, sketch of revolver Ex. PW24/E, sketch of four shells and one live cartridge Ex. PW24/F, seizure memo thereof Ex.

PW24/G, rough site plan Ex. PW24/H of the place of recovery, pointing out memo Ex.

PW24/J, arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) vide memos Ex.

PW24/K, Ex. PW24/L and Ex. PW24/M, recovery of Arm Licence by accused Prem Prakash Rana which was seized vide memo Ex. PW24/N, recovery of Mercedes car no.

DL6CM5153 which was seized vide memo Ex. PW24/O, pointing out memo of place of occurrence by accused Prem Prakash Rana SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 12 of 82 Ex. PW24/P, seizure of clothes of accused Pushpak Rana which he was wearing at the time of commission of offence vide memo Ex.

PW24/Q, seizure of clothes of accused Prem Prakash Rana vide seizure memo Ex.

PW24/R, which he was wearing at the time of commission of offence, arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Rupak Rana (A3) Ex.

PW24/S to Ex. PW24/U, pointing out memo by accused Rupak Rana Edx. PW24/V, giving of written request by IO to concerned doctor for giving subsequent opinion qua the injury over right hand of accused Rupak Rana and seizure of clothes of accused Rupak Rana vide memo Ex. PW24/W. 25 PW25 HC Pushkar Who came to prove that accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) was the license holder of rifle of .315 bore and proved the copy of Form no. 22.69 Ex. PW25/A and photocopy of relevant entry in register no. 19 Ex.

PW25/B 26 PW26 Sh. Puneet Puri, Assistant Who came to prove his report Ex. PW26/A. Director (Ballistic), FSL, Rohini, Delhi.

27 PW27 HC Rajender Who came to prove that he collected five sealed pullandas and two sample seals from MHC(M) vide RC no. 48/21/14 on 03/04/2014 on the instructions of IO and deposited the same at FSL Rohini, acknowledgement of which was handed over by him to MHC(M).

28 PW28 Sh. Inderesh Kumar Mishra, Who came to prove DNA as well as Assistand Director (Biology), FSL biological examination report dated 31/10/14 Rohini, Delhi. Ex. PW28/A and serological report Ex.

PW28/B. 29 PW29 Ct. Narender Who came to prove that on 28/03/2014, on the instructions of IO Inspector Jitender Singh, he collected six sealed pullandas from MHC(M) CP vide RC no. 44/21/14 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini, acknowledgement of which was deposited with MHC(M).



SC No. 57341/2016   FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors.             Page 13 of 82
 30       PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh (now Who came to prove                         the   investigation
         ACP), Investigating Officer        conducted by him.
31       PW31 SI Kamlesh Kumar                                 Who came to prove the investigation
                                                               conducted by the IO in his presence.
32       PW32 Ms. Shweta Chauhan, the then Who came to prove sanction u/s 39 Arms Act

Additional Deputy Commissioner of against accused Pushpak @ Bunty (A2) Ex Police, Outer District, Delhi. PW32/A.

10. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of all the three accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the case of prosecution and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. They chose to lead evidence in defence.

10.1. Accused Prem Prakash Rana has put forth following plea in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.: "I am innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter due to the above said reason. However, deceased Rajbir was dealing in disputed properties and had enmity with lot of persons. He was also in habit of consuming excess liquor and used to fight with villagers. He was also living in extra marital relations with a lady in Swaroop Nagar and because of his deeds, his wife also committed suicide. PW Rajpal Rana had personal enmity and jealousy with us. After the occurrence in the village, deceased Rajbir, the family members of Rajpal Rana attacked my house and pelted stones and fired bullets towards us and in the said process, me and my both sons received SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 14 of 82 injuries, seeing this Rakesh Rana my nephew gave a PCR call from his mobile no. 9810340922. PCR had come at the spot and after seeing the gypsy of the police, the aforesaid persons had ran away from the spot.

My house is built in the area of around 1000 sq. yards and had sufficient open space and there was no problem for the parking of my car. There was no problem for turning or moving the car inside or outside my house. The house of Rajbir is not in front of my house. So there was no dispute with Rajbir in respect of the turning of the car outside his house. I and my sons have been involved in this case at the instance of the Rajpal Rana being his personal enmity with us. I and my sons are innocent".

10.2. Similar plea was taken by accused Pushpak Rana (A2) and Rupak Rana (A3).

11. In defence, DW1 retired ASI Chander Mohan and DW2 Rakesh Rana were examined on behalf of the accused persons.

12. I have heard Sh. Sanjay Jindal, ld. substitute Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Kanhaiya Kumar , ld. counsel for the accused persons and Sh. Pradeep Arya, ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the material available on record and written submissions filed on behalf of the accused persons.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 15 of 82

13. Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State has stated that prosecution has fully established its case against the accused persons. He has further submitted that testimony of PW12 Rajpal Singh, complainant/eyewitness to the incident is trustworthy and inspire confidence. He has further submitted that PW12 has fully supported the case of the prosecution qua the incident and also with regard to their identity of the accused persons.

14. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the accused persons has submitted prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. He has further submitted that as per testimony of PW3, he had dialed 100 number but the said number belongs to one Rahul, who is neither a witness to this case nor examined as witness. He has further submitted that in DD no. 30A, it is mentioned that "ek aadmi ko goli maar dee", whereas PW3 Pradeep Rana who made call at 100 number, is the nephew of deceased and he should have informed that his uncle had been shot, which creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Ld. counsel for the accused persons has further submitted that neither any CRCR record nor any call detail record including CAF has been brought on record by the prosecution. He has further submitted that there is delay of four hours in recording of the FIR of the present case and receiving of copy of FIR by ld. CMM i.e. at 7.30 a.m.. He has further submitted that contents of rukka were not reproduced in DD no. 30A. Ld. counsel has further argued that one empty bullet was seized and its memo was prepared which bears the particulars of FIR and furthermore no identification marks were put on the empty bullet nor any blood was found on the same. He has further argued that particulars of the case have not been filled in the crime team report and the eight SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 16 of 82 photos allegedly clicked of the place of occurrence do not bear any date and time. He has further argued that Ct Hans Raj (Finger Print Proficient) has not been examined during trial. Ld. counsel has further argued that neither any blood stains nor any empty cartridge or any live bullet was found at the spot. He has further submitted that rough site plan materially differs from the scaled site plan dated 25/04/2014 and is disputed by the alleged eyewitness himself. He has further argued that postmortem report shows that the injuries were caused by three different types of firearms which is contrary to the testimony of PW12. Ld. counsel has further argued that there is no entry wound of the size 8mm found appearing on the deceased, which proves that injuries were not caused by .32 revolver in which 8mm cartridge is used. He has further argued that PW1 Joginder Rana being close relative of deceased has denied the presence of PW12 Rajpal Rana, which casts serious doubt about the presence of PW12 at the spot. He has further argued that PW12 did not take the deceased to hospital and his name is not mentioned in hospital records. He has further argued that no injury was sustained by PW12 Rajpal Rana though he had claimed that he intervened in the matter. Ld. counsel has further argued that IO Inspector Jitender Singh has stated that PW12 Rajpal Rana initially did not make any statement and the medical evidence runs contrary to his version and rather destroys his alleged version. He has further argued that Ballistic report/DNA report/serological report does not link the accused persons with the alleged crime. He has further submitted that MLC of accused Rupak Rana has corrections at point X and Y and without the knowledge of PW8, the name of accused Rupak Rana is mentioned by striking the name of Pushpak Rana and in this regard testimony of PW8 is of great relevance. He has further submitted that no effort was made by PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh to trace or arrest the accused persons for the initial 1520 hours. He has further submitted SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 17 of 82 that no witness was made from any of the hospital with regard to detention and production of accused persons. Ld. counsel for the accused persons has further submitted that no incriminating material has been recovered at the instance or from the possession of accused Rupak Rana and Prem Prakash Rana. He has further submitted that recovery is doubtful as no independent witness was joined nor any departure entry was lodged at the PS in this regard. He has further submitted that there are discrepancies in the testimony of PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh and PW31 SI Kamlesh Kumar. He has further submitted that police officials did not offer their search to accused persons before recovery was made. He has further submitted that testimonies of PW18, PW21, PW23, PW24 and PW30 are contradictory in nature. Ld. counsel for the accused persons has submitted that if contents of rukka are believed in toto, during man to man quarrel, accused Prem Prakash Rana called his sons with revolver but it does not mean that accused Prem Prakash Rana asked his sons to fire. He has further submitted that be that as it may be, accused Pushpak came and fired upon deceased without there being any exhortations by his father and brother Rupak and even Rupak did not do anything. He has further submitted that in such circumstances, it will be highly dangerous to presume that the accused persons shared common intention to commit the offence of culpable homicide with the intention of committing the murder. He has further argued that culpable homicide and murder are distinct and of different degree offence. He has further argued that there is no motive and there was no previous enmity and incident had occurred on a trivial issue i.e. parking. Ld. counsel has further argued that deceased was under the influence of liquor and accused persons even suffered injuries and at the best, offence u/s 304 PartI is made out against accused Pushpak as he was having knowledge about his act. In support of his arguments, ld. counsel for the accused persons has SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 18 of 82 relied upon the following judgments: I) Vineet Kumar Chauhan V State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 780.

ii) Bhagirath Vs State of M.P., 1976 1 SCC 20.

iii) Krishan Kumar @ Monu & Another V State, Criminal Appeal no. 907 to 246 of 2012, date of decision: 09/09/2014.

iv) Deepak Sarna Vs State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal no. 174/2004 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

v) Mukesh VS State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal no. 102/2013, date of decision:

24/01/2017 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

vi) Pawan Kumar VS The Delhi Administration (1989 Crl.L.J 127 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

Vii)Dilbagh Singh & Anr. Vs State, Crl. A.No. 434/200 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

viii)Mahavir Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 10 SCC 20

ix)Mani Ram & Ors. Vs State of U./P. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 289

x)Ram Narain Singh Vs State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 497

xi)Puran Singh Vs State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 3 SCC 795

xii)Darya Singh Vs State of Punjab (1964) 3 SCR 297

xiii)Raju @ Balchandran Vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701.

xiv)Naval Kishore @ Naval Vs State (Crl.A.No. 12/2013, date of decision: 19/02/2018.

xv)Mohar Raj & Bharath Rai Vs The State of Bihar(1968 AIR 1281) xvi)Jagdish Vs Sate of Rajasthan (1979 AIR 1010) xvii)State of Rajasthan Vs Madho & Anr. (AIR 1991 SC 1065). xviii)Satish @ Maurya Ramubhai Patel (2010)24 GHJ 35. xix)State Represented by Inspector of Police Vs Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152 xx)STate of Rajasthan V. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 11 SCC 106. xxi)Mukesh V State, Crl. A. 102/2013, date of decision 24.01.2017. xxii)State of H.P. V. Jai Lal & Ors., 1999 (7) SCC 280. xxiii)Ram Narain Singh Vs State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 497. xxiv) Ashish Jain V Makran Singh, (2019) 3 SCC 770. xxv) Shambhu Kuer Vs State of Bihar, (1982) 1 SCC 486. xxvi)Ramashish Yadav V State of Bihar (1999) 8 SCC 555. xxvii)Chhota Ahirwar VS State of Madhya Pradesh (Crl. A. No.238 of 2011, date of decision:06/02/2020.

xxviii)Jainul Haque V. Sate of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 45. xxix)Idrish Bhai Daudbhai Vs State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 277. xxx)Matadin Vs State of Maharashtra (1998) 7 SCC 216. xxxi)Bhagirath VS State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 975) xxxii)Harish VS State (Crl. A. No.537/2015, date of decision:10.07.18. xxxiii)Sucha Singh V. State of Punjab (2001) 45 SCC 375. xxxiv)Mukesh VS Sate (NCT of Delhi), Crl.A. no. 102 of 2013, date f decision 24/01/2017.

xxxv)Lalit @ Lucky Vs. State, Crl. A. 1109/2018, date of decision09/10/19. Xxxvi)Sukhbir Singh Vs Sate of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 327.

xxxvii)Rakesh @ Tonu Vs State (2014) SCC Online Del 6986. xxxviii)Bhimanna Vs State of Karnataka (AIR 2012 SC 3026). xxxix)Prabhakar Vithal Gholve V State of Maharashtra, AIR 2016SC 2292. xxxx)Dattu Shamrao Valake & Anr. V State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 2331. xxxxi)Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs Delhi Administration, (1968) 2 SCR 455.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 19 of 82

xxxxii) Bhagwan Swaroop Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 AIR 675. xxxxiii)Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni V State of Punjab, Crl. A.No. 283 of 2011, date of decision:28/07/2020.

15. The whole case of the prosecution qua the incident is solely based on the testimony of PW12 Rajpal Singh, brother of deceased. He has deposed that he has been residing at H.No. 333,Mukhmelpur, Delhi110036, alongwith his family members and is having a business of carpet at Shop No. 24, Ambedkar Stadium, Delhi110002 in the name of Rana Carpets. He has further deposed that they were having six brothers and deceased Rajveer was his younger brother. He further deposed that on 14.03.2014, he had returned back to his house from his aforesaid shop at about 8 pm and thereafter took dinner. He further deposed that at about 9.30 pm, while he was present inside his house, he heard the noises "shor sunayi diya" from in front of his house and on hearing the said noises, he came outside his house. PW12 further deposed that when he came outside his house, he saw that accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1), present in Court (correctly identified) was using abusive language against his brother Rajveer (since deceased) and levelled allegations against his brother Rajveer that the way had been blocked by him (Rajveer ), as a result of which, his car could not be parked properly "meri gadi nahi mudti". He further deposed that upon this, his brother Rajveer (since deceased) had requested accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) for not using abusive language, on which, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) had called accused Pushpak Rana @ Bunty (A2) and accused Rupak Rana (A3), both present in Court (correctly identified), by stating to them for bringing a revolver, so that they can teach a lesson to Rajveer and further stated that they would finish off his (PW1's) brother Rajveer and further said that "hamesha ke liye jagda khatam kar dete hain" (issue should be resolved for forever). PW12 further SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 20 of 82 deposed that thereafter, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) started quarreling with his brother Rajveer . He further deposed that upon this, he tried to intervene and requested accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) for not quarreling with his brother Rajveer and in the meantime, accused persons namely Pushpak Rana @ Bunty and Rupak Rana (A2 & A3 herein) came outside from their house and accused Pushpak Rana @ Bunty (A2) was armed with a revolver. PW12 further deposed that when accused persons Pushpak Rana @ Bunty and Rupak Rana (A2 & A3 herein) came outside, accused Rupak Rana (A3) had exhorted the words "iska kaam tamaam kar de" (finish him) and upon this, accused Pushpak Rana @ Bunty (A2) fired 3-4 bullets upon his brother Rajveer (since deceased) with the said revolver. He further deposed that when accused Pushpak Rana (A2) fired bullets upon his brother, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Rupak Rana (A3) caught hold of him and accused Rupak Rana (A3) again exhorted the words "aaj ye bachna nahi chahiye" (he should not survive today). He further deposed that due to the noises of bullets being fired, many public persons gathered there and all the aforesaid three accused persons managed to flee away from the spot.

15.1. PW12 Rajpal Singh further deposed that accused Pushpak Rana @ Bunty (A2) had fired four bullets upon his brother Rajveer (since deceased), as a result of which, "mein badhawaas sa ho gaya (gabra gaya)"( he became perturbed). He further deposed that thereafter, he immediately rushed towards his car, which was parked around two houses away from the place of occurrence, so as to bring said car to the place of occurrence, in order to take his brother Rajveer (since deceased) to the hospital. PW12 further deposed that by the time, he brought his car to the place of occurrence, his nephew Joginder (PW1) had already put his injured brother Rajveer (since deceased) in his car and started SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 21 of 82 driving his car. He further deposed that he followed the car of his nephew Joginder while driving his car behind him and thereafter they reached at Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, where after initial medical examination, the concerned doctor had declared his brother Rajveer dead.

15.2. PW12 has further deposed that his brother Rajveer (since deceased) had received bullet injuries on the left side of his abdomen, gun shot injury on the right side of his abdomen, one gun shot injury in the middle of his chest and also received gun shot injury near left arm pit. He further deposed that his brother Rajveer (since deceased) had been killed by accused Pushpak Rana (A2) at the instance of accused Prem Prakash Rana and Rupak Rana (A1 & A3 herein).

15.3. PW12 further deposed that at about 11 pm, IO had reached in the Max Hospital, made enquiries from the concerned doctor of said hospital & also from him and also clicked his photograph in the Max Hospital with his mobile as he (PW1) was wearing vest. He further deposed that thereafter, he accompanied the IO to the place of occurrence in the Police Gypsy & at the spot, IO recorded his statement Ex.PW12/A on which his signature were obtained by the IO in the police station, again said, his said signatures were obtained at the spot by the IO. PW12 further deposed that after recording his statement, IO prepared tehrir and handed over the said tehrir to one police official, who took the tehrir to PS. He further deposed that thereafter, IO prepared rough site plan of the spot at his instance. He further deposed that from the spot, IO had lifted one lead (sikka) of silver colour, one of the side of which was thin and IO kept the said lead in a plastic container, which was further kept in a cloth pullanda, which was sealed with the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 22 of 82 seal "JS" and was seized vide a seizure memo.

15.4. PW12 Rajpal Singh further deposed that thereafter, on 15.03.2014, he alongwith his relatives visited PS Alipur from where they accompanied IO and two other police officials to Max Hospital, from where the IO had got transferred the body of his brother Rajveer to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. PW12 further deposed that he alongwith his other relatives also accompanied the IO to BJRM Hospital Mortuary and he identified the dead body of his brother Rajveer and IO recorded his statement Ex.PW12/B in this regard. He further deposed that thereafter, IO got conducted postmortem on the body of his deceased brother Rajveer and after postmortem, the body of his brother Rajveer was handed over to him for cremation purposes.

15.5. PW12 further deposed that on 16.03.2014, he went to PS Alipur for knowing the progress of investigation of the murder case of his brother Rajveer and when he visited the office of SHO concerned/IO, he had seen accused Pushpak Rana (A2) present there and he identified accused Pushpak Rana and IO recorded his (PW1's) statement in this regard.

15.6. PW12 further deposed that thereafter, on 06.06.2014, he was again called by the IO at PS Alipur and made enquiries from him and recorded his supplementary statement on that day.

15.7. PW12 further deposed that IO had not prepared the correct site plan and the rough site plan, which is on judicial file is not the correct site plan of the place of occurrence. He has identified the clothes of his deceased brother Ex.P1 SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 23 of 82 (colly.) & underwear Ex.P2 as the one which his brother (since deceased) was wearing on the day of occurrence, one revolver .32 caliber bearing no. 85066 Ex. P3 as the one which was used in the commission of offence, one .32 cartridge and four .32 cartridge cases and one bullet (lead/ sikka) Ex.P4 as the one which was seized from the spot.

15.8. According to prosecution, complainant Rajpal Rana has also made another supplementary statement dated 08/06/2014, wherein he claimed that since he was under shock due to demise of his deceased brother, he could not disclose the entire facts in his earlier statement and he further claimed that on 14/03/2014, when verbal altercation was going on between accused Prem Rana and his brother Rajveer (since deceased), then Prem Rana called both his sons namely Pushpak and Rupak to bring the revolver and also stated to come early and that they should teach a lesson to Rajveer today and he should be finished today so that the issued could be resolved for forever. He further claimed that in the meantime, both the brothers came out and Pushpak was having revolver in his hand and then Rupak also exhorted "brother finish him" and on exhortation of Prem and Rupak, Pushpak had fired shot and then all three ran away.

16. PW1 Joginder Rana is the nephew of deceased Rajveer Rana. He has deposed that on 14.03.2014, at about 9.30 P.M, he was present at his house and he heard a noise of bullets being fired, upon which, he came outside of his house and saw his uncle Sh. Rajveer Rana (since deceased) lying on a road in a pool of blood. He further deposed that he immediately took his uncle Sh. Rajveer Rana in his Ritz Car and took him to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh. He further deposed that in the said hospital, the concerned doctor had checked his uncle and SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 24 of 82 declared him dead. He further deposed that thereafter he returned to his house and during investigation, IO recorded his statement in this regard.

17. PW3 Pradeep Rana is another nephew of deceased Rajveer Rana. He has deposed that on 14.3.14, at about 10:15 p.m, he had returned back to his house and he came to know that an altercation had taken place in between his uncle Rajveer Rana (since deceased) and accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and that his uncle Rajveer Rana (since deceased) had received bullet injuries in the said altercation. He further deposed that he also came to know that his uncle Rajveer Rana was taken to hospital in injured condition by Joginder Rana (PW1) and his uncle Rajpal Rana (PW12). He further deposed that he came to know that by that time nobody had made call at number 100 and accordingly he made a call at number 100 from his mobile phone no. 9716489591.

18. PW2 Dr. Mohd. Nabi, Clinical Associate Internal, Medicines, Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, has deposed that on 14.03.2014 , at around 10.15 P.M, one patient namely Sh. Rajveer Singh Rana @ Rajveer S/o Sh. Shival Singh, aged about 50 years male was brought by one Joginder Rana (nephew) (i.e. PW1) in Max Hospital Shalimar Bagh with alleged history of gun shots at around 9.50 P.M on 14.03.14 at V&PO Mukhmel Pur Delhi, as told by Joginder Rana (nephew). He further deposed that he examined the said patient and prepared MLC no. 456 Ex. PW2/A, which is in his handwriting and bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that upon the arrival of said patient at Emergency Department, after examination, he opined the patient being brought dead/ unresponsible stage. He further deposed that upon diagnoses, he opined gun shot/ brought dead and further mentioned that the cause of death to be SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 25 of 82 certified by Autopsy Surgeon. PW2 further deposed that on local examination, he also observed wounds present over the body of patient and his said observations are at portion X to X1, the systematic examination given to the injured are at portion Y to Y1 which shows no signs of live. He further deposed that they took all measures but the patient could not be revived and his said observations are at portion Z to Z1 and that he also obtained LTI and RTI of patient at portion A to A1 on the MLC.

19. As per case of prosecution, on 14/03/2014, at about 10.21 p.m., DD no. 30A was recorded at PS Alipur on receipt of information through wireless operator that "Mukhmel Pur Union Bank House No. 333 Jhagde Mai Ek Aadmi ko Goli Maar di", which was recorded by PW10 HC Raj Kumar who was working as DD Writer at PS Alipur at that time from 4.00 p.m. till 12.00 midnight and he telephonically conveyed the contents of said DD to SI Ravinder (PW23), who alongwith Ct. Bijender (PW18) was on night emergency duty from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and they both went to the place of occurrence i.e. at Mukhmel Pur Village near Union Bank of India, House No. 333, where it was revealed to them that injured Rajveer Rana (since deceased) had been taken to Max Hospital in a private vehicle. PW23 SI Ravinder further deposed that in the meantime, SHO Inspector Jitender Singh (PW30) and other staff had also reached there and he alongwith Ct. Bijender (PW18) remained at the spot, whereas PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh alongwith staff went to Max Hospital.

20. PW30 Inspector Jitender Singy (now ACP) has deposed that on 14.03.2014, he was posted as SHO at PS Alipur and on that day, while he was on patrolling duty, Duty Officer made a call to him and informed him about the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 26 of 82 contents of DD no. 30A. He further deposed that accordingly, he alongwith other staff i.e. HC Praveen (PW24), Ct. Mahesh (PW21) and Driver Operator reached at the place of occurrence i.e. Mukhmel Pur Village near Union Bank of India, H. No. 333, where he had met SI Ravinder (PW23) and Ct. Bijender (PW18) and SI Ravinder (PW23) informed him that it was revealed to him that one Rajveer had been caused gun shot injury and he was taken to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh in a private car. PW30 further deposed that he instructed SI Ravinder and Ct. Bijender (PW23 & PW18 respectively) to remain at the spot and himself alongwith the aforesaid officials went to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh. He further deposed that in the said hospital, he met Raj Pal Rana (PW12), who disclosed himself to be the brother of Rajveer (since deceased). He further deposed that in the said hospital, he collected the MLC of Rajveer Singh Rana (since deceased), as per which, the said patient was declared brought dead. PW30 further deposed that he formally inspected the body of deceased Rajveer Singh Rana (since deceased) and found 34 gun shot injuries on his person. He further deposed that he instructed Ct. Mahesh (PW21) for shifting the body of deceased Rajveer Singh Rana to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital in his custody. He further deposed that in the hospital itself, PW24 HC Praveen had collected the sealed pullandas handed over to him by the concerned doctor.

20.1. PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh (now ACP) has further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Raj Pal Rana (PW12), HC Praveen (PW24) and Driver Operator reached at the spot in Government Gypsy. He further deposed that while they were on the way to the spot, he tried to make enquiry from Sh. Raj Pal Rana (PW12) about the occurrence, but at that time he was not able to reply to his (PW30's) queries as he was in shock. He further deposed that after reaching at SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 27 of 82 the spot, he recorded the statement made by Raj Pal Rana (PW12). PW30 further deposed that in the meantime, SI Ravinder (PW23) disclosed him that Crime Team officials had already reached at the spot & upon his instructions, Crime Team Incharge ASI Ram Kumar (PW4) had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared his report. He further deposed that Crime Team Photographer Ct. Sandeep (PW5) took 8 photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. He further deposed that Finger Print Expert made efforts to lift chance from the spot, but in vain. PW30 further deposed that he lifted one bullet lead of silver colour from the spot and kept the same in a plastic container, which with the help of cloth, was sealed with the seal of "JS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A. 20.2. PW4 ASI Ram Kumar has corroborated PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh (now ACP) and has deposed that on 14/03/2014, he along with Ct Sandeep (photographer) and Ct. Hans Raj (Finger Print Proficient) reached at the place of occurrence. He further deposed that he inspected the spot and got the same photographed through Ct. Sandeep. PW14 has proved his inspection report Ex. PW4/A. Similarly, PW5 Ct. Sandeep Kumar has corroborated PW30 & PW4 and has proved the eight photographs of the place of occurrence as Ex. PW5/B1 to Ex. PW5/B8 and negatives thereof as Ex. PW5/A1 to Ex. PW5/A8.

20.3. PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh (now ACP) has further deposed that on the basis of statement made by Rajpal Rana (PW12), he made endorsement and prepared rukka Ex.PW30/A and handed over the said rukka to Ct. Bijender (PW18), who went to PS Alipur for getting the FIR registered. He further deposed that at the spot, PW 24 HC Praveen had produced the pullanda sealed with the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 28 of 82 seal of 'MSSH' stated to be containing the clothes of deceased and one sample seal of similar specimen before him, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/A. 20.4. PW30 further deposed that at about 2.15 am, Ct. Bijender (PW18) returned back to the spot and handed over computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further deposed that at the spot, he prepared rough site plan Ex.PW30/B at the instance of complainant Raj Pal Rana (PW12) and recorded his supplementary statement to this effect. He further deposed that he also recorded the statements of Sh. Pradeep Rana (PW3), Joginder Rana (PW1) and Ct. Bijender (PW18) at the spot. PW30 further deposed that thereafter, he went to PS, where he recorded the statements of Crime team officials, HC Praveen (PW24) and SI Ravinder (PW23) and deposited the case property in Malkhana.

20.5. PW30 further deposed that on 15.03.2014, he accompanied SI Kamlesh (PW31) and HC Praveen (PW24) to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital, where he prepared brief facts Ex.PW30/C and also filled form no.25.35(1)(b) Ex.PW30/D. He further deposed that he also moved an application Ex.PW8/DA/Ex.PW30/E to the Autopsy Surgeon for conducting postmortem on the body of deceased Rajveer Rana. He further deposed that in the said hospital, he also met the relatives of deceased namely PW13 Sh. Rajveer (brotherinlaw of deceased) and PW12/complainant Raj Pal Singh Rana (brother of deceased), who had identified the dead body of deceased and he recorded their statements Ex.PW12/B (of Raj Pal Rana) and Ex.PW13/A (of Rajveer ) in this regard. PW30 further deposed that the concerned Autopsy Surgeon conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and after postmortem, he handed over the body of SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 29 of 82 deceased to his relatives, vide receipt Ex.PW13/B. He further deposed that after postmortem, PW21 Ct. Mahesh produced before him 8 sealed pullandas/envelopes sealed with the seal of "FMT BJRM Hospital" and he (PW30) seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A. PW30 further deposed that thereafter he returned back to PS, deposited the aforesaid case property in the Malkhana and also recorded the statement of witnesses i.e. Ct. Mahesh and HC Praveen.

20.6. PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh has deposed that On 15.03.2014, he was posted as Incharge Mortuary, Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi and on that day, he conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Rajveer S/o Sh. Siwal Singh. He further deposed that the body was brought with alleged history of gunshot injury on 14.03.14 at 9.30 pm and deceased was declared brought dead at about 10.52 pm. He further deposed that the body was brought by Inspector Jitender Singh (PW30) of PS Alipur Delhi and it was identified by the relatives of the deceased. PW8 has proved the postmortem report No. 221/14 Ex.PW8/A. 20.7. PW8 further deposed that upon external examination, deceased was wearing underwear and following external injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased:

i)Fire Arm Entry Wound, 0.3 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. x cavity deep in the epigastric region of abdomen, margins were inverted, with abrasion collar around the wound with blackening.

ii) Fire Arm Entry Wound, oval shaped, 2 SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 30 of 82 cm x 0.3 cm cavity deep situated 2 cm lateral to injury no. 1 with blackening and abrasion collar around the wound margins inverted.

iii) Firm arm entry wound, 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep over right side of abdomen in iliac region with surrounding blackening margins inverted.

iv) Firm arm exit wound 1 cm x 0.8 cm x cavity deep present in scapular region, 16 cm below right shoulder tip, margins everted.

v) Two split lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep and 1 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep in left anterior axillary, 11 cm outer and lateral to left nipple.

vi) Split lacerated wound, 1 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep left flank of abdomen, margins everted.

vii) Grazed abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm over nose.

viii) Grazed abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm over right side of face.

20.8. PW8 further deposed that on internal examination, the deceased was found having following injuries:

Head & Neck:

All the structures were intact and brain was pale.

Chest & Abdomen:

Chest cavity was full of clotted and fluid SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 31 of 82 blood approximately 2 ltrs., chest wall shows through the through wound in 7th intercoastal space right side of chest, after entering the chest cavity, it exit through injury no. 4 after piercing the diaphragm, base of right lung. The injury no. 2 passes through injury no. 5 after piercing the heart lower lobe of lung and pieces of second rib.

Injury no. 3 piercing the skin peritoneum intestines, exists through injury no. 6.

Abdominal cavity was full of blood approximately 1.5 litres, other organs were pale, stomach was full of semi digested food.

20.9. PW8 further deposed that after conducting postmortem, he opined that the death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon fire arm injury. He further deposed that all the injuries were antemortem and were fresh in duration and that injury no. 1 to 6 were caused by bullet fired from close range and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that injury no. 7 & 8 could be possible due to fall and that time since death was approximately 12 to 14 hours.

20.10. PW8 further deposed that after conducting postmortem, he took the blood of deceased in gauze piece alsoin vial (preserved with Sodium Floride). He further deposed that he also took swab from fire arm entry wound in 5% nitric acid with control for gun powder, residuals. He further deposed that after sealing the aforesaid exhibits with the seal of "FMT BJRM Hospital Jahangirpuri", he handed over the same to IO alongwith sample seal of "FMT BJRM Hospital".

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 32 of 82

20.11. PW30 further deposed that thereafter, on the same day i.e. in the evening hours of 15.03.2014, an information was received that all the three assailants namely Prem Prakash Rana, Pushpak Rana and Rupak Rana have got themselves admitted in three different hospitals / Nursing Homes. He further deposed that as per information, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) got himself admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, accused Pushpak Rana (A

2) got himself admitted in Sonia Hospital, Nangloi and accused Rupak Rana (A3) got himself admitted in Metro Hospital, Faridabad and in this regard, at the instance of aforesaid hospitals/ Nursing Homes, DD no. 23A (Ex. PW10/B), 26A and 29A were lodged in the Roznamcha of PS Alipur on 15.03.2014. PW30 further deposed that he marked DD No. 23A to SI Kamlesh (PW31) and DD no.

26A and 29A to SI Satish Pandey (PW22) and directed the said officials for necessary action by visiting the aforesaid hospitals.

20.12. PW31 SI Kamlesh Kumar has deposed that on 15.03.2014, he was posted at PS Alipur and on that day, DD No. 23A was marked to him and accordingly he alongwith Ct. Jitender went to Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh. He further deposed that in the said hospital, he collected the MLC of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1), who was found admitted in the said hospital. He further deposed that he tried to interrogate accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1), but the said accused submitted that due to pain he was not in a position to answer any such interrogation. PW31 further deposed that from the said hospital, he made a call to IO Inspector Jitender Singh (PW30) and briefed him about the aforesaid facts and upon the direction of IO Inspector Jitender Singh, he deputed Ct. Jitender in the said hospital and himself returned back to PS and handed over the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 33 of 82 MLC to IO.

20.13. PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh (now ACP) has also stated that PW31 SI Kamlesh met him at PS and produced the MLC of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and he (PW31) perused the said MLC and also perused the alleged history mentioned in the said MLC. He further deposed that PW31 SI Kamlesh had also stated to him that as per the treating doctor, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) was not discharged from the said hospital as he was under

treatment and that as per the treating doctor, the said accused could be discharged from the hospital within a day or two.

20.14. PW22 SI Satish Kumar has deposed that on 15.03.2014, Duty Officer handed over him the copy of DD No. 26A, as per which, an information was given from Sonia Hospital, Nangloi that one Pushpak Rana (A2) S/o Sh. P.P. Rana, R/o Village Mukhmelpur had been admitted in aforesaid hospital in injured condition.

He further deposed that accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Arun and Ct. Attar Singh, went to Sonia Hospital, Nangloi, Delhi and upon reaching at the said hospital, Duty Officer of PS Alipur, had given information to him over phone about the contents of DD No. 29A to the effect that one Roopak Rana (A3) S/o Sh. P.P. Rana, R/o Village Mukhmelpur, has been admitted in Metro Hospital, Sector16, Faridabad. PW22 further deposed that while he was present at Sonia Hospital, Ct. Yogesh (PW16) brought the copy of DD No. 29A. He further deposed that in Sonia Hospital, he met injured Pushpak Rana and collected MLC no. 886/14 and perused the same, which was having alleged history of physical assault and the time of admission was mentioned as 7.30 pm on 15.03.2014 and nature of injury was opined as "under observation". He further deposed that he tried to made SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 34 of 82 enquiry from Pushpak Rana (A2), but he could not give any reply as he stated to him that he was under pain. PW22 further deposed that from Sonia Hospital, he made a call to PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh, who informed him that Pushpak Rana (A2) is one of the accused in case FIR No. 246/14 registered at PS Alipur. He further deposed that he deployed Ct. Arun and Ct. Yogesh (PW16) in the said hospital and himself alongwith Ct. Attar Singh left for Metro Hospital, Faridabad, where he collected MLC No. 1302/14 of Roopak Rana (A3) S/o Sh. P.P. Rana, who was found admitted in Surgical ICU. He further deposed that he tried to make enquiry from Roopak Rana, but he could not give any reply to me and stated that he was under pain. PW22 further deposed that he aso perused the MLC of Roopak Rana (A3) and as per said MLC, there was an alleged history of gun shot injury on right wrist joint on palmer surface. He further deposed that he also made enquiries from the concerned Nurse and staff about the removed bullet/clothes etc., but they replied that only concerned doctor would give any reply in this regard. He further deposed that he also met 2-3 doctors whose name he did not remember, who informed him that the exhibits could be collected from MRD Section, but the MRD Section was found closed on that day and it was informed that the same would open on 18.03.2014. PW22 further deposed that one of the doctor i.e. concerned doctor on duty had also opined Roopak Rana (A3) fit for statement and he (PW22) made efforts to record his statement, but Roopak had not made any statement before him by stating that he was under pain. I had called Ct. Saroj (PW17) and Ct. Krishan Malik of PS Alipur at Metro Hospital, Faridabad and deployed them in the said hospital and himself alongwith Ct. Attar Singh returned back at PS Alipur and handed over the aforesaid MLCs and other documents to IO.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 35 of 82

20.15. PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh (now ACP) has further deposed that on 15.03.2014 during late night hours, PW22 SI Satish returned to PS and handed over him the MLC of accused Pushpak Rana and further informed that accused Pushpak Rana had yet not been discharged from Sonia Hospital and as per the treating doctor, said accused would be discharged from the said hospital after about 1 or 2 days. He further deposed that PW22 SI Satish also handed over him the MLC of accused Roopak Rana and informed that said accused had yet not been discharged from Metro Hospital, Faridabad and as per the treating doctor, said accused has been operated over his right hand with the alleged history of gun shot injury. PW30 further deposed that he placed on record both the said MLCs and also placed on record DD entry no. 23A Ex.PW10/B, DD no. 26A Ex.PW10/C and DD no. 29A Ex.PW10/D. 20.16. PW30 further deposed that on the next day i.e. 16.03.2014, he alongwith HC Praveen (PW24) and SI Kamlesh (PW31) went to Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, where the treating doctor had informed that accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) had not been discharged from the said hospital. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith aforesaid police officials on the same day went to Sonia Hospital, where he had already appointed Ct. Bijender (PW18) and accused Pushpak Rana (A2) was discharged from the said hospital. He further deposed that after discharge, they brought accused Pushpak Rana (A2) to PS Alipur, who was interrogated by him. He further deposed that during interrogation, said accused (A2) had confessed his involvement in the commission of offence and he effected the arrest of accused Pushpak Rana (A2) vide arrest memo Ex.PW24/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW24/C and the said accused had also made disclosure statement Ex.PW24/D. PW30 further deposed that in SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 36 of 82 the meantime, PW12/complainant Raj Pal Rana had visited PS Alipur and identified accused Pushpak Rana (A2) and he (PW30) recorded the statement of Raj Pal Rana in this regard.

20.17. PW30 ACP Jitender Singh further deposed hat thereafter, on the next day i.e. 17.03.2014, pursuant to disclosure statement, accused Pushpak Rana (A

2) led them i.e. him (PW30), HC Praveen (PW24) and SI Kamlesh (PW22) to Bakhtawarpur Burari Road i.e. Prem Farm House. He further deposed that accused Pushpak Rana (A2) led them to one of the room built in a house i.e. on the left side room and pointed out towards one almirah kept in the said room and picked up one revolver kept in the locker of the said almirah. PW30 further deposed that he checked the said revolver and on checking, the said revolver was found containing four empty shells and one live cartridge. He further deposed that on the revolver "made in England", "Webley" and no. "85066" was engraved. He further deposed that he prepared the sketch Ex.PW24/E of the said revolver also sketch Ex.PW24/F of four shells and one live cartridge. He further deposed that he kept the said revolver and cartridges in a cloth pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of "JS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/G. PW30 further deposed that seal after use was handed over to HC Praveen (PW24). PW30 further deposed that prior to going to aforesaid Farm house, he had requested 45 passersby to join the investigation, but none agreed and left while showing their inability.

20.18. PW30 further deposed that thereafter, accused Pushpak Rana (A2) led them to the place of commission of offence and pointed out the same vide pointing out memo Ex.PW24/J. He further deposed that he also received the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 37 of 82 phone call of Ct. Yogesh (PW16), who informed him that accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) was discharged from the hospital. He further deposed tehat accordingly, he directed Ct. Yogesh (PW16) to bring accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) to PS. PW30 further deposed that thereafter, they returned back to PS and he deposited the case property i.e. sealed pullanda containing arm and ammunition in Malkhana and recorded the statements of HC Praveen and SI Kamlesh in this regard.

20.19 PW30 further deposed that in between 1.00 - 1.30 pm, again said at about 12 noon, PW16 Ct. Yogesh produced accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) before him at PS Alipur and he interrogated accused Prem Prakash Rana. He further deposed that during interrogation, said accused (A1) had confessed his involvement in the commission of offence. He further deposed that he effected the arrest of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) vide arrest memo Ex.PW24/K and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW24/L and the said accused also made disclosure statement Ex.PW24/M. PW30 further deposed that thereafter, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) was got medically examined from SRHC Hospital and after medical examination, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Pushpak Rana (A2) were taken to the court and he (PW30) obtained their two day's P/C remand. He further deposed that thereafter, they came back to Psand accused Pushpak Rana (A2) was handed over in the custody of Ct. Mahesh (PW21).

20.20. PW30 further deposed that during P/C remand, from PS Alipur, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) led him (PW30), HC Praveen (PW24) and SI Kamlesh (PW22) to the place of occurrence and pointed out the place of SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 38 of 82 occurrence vide memo Ex.PW24/P. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) led them to his residence at Village Mukhmelpur and accused picked up one arm licence from the almirah kept in one of the room of his house, which was seized by him (PW30) vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/N. He further deposed that accused Prem Prakash Rana had also pointed out towards one Mercedes Car bearing registration No. DL6CM5153 parked inside the main gate of his house, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/O. PW30 further deposed that thereafter, they returned back to PS and he deposited the said car in Malkhana.

20.21. PW30 further deposed that thereafter, on 18.03.2014, HC Praveen (PW24) and SI Kamlesh (PW31) had again joined the investigation of the present case and on that day, accused Pushpak Rana (A2) led them to H. No. 674, Sector17, Faridabad, Haryana and pointed out towards an almirah kept in the ground floor room of the said house and from behind the said almirah, the said accused picked up one white colour Tshirt and one 'barmuda' (half pant) of black colour. He further deposed that he kept the said clothes in a cloth pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of "JS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/Q and seal after use was handed over to HC Praveen (PW24). PW30 further deposed that thereafter, they visited Metro Hospital, Faridabad, Haryana, where he met the concerned doctor and the concerned doctor had intimated that accused Rupak Rana (A3) had yet not been discharged. He further deposed that in the said hospital,he moved an application to the concerned official for providing CCTV Footage of the time when accused Roopak Rana (A3) was admitted in the said hospital. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned back to PS and he deposited the case property in Malkhana.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 39 of 82

20.22 PW30 further deposed that thereafter, on 19.03.2014, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Pushpak Rana (A2) were taken to the court and he obtained their two day's P/C remand. He further deposed that during P/C remand, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) led him, HC Praveen (PW24) and SI Kamlesh (PW31) to H. No. A88, Majlis Park i.e. at first floor bathroom and from inside the said bathroom, accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) had picked up one linedar shirt and one cream coloured pant stated to be worn by him at the time of commission of offence. He further deposed that he (PW30) kept the said clothes in a cloth pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of "JS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/R. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned back to PS and deposited the case property in Malkhana.

20.23. PW30 further deposed that in the PS, Ct. Saroj Mishra (PW17) produced accused Roopak Rana (A3) before him after the said accused was discharged from Metro Hospital, Faridabad and also produced one sealed envelope, one sealed pullanda and one sample seal of Sector16A, FBD and one CD, which were seized by himvide seizure memo Ex. PW17/A. He further deposed that thereafter, he interrogated accused Roopak Rana (A3) and during interrogation said accused had confessed his involvement in the commission of offence. He further deposed that he effected the arrest of accused Roopak Rana (A3) vide arrest memo Ex.PW24/S and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW24/T and the said accused also made disclosure statement Ex.PW24/U. 20.24. PW30 further deposed that on the same day i.e. 19.03.2014, accused Roopak Rana (A3) led him, HC Praveen (PW24) and SI Kamlesh SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 40 of 82 (PW31) to the place of commission of offence and pointed out the same vide pointing out memo Ex.PW24/V. He further deposed that said accused was got medically examined from SRHC Hospital and after medical examination, he was sent to Lockup.

20.25. PW30 further deposed that during investigation i.e. 20.03.2014, they took accused Rupak Rana (A3) to BJRM Hospital, where he (PW30) had given one written request to the concerned doctor for giving subsequent opinion in respect of the injury over the right hand of accused Roopak Rana (A3). He further deposed that in the said application, the name of accused Pushpak Rana (A2) was inadvertently typed by him in place of accused Roopak Rana (A3). He further deposed that the concerned doctor had given the subsequent opinion on the same day. PW30 further deposed that while they were present in the hospital, he noticed the said mistake and immediately pointed out the said mistake to the treating doctor and the said doctor had enquired the name of accused Roopak Rana (A3) from the said accused himself and also tallied his name with the MLC and made necessary correction in his own handwriting in his presence. He further deposed that thereafter, they produced Rupak Rana (A3) before the concerned Court and his one day police custody remand was obtained.

20.26. PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh has deposed that on 20.03.2014, he received an application from Inspector Jitender Singh (PW30) of PS Alipur for expert opinion on MLC no. 1302/14 dated 15.03.2014 of injured (accused) Rupak Rana S/o Sh. Prem Rana. He further deposed that je conducted local examination of injured (accused) Rupak Rana and also prepared the sketch of right hand of Rupak Rana. He further deposed that he examined the patient as well as the injury SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 41 of 82 over the right hand of Rupak Rana and after examination, he opined that injury as found present over the right hand of Rupak Rana is possible by gun shot and also opined that gun shot injury was caused by low velocity projectile i.e. bullet and therefore, no definite opinion regarding range was possible. PW8 further deposed that he also opined that the gun shot injury was not self inflicted as there were no sign of contact or close range firing, there was no blackening or tattooing around the wound and that the injury could be possible due to low velocity projectile (bullet), which lost the velocity after piercing the body of the deceased Rajveer Rana i.e. exit wound no. 4 as mentioned in PM report. He has proved his subsequent opinion dated 20.03.2014 Ex.PW8/B. 20.27. PW30 further deposed that thereafter, accused Rupak Rana (A3) led him, HC Praveen (PW24) and SI Kamlesh (PW31) to H. No. 674, Sector17, Faridabad and from the room built at the ground floor of said house, the said accused picked up one Tshirt of white colour stated to be worn by him at the time of commission of offence. He further deposed that he kept the said Tshirt in a cloth pullanda, which was sealed with the seal of "JS" and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/W and the seal after use was handed over to HC Praveen (PW24). He further deposed that they returned back to PS and he deposited the case property in Malkhana.

20.28. PW30 further deposed that during investigation, on 02.04.2014, he accompanied Draftsman Inspector Mahesh (PW11) to the place of occurrence, who took measurements and prepared rough notes at his instance and later on, the said Draftsman handed over him the scaled site plan Ex. PW11/A. SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 42 of 82 20.29. PW30 further deposed that during investigation, on his directions, the exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Mahesh (PW21), PW27 Ct. Rajender (now HC) and Ct. Narender (PW29) on different dates and he recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard as well as statement of concerned MHC(M) in this regard. He further deposed that he also got verified the arm licence, which was found in the name of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1).

20.30. PW6 Ct. Harpal has produced the summoned record in respect of Arms License No. 030043. He deposed that as per the official record, the aforesaid Arms License was given a new number i.e. NWAP/3/1991/43 and as per the file, the said license was issued on 11.03.1991 in the name of Prem Prakash Rana (A1) S/o Pyare Lal Rana, R/o H. NO. 334, Village and PO Mukhmailpur, Alipur, Delhi, which was valid upto 17.03.2014. He has proved the computerized particulars in respect of the aforesaid license as Ex. PW6/A. PW6 further deposed that as per the Arms Rules, a licensee holder can purchase three arms and in the present case, the licensee holder had purchased two arms ie.. one rifle .315 bore and one revolver .32 bores. He further deposed that the the licensee holder can maximum have 100 cartridges in respect of a rifle and 50 cartridges in respect of revolver. This witness has identified the arms license Ex. PW6/B before the Court.

20.31. PW25 HC Pushkar has proved that accused Prem Prakash Rana (A

1) was the licence holder of rifle of .315 bore. He has proved the copy of form no. 22.69 as Ex. PW25/A and relevant entry in Public Arms Register no. 17 as Ex.PW25/B. 20.32. PW30 further deposed that during investigation, upon the request of SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 43 of 82 FSL Authority, he procured live cartridges from Old Police Line and sent the same to FSL for test firing purposes. He further deposed that he collected postmortem report and photographs from Crime Team Photographer.

20.33. PW30 further deposed that during investigation on 06.06.2014, PW12 complainant Raj Pal Rana came to PS, met him and made supplementary statement to him. He further deposed that upon completion of investigation, he prepared chargesheet and on receipt of FSL results, he filed the same in the court and also obtained sanction U/s 39 Arms Act from the Competent Authority and filed the same in the court through supplementary chargesheet.

20.34. PW30 ACP Jitender Singh identified one revolver .32 caliber bearing no. 85066, one .32 cartridge (test fired) and one lead/sikka and four .32 cartridge cases Ex.P3 (colly.) as the ones which were recovered at the instance of accused Pushpak Rana, one shirt having brown stains and one pants having brown stains Ex.P24/1 (colly.) being the same which were recovered at the instance of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1), one Tshirt having few small light brown stains and one half pants Ex.P24/2 (colly.) being the same which were recovered at the instance of accused Pushpak Rana (A2), one cut/torn Tshirt Ex.P24/2 being the same which was recovered at the instance of accused Roopak Rana (A3), one bullet (lead/sikka) Ex.P4, which was seized from the spot.

20.35. After exhibition of case property, ld. Additional PP for the State has sought permission to put few leading questions to PW30 ACP Jitender Singh and during said examination, PW30 has admitted that upon the recovery of the revolver and cartridges Ex.P3 (colly.), he had measured the revolver as well as the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 44 of 82 cartridges and mentioned the measurements on sketches itself and that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW24/H of the place of recovery of said revolver and cartridges.

20.36. PW19 ASI Ajay Kumar is the MHC(M). Inadvertently, this witness has also been examined as PW33. He has proved the relevant entries qua depositing of case property with him vide Ex. PW19/A to Ex. PW19/E/Ex.PW33/A to Ex. PW33/E and sending of case property to FSL vide RC No. 40/21/14 (through PW21 Ct Mahesh), 44/21/14 (through PW29 Ct. Narender) & 48/21/14 (through Ct. Rajender) Ex. PW19/F to Ex. PW19/H/Ex. PW33/F, Ex. PW33/H & Ex.PW33/J respectively. He has further proved the acknowledgement of FSL Ex. PW33/G, Ex. PW33/I and Ex. PW33/K. 20.37. PW32 Ms. Shweta Chauhan, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Outer District, Delhi, has proved the sanction u/s 39 Arms Act Ex. PW32/A accorded by her for prosecution of accused Pushpak @ Bunty for the offence u/s 25 of Arms Act.

21. As per case of prosecution, one silver colour bullet lead was recovered from the spot, accused Pushpak Rana (A2) got recovered one revolver containing four empty shells and one live cartridge and one bullet/sikka was received from Metro Heart Institute Multi Specialtiy Hospital, Sector16A, Faridabad, where accused Rupak Rana was admitted. The same were sent to FSL along with sample swab of deceased and residue gun powder swab and PW26 Puneet Puri, Assistant Director (Ballistic), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, have examined the same. As per deposition of PW26 Puneet Puri, On opening the first SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 45 of 82 parcel, one bullet was taken out and marked as Ex.EB1, on opening the second parcel, one bullet was taken out and marked as Ex.EB2, on opening the third parcel, one revolver .32 inch caliber bearing no. A 85066, one .32 inch cartridge and four .32 inch cartridge cases, were taken out and marked as Ex.F1, Ex. A1, Ex. EC1 to Ex. EC4, on opening the fourth parcel, one control swab was taken out and marked as Ex.C1, on opening the fifth parcel, one swab was taken out and marked as Ex.S1 by him and that four .32 inch cartridges were received for test firing.

21.2. PW26 has further deposed that on examination, he found that the revolver marked Ex.F1 was in working order in its present condition. He further deposed that test fire was conducted successfully by using the cartridge marked Ex. A1 and four .32 inch cartridges received for test firing, the test fired cartridge cases were marked as TC1 to TC5 and the recovered test fired bullets were marked as TB1 to TB5. He further deposed that the cartridge cases marked Ex.EC1 to EC4 were fired empty cartridges and had been fired through the revolver .32 inch caliber marked Ex.F1 as the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on evidence cartridge cases marked Ex.EC1 to EC4 and on test fired cartridge cases marked TC1 to TC5 were found identical when examined under the comparison microscope. He has further deposed that the bullets marked Ex.EB1 and Ex.EB2 were corresponding to the bullets of .32 inch cartridge and the individual characteristics of riffling marks present on evidence bullets marked Ex.EB1 and Ex.EB2, were found insufficient for comparison and opinion whether these had been discharged to the revolver marked Ex.F1 or not. PW26 further deposed that the swab marked Ex.S1 alongwith control swab marked Ex.C1 were analyzed for the detection of gun shot residue particles and as a result of analysis, gun shot residue particles were SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 46 of 82 detected on the swab marked Ex.S1. As per opinion of PW26, the revolver marked Ex.F1 was a firearm, the cartridge marked Ex.A1, the cartridge cases marked Ex.EC1 to EC4 and the bullets marked Ex.EB1 & Ex.EB2, were ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959. He has proved his report as Ex. PW26/A in this regard.

22. As per case of prosecution, blood sample in gauze piece & the clothes of deceased Rajbeer, clothes of accused Prem Rana (A1), clothes of accused Pushpak Rana (A2) and that of Rupak Rana (A3) were sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi, for examination which were marked to PW28 Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director (Biology) for DNA profiling as well as for serological examination. He has proved his DNA biological examination report as Ex. PW28/A and serological report as Ex. PW28/B. 22.1. As per Ex. PW28/A, blood sample in gauze piece i.e. brown cloth piece was given Ex.1, underwear of deceased was given Ex. 2, clothes of deceased were given exhibits 4a to 4d i.e. one shirt having dirty brown stains Ex. 4a, one banyan having dirty brown stains Ex. 4B, one jeans pant;s having dirty brown stains Ex. 4C, one pair of socks Ex. 4D respectively, clothes of accused Prem Rana (A1) were given Ex. 6A & 6b i.e. one shirt having brown stain & one pants having brown stains respectively, clothes of accused Pushpak Rana (A2) were given Ex. 7A & 7b i.e. one Tshirt having few small very light brown stains & one half pants respectively and one cut/torn shirt having few small brown stains was given Ex. 8. On biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1 (brown cloth piece), 4a (shirt of deceased), 4c (jeans pant of deceased), 6a (shirt of accused Prem Rana), 6b (pant of accused Prem Rana), 7a (Tshirt of accused Pushpak Rana) and 8 (torn shirt of accused Rupak Rana), whereas blood could SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 47 of 82 not be detected on exhibits 2, 4d and 7b.

22.2. As per DNA examination, the source of Ex. 1 (i.e. blood sample in gauze piece), 6a (i.e. shirt of accused Prem Rana), 6b (i.e. pants of accused Prem Rana), 7a (Tshirt of accused Pushpak Rana) and Ex. 8 (i.e. Tshirt of accused Rupak Rana) were subjected to DNA isolation. DNA was isolated from source of exhibits 1 (i.e. blood sampel in gauze piece), 6a (i.e. shirt of accused Prem Rana), 6b (i.e. pants of accused Prem Rana), 7a (i.e. Tshirt of accued Pushpak Rana) and Ex. 8 (i.e. Tshirt of accused Rupak Rana). DNA profile was generated from source of exhibits 1 (i.e. blood sample in gauze piece), 6a (i.e. shirt of accused Prem Rana), 6b (i.e. pants of accused Prem Rana), 7a (i.e. Tshirt of accused Pushpak Rana) and 8 (i.e. Tshirt of accued Rupak Rana) by using AmpFISTR Identifier Plus PCR amplification kit and data was analysed by using Gene Mapper IDX software. As per the result, the alleles from source of Ex. 1 (i.e. blood sample in gauze), are not accounted in the allels from the source of Ex. 6A (i.e. shirt of accused Prem Rana), 6b (i.e. pants of accused Prem Rana), 7a (i.e. Tshirt of accused Pushpak Rana and Ex. 8 (i.e. Tshirt of accused Rupak Rana). It was concluded that DNA profile (STR analysis) performed in the source of Ex. 1 (i.e. blood sample in gauze piece), 6a (i.e. shirt of accused Prem Rana), 6b (i.e. pants of accused Prem Rana), 7a (i.e. Tshirt of accused Pushpak Rana) and Ex. 8 (i.e. Tshirt of Rupak Rana) were sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile generated from the source of Ex. 1 (i.e. blood sample in gauze piece) was not similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of Ex. 6a (i.e. shirt of accused Prem Rana), 6b (i.e. pants of accused Prem Rana), 7a ( i.e. Tshirt of accused Pushpak Rana) and Ex. 8 i.e. Tshirt of accused Rupak Rana.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 48 of 82

23. One sealed parcel containing sample blood for detection of alcohol of deceased Rajveer Rana was sent to FSL for chemical examination. As per report of FSL bearing no. 2014/C2193 dated 21/05/2014, the same was marked to Sh. M.L. Meena, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL cumEx Officio Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, for examination. The said blood sample of deceased kept in a small glass bottle was given Ex. 1 and on chemical & GCHS examination, Ex. 1 was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol 69.7mg/100ml of blood. The said report has not been exhibited by the prosecution.

24. PW7 Dr. Bishwa Nath Thakur has proved the MLC Ex. PW7/A of accused Prem Rana (A1), who was brought to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital on 15/03/2014 by his nephew Sparsh at about 6.00 p.m. with alleged history of physical assault at Mukhmelpur, as told by patient and brought by. As per PW7, the said patient was found suffering from clean lacerated wound over forehead about 2 cm x 0.5 cm, swelling and tenderness over left middle finger and was further referred for xray and CT scan and was admitted under Ortho. PW7 has proved the discharge summary Ex. PW7/B prepared by Dr. Rahul Aggarwal.

25. PW15 Dr. R.S. Narwal of Sonia Hospital, Nangloi, Delhi, has proved the MLC no. 886/14 Ex. PW15/A of accused Pushpak Rana (A2), who was brought to the said hospital on 15/03/2014 by his brother Pulkit with alleged history of physical assault with neighbour near home at V & PO Mukhmelpur on 14/03/14 at around 10.30 p.m. He has deposed that on local examination, tender swelling on lateral aspect of right ankle, abrasion injury on left knee and redish abrasion injury on right arm i.e. upper medial part were observed.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 49 of 82

26. PW20 Dr. Sarfaraj Ahmed, the then Medical Officer,Metro Heart Institute Multi Speciality Hospital, Sector16A, Faridabad, has proved the MLC of accused Rupak (A3) Ex. PW20/A, who was brought to the said hospital on 15/03/2014 by one Ashok Sindhu (maternal uncle) with the alleged history of gunshot injury in right wrist joint or palm surface at 11.00 p.m. on 14/03/2014 at Mukhmailpur Village, Delhi. As per said PW, he observed entry wound over the right wrist approximately 3 x 1 cm. He has also proved the requisite proforma bearing no. 01431 dated 15.03.2014 as Ex. PW20/B.

27. DW1 retired ASI Chander Mohan has proved the copy of FIR no. 269/12, u/s 307/34 IPC & u/s 25/27 Arms Act, PS Vijay Vihar Ex. DW1/A. The accused persons has produced the said defence witness in order to show that the complainant party was also involved in criminal activities.

28. DW2 Rakesh Rana is nephew of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and cousin of accused Pushpak Rana (A2) and Rupak Rana (A3). He has deposed that on 14/03/2014, at about 10.00 p.m., he was going to his house and when he reached near the house of Jogender, he saw lot of men and women standing there and he came to know that someone had fired at Rajbr (since deceased) near the house of Jogender & Jogender removed him to hospital in his car. He further deposed that he also saw that family members of Rajveer were accusing Prem Prakash Rana for the firearm injuries and that when his uncle Prem Prakash and his both sons came out of the house, family members of deceased started throwing brick & stones over them and someone fired from the crowd and he saw that his cousin Rupak had received one gunshot injury on his person. He further deposed about making a call to PCR from his mobile, on which SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 50 of 82 PCR came and he narrated the entire incident to the PCR.

FINDING

29. In the present case, the charge was framed u/s 302/34 IPC against all the accused persons for causing murder of deceased by gunshots. As the injuries have been caused by the gunshot, the relevant provision of Section 300 (3) IPC comes under play. The famous judgment of 'Virsa Singh vs The State Of Punjab' on 11 March, 1958, Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 465, 1958 SCR 1495 has specifically laid down the law and requirement regarding the Section 300 (3) of IPC. The excerpts for the same are reproduced below:

27. It was said that the intention that the section requires must be related, not only to the bodily injury inflicted, but also to the clause, "and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."

It must, of course, first be found that bodily injury was caused and the nature of the injury must be established, that is to say, whether the injury is on the leg or the arm or the stomach, how deep it penetrated, whether any vital organs were cut and so forth. These are purely objective facts and leave no room for inference or deduction: to that extent the enquiry is objective; but when it comes to the question of intention, that is subjective to the offender and it must be proved that he had an intention to cause the bodily injury that is found to be present. Once that is found, the enquiry shifts to the next clause " and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death." The first part of this is descriptive of the earlier part of the section, namely, the infliction of bodily injury with the intention to inflict it, that is to SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 51 of 82 say, if the circumstances justify an inference that a man's intention was only to inflict a blow on the lower part of the leg, or some lesser blow, and it can be shown that the blow landed in the region of the heart by accident, then, though all injury to the heart is shown to be present, the intention to inflict ail injury in that region, or of that nature, is not proved. In that case, the first part of the clause does not come into play. But once it is proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present, then the earlier part of the clause we are now examining " and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted " is merely descriptive.

All it means is that it is not enough to prove that the injury found to be present is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; it must in addition be shown that the injury is of the kind that falls within the earlier clause, namely, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. Whether it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is a matter of inference or deduction from the proved facts about the nature of the injury and has nothing to do with the question of intention.

In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot, and whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, not necessary to enquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether the prisoner intended to have the bowels fall out, or whether he intended to penetrate the liver or the kidneys or the heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy could never be convicted, for, if he does not know that there is a heart or a kidney or bowels, be cannot be said to have intended to injure them.

Of course, that is not the kind of enquiry. It is SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 52 of 82 broadbased and simple and based on common sense: the kind of enquiry that " twelve good men and true could readily appreciate and understand.

To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under s. 300, 3rdly " ; First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present ; Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.

Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.

Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300, 3rdly. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was Do intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 53 of 82 whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional. We were referred to a decision of Lord Goddard in R v. Steane (1) where the learned Chief Justice says that where a particular intent must be laid and charged, that particular intent must be proved.

Of course it must, and of course it must be proved by the prosecution. The only question here is, what is the extent and nature of the intent that s. 300 3rdly requires, and how is it to be proved ? The learned counsel for the appellant next relied on a passage where the learned Chief Justice says that: (1) [1947] 1 All E. R. 813, 816.

"if, on the totality of the evidence, there is room for more than one view as to the intent of the prisoner, the jury should be directed that it is for the prosecution to prove the intent to the jury's satisfaction, and if, on a review of the whole evidence, they either think that the intent did not exist or they are left in doubt as to the intent, the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted."

We agree that that is also the law in India. But so is this. We quote a few sentences earlier from the same learned judgment:

"No doubt, if the prosecution prove an act the natural consequences of which would be a certain result and no evidence or explanation is given, then a jury may, on a SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 54 of 82 proper direction, find that the prisoner is guilty of doing the act with the intent alleged."

Presence of bodily injuries on the deceased

30. The sole eyewitness i.e. PW12 Rajpal Rana, brother of the deceased, had stated that accused Pushpak Rana (A2) came out running from his home on the calling of his father Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and hurriedly gave four gunshots on the body of deceased Rajveer . He had further stated that during this time, he was present there at the spot and the other accused namely Rupak (A3) and Prem Prakash Rana (A1) were also present there. The version of PW12 gets corroborated by the subsequent acts which took place immediately. The testimony of PW1 Joginder Singh and PW3 Pradeep Rana are also relevant which corroborate the statement of PW12 Rajpal Rana. PW1 Joginder Singh after hearing that his uncle Rajveer had been shot came out of his home and took the deceased to MAX Hospital. During the said time, PW3 Pradeep Rana has also stated that he made a call to the police that one person had been shot in a quarrel. The statement of PW12 Rajpal Rana also gets corroborated from the evidence of PW2 Dr. Mohd. Nabi, who had prepared the MLC of the deceased i.e. Ex. PW2/A. The information is mentioned in the MLC as given by PW1 Joginder Singh, wherein it is stated that the deceased had suffered gun injuries. The fact of injuries also gets supported from the evidence of PW8 Dr Bhim Singh, who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased vide his postmortem report Ex. PW8/A. The same also mentions the fact of four bullet bullet/firearm injuries. Therefore, the fact of bodily injury on the body of deceased is sufficiently proved by the testimony of PW2 & PW8 and the other evidence which corroborate the same.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 55 of 82

Nature of Injury

31. One of the essential ingredient regarding section 300 (3) IPC is that nature of injury must be proved. In this regard, the testimony of PW2 Dr. Mohd. Nabi and PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh are very much relevant. PW2 Dr. Mohd. Nabi, who had prepared the MLC Ex. PW2/A had given the description of injuries. The said injuries are as under:

i) One wound/entry wound placed over right iliac region. Black discolouration place at site of wound.

ii) One wound placed at epiasic regionblood was oozing from site.

iii) one wound placed over lt. Axilla region.

iv) one wound placed at Rt lumber regionblood oozing placed at site of wound.

31.1. PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh, who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased has also given the statement regarding the presence of injuries and as per Ex. PW8/A, which is proved by this witness, the injuries on the body of the deceased were as under:

i) Fire Arm Entry Wound, 0.3 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. x cavity deep in the epigastric region of abdomen, margins were inverted, with abrasion collar around the wound with blackening.

ii) Fire Arm Entry Wound, oval shaped, 2 cm x 0.3 cm cavity deep situated 2 cm lateral to injury no. 1 with blackening and abrasion collar around the wound margins inverted.

iii) Fire arm entry wound, 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep over right side of abdomen in iliac region with surrounding blackening margins inverted.

iv) Fire arm exit wound 1 cm x 0.8 cm x cavity deep present in scapular region, 16 cm below right shoulder tip, margins everted.

iv) Two split lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep and 1 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep in left anterior axillary, 11 cm outer and lateral to left nipple.

v) Split lacerated wound, 1 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep left flank of abdomen, margins everted.

vi) Grazed abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm over nose.

Vii) Grazed abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm over right side of face.

31.2. Both PW2 and PW8 have confirmed the fact that these injuries were SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 56 of 82 caused by gunshot. The blackening at the entry wounds on the body of the deceased clearly reflected that the deceased was shot from very close range. The injuries are of very serious in nature and such injuries cannot be selfinflicted. The version given by PW2 and PW8 read with Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW8/A clearly corroborate the statement of eyewitness PW12 Rajpal Rana.

Whether the injuries caused on the body of the deceased were accidental or intentional

32. When the offence is caused by the injuries u/s 300 (3) of IPC, the act has not to be accidental one. In the present case, as per the testimony of PW12, the accused persons had scuffled with the complainant side and while the accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) & Rupak Rana (A3) were holding the PW12 Rajpal Rana, accused Pushpak Rana (A3) had fired 4 bullets upon the deceased Rajveer in quick succession. Moreover, accused Pushpak Rana (A3) had brought the gun after having heard the call of his father, so, this also rules out that it was an accident that had taken place and accused Pushpak Rana (A3) had not intended to fire upon the deceased.

32.1. The injuries as stated aforesaid on the body of deceased were made from very close range as per evidence of PW2 Dr. Mohd. Nabi and PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh. It has come in the testimony of PW12 Rajpal Rana that the deceased was fired from close range on the vital part of his body and this factum also gets proved from the MLC Ex. PW2/A and postmortem report Ex. PW8/A, wherein there is mention of blackening and four gunshots. Blackening , inverted margins and abrasion collars are the type of wounds which were present on the body of the deceased. Such type of wounds are caused by firearm from a very close range. In this regard, we can have SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 57 of 82 a look into medical jurisprudence as stated in Modis text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 21 Ed. at Page 264, it says :

"The wound of entrance in distant shot is usually smaller than the projectile due to the elasticity of the skin, and round when the projectile strikes the body at a right angle and oval when it strikes the body obliquely. The edges of the wound are inverted and the striking bullet covered with grease and smoke causes also a collar of abrasion contrusion, which looks like a dark ring, showing two zones, the inner of grease and the outer of abrasion.

When there is a close shot that is in the range of powder blast and flame is within 1 to 3 inches for small arms there is a collar of soot and grease (if present on the bullet) around the circular wound of entry. Singed hairs may be seen if the body is not covered with clothing.

When it is fired beyond a distance of 12 inches there are no powder marks of soot or heat effects around the wound."

32.2. So, it cannot be considered that it was merely an accident that the gunshots were fired. It cannot be said to be accidental when gunshots are made on a human body.

Whether the injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature

33. As per testimony of PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh, chest cavity of the deceased was full of clotted and fluid blood approximately 2 ltrs., chest wall showed through the through wound in 7th intercoastal space right side of chest, after entering SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 58 of 82 the chest cavity, which exited through injury no. 4 after piercing the diaphragm, base of right lung. The injury no. 2 was passing through injury no. 5 after piercing the heart lower lobe of lung and pieces of second rib. Injury no. 3 was piercing the skin peritoneum intestines, existing through injury no. 6. Abdominal cavity was full of blood approximately 1.5 litres, other organs were pale, stomach was full of semi digested food. PW8 has opined that the death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon fire arm injury. He further deposed that all the injuries were antemortem and were fresh in duration and that injury no. 1 to 6 were caused by bullet fired from close range and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that injury no. 7 & 8 could be possible due to fall and that time since death was approximately 12 to 14 hours.

33.1. One of the objection of ld. counsel for the accused persons was that no blood was found at the scene of offence. This argument cannot be given much weightage in view of the postmortem report Ex. PW8/A, wherein it is stated that in the body of the deceased, there was presence of 2 liters of blood in the semi liquid and solid form in the chest cavity and 1½ liters in the abdomen. Generally, a human body has approximately 4½5½ liters of blood and since as per PW8 2 liters of blood was in the chest cavity and 1½ liters in the abdomen of the deceased, the presence of rest of the blood in the other part of the body of the deceased cannot be ruled out. So, medical evidence establishes the fact that blood did not ooze out of the wounds but got collected in the chest and the abdomen. Even otherwise the defence did not cross examine the witness PW 8 in this regard. Moreover, PW12 Rajpal Rana has also stated in his crossexamination that he had not seen any blood oozing out from the injuries sustained by his brother Rajveer (since deceased) nor he noticed any blood stains at the spot.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 59 of 82

33.2. One of the objection of ld. defence counsel is also with regard to number of entry wounds in contravention with the exit wounds. He has stated that as per MLC, there were four entry wounds while there was only one exit wound. He was of the view that the witness has given a false statement and even the medical version does not establish the fact that there were four injuries as there were four exit wounds and so injuries were not caused by the alleged gun by accused Pushpak Rana (A2) but were caused by some other object. Whether there can be more entry wounds than the exit wounds, we can refer the Modi's jurisprudence and Toxicology. The relevant portion of the same is hereunder: "Firearm wounds generally produce two wounds or apertures, namely, one of entrance and the other of exit of the projectile. When the wound of entrance is present, but not the wound of exit, it means that a bullet is lodged in the body, except in those rare cases where bullet has been coughed out after entering the respiratory passages or lost in the stool after entering t he intestinal tract and also where a bullet by coming in contact with a bone is so deflected as to pass out by the same orifice as it entered. If a bullet gets fragmented inside the body, there may be multiple exit wounds and a single entry wound. It is also possible to have multiple wounds of entrance and exit caused by a single bullet when it passes in and out of two portions of the body. If a bullet is lodged in the body, it must be taken out if death has occurred, and must be forwarded to the forensic science laboratory for SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 60 of 82 examination, in a sealed cardboard pill box containing its description (with an identity mark on the base of the bullet) in the medical officer's handwriting as it forms inherent evidence of the greatest value. While searching for a bullet, it must be borne in mind that it could take a very erratic and unusual course while passing through the body".

33.3. In this regard the testimony of PW 8 is very much relevant. In his deposition PW 8 has specifically stated that injury no. 1 after entering the chest cavity, exited through injury no. 4 after piercing the diaphragm, base of right lung. The injury no. 2 passes through injury no. 5 after piercing the heart lower lobe of lung and pieces of second rib. Injury no. 3 piercing the skin peritoneum intestines, exists through injury no. 6. It is also possible that one or more bullet may pass through the same exit wound. In this regard, no question was asked by the accused persons from the concerned witnesses so that he could have an opportunity to explain this. After having dealt with the objections of ld. counsel for the accused with regard to the injuries, the Court is of the view that the expert's opinion fully establishes that the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature.

Whether the gun injuries on the body of deceased were caused by the accused namely Pushpak Rana (A2); and the revolver bearing no. 85066 was used for causing injuries.

34. Now, the question arises whether these injuries were caused by the accused person namely Pushpak Rana (A2). The vehement contention of the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 61 of 82 defence counsel was with regard to the identity of accused or the presence of the accused at the sence of offence. The defence has taken the plea that PW12 Rajpal Singh was in fact not at the scene of offence and complainant had fabricated a false story just to implicate the accused persons, who were otherwise neighbours of the complainant just to settle a score with them for petty matter related to parking and placing building material.

34.1. The defence has been taken on the ground that in fact PW12 Rajpal had not seen the actual incident and his presence is also doubtful. It was submitted that PW12 had mentioned that there was scuffle between the parties but surprisingly there is no injury on the body of PW12. Even otherwise, it was submitted that it was PW1 Joginder who had taken the body of the deceased to the hospital. If PW12 Rajpal was present at the spot, he would have himself taken the deceased to the hospital. The defence has also stated that perusal of DD entry 30A also makes it explicit that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by PW12, PW3 and PW1. Ld. Counsel has stated that in the DD No. 30A, there is mention of " ek aadmi ko goli maar dee". Ld. Counsel has expressed surprise that if the complaint was made by PW3 i.e. Pradeep Rana, who is nephew of the deceased, he would have used the term "Chacha" instead of "ek aadmi". He has also stated that there is no reference with regard to names of the accused in the DD No. 30A as the accused persons were neighbours of PW12, PW3 and PW1. They could have given the names of accused persons at the time of giving first information i.e. DD no. 30A. Ld. Counsel has heavily relied upon the information given in DD no. 30A. The first information given by PW3 Pradeep Rana which was recorded as DD no. 30A cannot be merely brushed aside or cannot be considered as unreliable merely because the term "ek aadmi" has been used in it. It is to be seen that the information was with SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 62 of 82 regard to death of a person and it was not for any other reason. It cannot be assumed that the information must be given by reflecting the name and relation to the police. All that was required at the initial stage was to give information to the police regarding death having taken place. Rest of the details can be given after the police had reached at the spot. Therefore, DD no.30A merely for referring as "ek aadmi" cannot be considered as false one and to rule out the possibility of presence of accused at the scene of crime.

34.2. PW12 has been crossexamined vehemently by the defence counsel but he remained firmed to his earlier stand taken regarding the offence taking place on 14/03/2014. He was brother of the deceased and his presence at the spot cannot be considered as a surprise one as he was having home there. The fact that accused persons have scuffled with PW12 and the deceased Rajveer, can also be corroborated from the fact that the accused persons have got admitted themselves into three different hospitals. Accused Pushpak Rana (A2) had got himself admitted in Cygnus Sonia Hospital, Nangloi, wherein the incident was mentioned as "assault with neighbour". This MLC is Ex. PW15/A dated 15/03/2014, time 7.30 p.m. Accused Rupak Rana (A3) had also got admitted himself in Metro Heart Institute Multi Speciality Hospital, Sector16A, Faridabad. He had grievous injuries on the palm of the right hand. PW20 Dr. Sarfaraj Ahmed, who was Medical Officer at that time in the said hospital, had proved the MLC of accused Rupak Rana (A3) as Ex. PW20/A. He proved that the injuries on the right wrist of the accused Rupak Rana (A3) was caused by gunshot. Though the reason for the injury in the MLC of accused Rupak Rana (A3) was shown to be as "padosi se jhagda" (quarrel with neighbour). Accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) also got admitted himself in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, on 15/03/2014 at 6.10 p.m. In the MLC, the reason of injury is SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 63 of 82 mentioned as "physical assault" at Mukhmailpur, Delhi. These MLCs have not been denied by the accused persons.

34.3. Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State has vehemently argued that all these persons willfully got themselves admitted to different hospitals to create a false story. He further submitted that such a coincidence is not possible that all the three accused persons had altercation on the same date. He has further submitted that in fact the injuries also corroborate the fact that the accused persons were at the scene of offence and had sustained injuries during the scuffle that had taken place as stated by prosecution witness PW12 Rajpal.

34.4. The Court is of the view that in the MLC of accused Rupak Rana (A

3), it is mentioned that gunshot injuries on the right wrist and one bullet was also recovered by the police from the concerned hospital. The same was shown having fired through the revolver of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1), used by accused Pushpak Rana (A2) in causing the gunshot injuries to complainant as well as to his brother/coaccused Rupak Rana (A2). This fact is very surprising that a similar bullet which could have been used from the revolver of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) was also found from the injury of accused Rupak Rana (A3). The version of the prosecution is reliable that the accused persons have got admitted themselves only to concoct a false story, but were unable to hide the injuries which forced them to get admitted themselves in different hospitals for treatment. Such a coincidence is also not believable. No plausible explanation has been given by the accused persons qua the injuries sustained by them. This fact also corroborates the testimony of PW12 Jaipal that there was scuffle between the accused persons and the complainant party. Even otherwise, no separate FIR or complaint was given by the accused persons that SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 64 of 82 any such incident had taken place with them. Neither any FIR was lodged by any unknown person.

34.5. Ld. defence counsel has also taken the defence that PW12 Rajpal was not present at the spot and that is why he had given the wrong description of the site plan. There is big difference between rough draft and scale draft. He has pointed out that there is wrong location of house in the rough draft and the scale draft and the position of the deceased is also in variation. In this regard, it has to be seen that though there is minor discrepancy in the rough draft and the scaled site plan and the complainant PW12 Rajpal has also stated in his testimony that he had given one application to the police to make a proper site plan but the same does not vitiate the version of the prosecution. The error is with regard to position but overall place of incident remains the same. Moreover, this rough draft was prepared in the late night hours, so some error may crept in the rough draft. Merely wrong mentioning of the house does not wipe out the testimony of PW12 Rajpal which is otherwise reliable.

34.6. Ld. defence counsel has stated that the gun was not used in the commission of offence and that there is possibility that injuries sustained by deceased Rajveer might have been caused by different weapons & even this fact is not proved by the prosecution. Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the testimony of PW8 Dr. Bhim, who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. In the testimony of PW12 Rajpal Rana, it is stated that accused Prem Prakash (A1) & Rupak (A3) caught hold of PW12 Rajpal Rana and accused Pushpak Rana (A2) shot him. In this regard, it is pointed out by ld. defence counsel that if the testimony of PW12 Rajpal Rana is believed, then there would have been similar size entry wounds, while in the MLC, there is no mention of different size of entry wounds. He has further pointed out that SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 65 of 82 PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh, who had conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, has admitted in his crossexamination that since there were three different dimensions of entry wounds on the person of deceased, therefore the said entry wounds could have been caused by three different types of firearms. In this regard, we can have a look into medical jurisprudence as stated in the book of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 26 th Edition page 642 wherein it stated that the appearance of firearm injuries varies depending on the distance of the firearm from the body, the velocity at which the projectile was travelling at the moment of impact, the angle at which the projectile struck the body and the vital part of the body struck. As in the present case the bullet injuries are caused at different parts of the body and some commotion during the scuffle at scene of crime cannot be ruled out, the variation in sizes of entry wounds is of no avail to the accused persons.

34.7. Admittedly, as per crossexamination of PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh, no bullet was recovered from the body of deceased during his postmortem examination in this case,,but in view of the above expert opinion the same the possibility as stated in the above excerpts cannot be ruled out. The defence had the opportunity to cross examine the witness in this regard but no question was asked from the witness so that he had the opportunity to explain the same. The opinion of the expert is to be proven only when it is completely in contradiction with the testimony of eyewitness. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2016) 4 SCC 357] has further held as under in regard to appreciation of medical evidence versus ocular evidence and inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence.

"We are of the view that the High Court, for SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 66 of 82 acquitting the respondents, had mainly relied upon the medical evidence in a very inappropriate manner. When the doctor (PW 7) in his examinationinchief had categorically stated that the incident could have occurred at 8.00 a.m. which corroborated the case of the informant, there was no reason to disbelieve this fact to hold that the incident occurred between 2.00 to 4.00 a.m. merely basing on a vague statement made by the Doctor in the crossexamination. Also we believe that merely for the reason that no blunt injuries were present on the deceased, the whole evidence of PW 1 cannot be discarded as primacy has to be given to the ocular evidence particularly in the case of minor discrepancies. This Court in Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476, wherein this Court has held :

".... So far as the question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value visàvis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 67 of 82 evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved." (emphasis supplied) 34.8. The Apex Court in case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of MP [(2016) 10 SCC 220] has held as under: "The position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value visàvis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.'' 34.9. In his reexamination conducted on 27/08/2018, PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh has admitted that the injury no. 3 i.e. the entry wound and the exit wound i.e. injury no. 6 (split lacerated wound) were caused by the same bullet. He has further submitted that the dimension of injury no. 3 (entry wound) and injury no. 6 (exit wound) are different. PW8 has clarified that from a single bullet different dimensions can be caused. He has further admitted that since injury caused vide entry wound injury no.1 is in relation exit would injury no.4, the same must have been caused by the same bullet/weapon. Though as per testimony of PW8 Bhim Singh, it is only shown as a SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 68 of 82 mere possibility, but the possibility of having shot by the same gun is also not ruled out. Hence the testimony of PW12 who was brother of the deceased,cannot be disbelieved only on this ground. The gun was correctly identified by the complainant PW12 Rajpal Rana before the Court as the one which was used in the commission of offence. So, it cannot be stated that the medical evidence is in complete contrast to the testimony of the eye witness.

34.10. The revolver and four empty shells and one live cartridge got recovered by accused Pushpak Rana (A2) were examined by PW26 Puneet Puri, Assistant Director (Ballistic), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. As per said witness, revolver marked Ex.F1 was in working order in its present condition, cartridge cases marked Ex. EC1 to EC4 were fired empty cartridges and had been fired through the revolver .32 inch caliber Ex. F1 as the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on evidence cartridge cases marked Ex. EC1 to EC4 and on test fired cartridge cases marked TC1 to TC5 were found identical when examined under the comparison microscope. Thus, it is proved that the revolver got recovered by accused Pushpak Rana (A2) was in working order and the four empties were fired through the said .32 inch revolver Ex. F1. PW26 had stated that bullets marked Ex.EB1 and Ex.EB2 (recovered from the spot & recovered from the hand of accused Rupak Rana) were corresponding to the bullets of .32 inch cartridge and the individual characteristics of riffling marks present on evidence bullets marked Ex.EB1 and Ex.EB2, were found insufficient for comparison and opinion whether these had been discharged to the revolver marked Ex.F1 or not. Though no opinion could be given qua the bullets marked EB1 and EB2, but from the testimony of PW12 Rajpal Rana (brother of the deceased), it stands proved that the aforesaid revolver was used in the commission of offence and four firearm injuries were sustained by the deceased.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 69 of 82

EVIDENCE OF A RELATED/INTERESTED WITNESSES:

35. Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons has stated that PW1 Joginder Rana, PW3 Pradeep Rana and PW12 Rajpal are interested witnesses, being nephew and brother of the deceased. He has further stated that even PW1 Joginder Rana and PW3 Pradeep Rana are not witnesses to the incident and they also did not depose anything regarding the incident or the manner in which deceased Rajveer had sustained injuries. In this regard first of all the law related to related witness as held by the Supreme Court in the case of 'Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy', AIR 2013 SC 3681, is reproduced:

"11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2292; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P., AIR 2013 SC 308).

12. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1390, this Court held:

"5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds:

(1) she was a "highly interested"

witness because she "is the wife of the deceased"......For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness;

she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 70 of 82 only person who saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W.1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents." (Emphasis added) (See also: Chakali Maddilety & Ors. v. State of A. P., AIR 2010 SC 3473).

13. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 5039, while dealing with the case this Court held:

"7: Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 71 of 82 elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence."

"14. In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses.

Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased."

35.1. The witnesses PW12, PW1 and PW3 are residents of the same vicinity. What benefit would arise to these witnesses by falsely implicating the accused persons and saving the real culprit when they were close relative of the deceased. No such plea was taken by the accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Moreover no such questions were asked from the witnesses during their testimony therefore there is no force in the contention of ld. defence counsel that PW1 Joginder Rana, PW3 Pradeep Rana and PW12 Rajpal Rana are interested witnesses.

DISCOVERY OF FACT

36. In the present case, disclosure statement of accused Pushpak Rana (A2) Ex. PW24/D was also recorded and pursuant to his disclosure statement, the said accused led the police party to Bakhtawarpur, Burari road i.e. Prem Farm House and led them to one of the room built in a house i.e. on the left side room and pointed out towards one almirah kept in the said room and got recovered one revolver from SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 72 of 82 the said almirah, which on checking was found containing four empty shells and one live cartridge. Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons had questioned the discovery of this fact on the ground as to how the police had entered the place from where the gun was recovered. He has further stated that recovery is doubtful as the police has not stated that any lock was broken down by the police to enter into the premises. In this regard, as per the testimony of PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh (now ACP), the main gate of the farm house was not under any lock and key and two servants were found present in the said farm house, but they ran away on seeing the police party. The place of recovery of weapon of offence was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused persons. The revolver was registered in the name of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1 who is father of accused Pushpak Rana). These facts also corroborates the testimony of PW12 Rajpal Rana .

WITNESSES OF THE ACCUSED

37. DW1 retired ASI Chander Mohan has proved the copy of FIR no. 269/12, u/s 307/34 IPC & u/s 25/27 Arms Act, PS Vijay Vihar Ex. DW1/A. This witness was brought by the accused persons in order to show that the deceased was of bad character. This does not help the accused at all as what was the outcome of that case has not been proved.

38. The testimony of DW2 Rakesh Rana who has been examined by the accused persons in their defence, is of no help to them since he is also a relative of the accused party and moreover there is nothing on record as to what further action was taken by the police on the PCR call made by DW2. Had any such PCR call was made by DW2, the PCR officials must have taken accused Rupak Rana (A3) to hospital, who had allegedly received gunshot injury or must have informed the police SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 73 of 82 about the incident, which is not the case herein. Even accused persons has failed to explain as to why they did not make any complaint to the police qua the false accusation of complainant party or qua receiving of gunshot injury by accused Rupak Rana (A3). Even PW8 Dr. Bhim Singh who had examined accused Rupak Rana (A

3), had opined that gunshot injury was caused by low velocity projectile i.e. bullet, which lost the velocity after piercing the body of the deceased Rajveer Rana i.e. exit wound no. 4 as mentioned in PM report.

38.1. As regards the other arguments addressed on behalf of the accused persons qua the factum that PW3 had dialed 100 number but the said number belongs to one Rahul, who is neither a witness to this case nor examined as witness, neither any CRCR record nor any call detail record including CAF has been brought on record, contents of rukka were not reproduced in DD no. 30A, delay in receiving copies of the FIR by ld. CMM (@ 7.30 a.m.), seizure memo of empty bullet seized bears the particulars of FIR, putting of no identification marks on the empty bullet & finding of no blood on the same, nonfilling of particulars of the case in the crime team report, bearing of no date time in eight photos allegedly clicked of the place of occurrence, nonexamination of Ct Hans Raj (Finger Print Proficient), nonfinding of any blood stains, any empty cartridge or any live bullet at the spot, material difference between rough site plan & scaled site plan dated 25/04/2014 & nonmentioning of location of accused persons in the rough site plan, which has also been disputed by the alleged eyewitness himself,, not much is required to be stated as there are minor irregularities on the part of the police and the same does not prejudice the accused. Even otherwise, the police witnesses have made reliable and consistent statements before the Court, which is corroborated by other facts. The judgments relied upon by ld. defence counsel on this aspect are not of much help to the accused persons.

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 74 of 82

WHETHER THE CASE IS ACCCUSED PUSHPAK RANA IS COVERED UNDER SECTION 300 THIRDLY OF IPC.

39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the case against the accused persons is proved u/s 300 (thirdly) IPC as the ingredients of part third are fulfilled, and objections of ld. defence counsel for accused are not significant to the case of the accused persons. Further, case of the accused persons is not covered under the exception 300 IPC.

39.1. Now the question arises whether the case of the accused Pushpak Rana is covered under any of the exceptions provided in Section 300 of IPC. The same are reproduced herewith:

MurderExcept in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or secondlyIf it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or ThirdlyIt is is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or FourthlyIf the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 75 of 82 excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

39.2. The right of private defence cannot be presumed in the present case as the accused persons were of well builtup and they had overpowered the complainant party, who were of medium built. Even otherwise, this plea was not taken by the accused persons either in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. nor in their defence. Furthermore, no such questions were put to the witnesses during their cross examination. This Court has itself gone through the record and there is no existence of exception u/s 300 IPC, and the case of the accused namely Pushpak Rana (A2) is covered u/s 300, thirdly IPC. The prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the said accused. Hence the accused Pushpak Rana (A

2) is held guilty for the offence of murder of deceased Sh. Rajveer Singh s/o Siwal Singh under the clause thirdly to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and consequently he is convicted for the offence u/s 302 IPC.

Constructive liability of other accused persons under Section 34 of the IPC 1860

40. Now, the question arises whether accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Rupak Rana (A3) are also liable u/s 34 of IPC along with the main accused Pushpak Rana (A3). In this regard, the relevant section 34 is reproduced below: "34 IPC. Act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".

SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 76 of 82

40.1. The FIR was registered on the statement of PW12 Rajpal Rana, which is Ex. PW12/A. In this regard, the testimony of PW12 ACP Jitender Singh, investigation officer, is also relevant, who has stated that on 14/03/2014, he was posted as SHO and while he was on patrolling, duty officer made a call to him and informed him about the contents of DD no. 30A. He has further deposed that he reached at Max Hospital, where the deceased was taken for treatment. PW30 further deposed that from the hospital, he along with PW12 Rajpal Rana, HC Praveen and driver operator left for the spot and while they were on the way to the spot, he tried to make enquiry from PW12 Rajpal Rana about the occurrence, but at that time he was not able to reply his queries as he was in shock. He (PW30) has further stated that when they reached at the spot of incident, statement of PW12 Rajpal Rana was recorded. In this regard, the testimony of PW18 Ct Bijender is also relevant, who on 14/03/2014 was on night emergency duty from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. with PW23 SI Ravinder. In his crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused persons, PW18 has stated that PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh had started recording the statement of PW12 Rajpal Rana at about 11.45 p.m. and concluded the same at about 1.00 a.m. FIR reveals that the information was received at PS 1.20 a.m. The statement Ex. PW12/A on the basis of which FIR was registered is merely of 1 ½ page. It is not believable that the same took approximately one hour and 15 minutes. PW12 Rajpal Rana had not given his statement when he firstly met with IO PW30 Inspector Jitender Singh (now ACP) in MAX Hospital and perusal of FIR reveals that FIR was recorded on the basis of his statement at 1.20 a.m. So, PW12 had ample time to ponder over the incident and it seems that he had deliberately named accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Rupak Rana (A3) by alleging the exhortations on the part of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Rupak Rana (A3). Even otherwise, SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 77 of 82 there is wide difference regarding the exhortations made by accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Rupak Rana (A3) in his first statement Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW12/D

14. In his statement Ex. PW12/A, he had stated that at about 9.30 p.m. (of 14/03/2014), he was inside his house and on hearing the noise, he came out and saw that Prem (A1) s/o Pyare Lal, who was residing in front of his house, was abusing his brother Rajveer and was saying "saara rasta rok rakha hai aur meri gaadi nahi mudti hai" (whole of the path has been obstructed as a result of which his vehicle could not move). He further stated that his brother Rajveer asked Prem not to abuse him, then Prem called his sons namely Pushpak @ Baity and Rupak @ Nikki to bring the revolver and started grappling with his brother Rajveer. Rajpal Rana further stated in his statement that when he told Prem not to do so, in the meanwhile, son of Prem namely Pushpak, made 34 gunshot fire after coming in close contact of his brother Rajveer. Prem and his son caught hold of him (Rajpal Rana) and his brother (Rajveer) fell on the ground. Then Rupak exhorted that he (Rajveer) should not survive". In his supplementary statement dated 08/06/2014, he stated that on 14/03/2014, when verbal altercation was going on between accused Prem Rana and his brother Rajveer (since deceased), then Prem Rana called both his sons namely Pushpak and Rupak to bring the revolver and also stated "isko aaj sabak sikhana hai, iska aaj kaam tamam kar dete hain jisse hamesha ke liye jhagda khatam ho jayega" (come early and that they should teach a lesson to Rajveer today and he should be finished today so that the issued could be resolved for forever) & Rupak also exhorted "bhai iska kaam tamam kar de" (brother finish him). Thus, it seems that PW12 Rajpal Rana had tried to implicate accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Rupak Rana (A2) in his supplementary statement by alleging further exhortations, whereas in his statement SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 78 of 82 Ex. PW12/A, he has not alleged such exhortations, which shows that he had improvement regarding involvement of both the said accused. Even the said supplementary statement of PW12 was not exhibited during his examinationinchief and was exhibited during his crossexamination.

40.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 749 has held as under : ''25. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Falsity of a particular material witness or a material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 366 ])

26. The doctrine is a dangerous one especially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because the witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 79 of 82 administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects 28 CRA 109/2011 as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate an exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751] and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 277 ].) An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate the truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. [ AIR 1954 SC 15] and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC 511].) As observed by this SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 80 of 82 Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [(1981) 2 SCC 752] normal discrepancies in the evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. "

40.3 Close reading of the witness PW12 reveals that his deposition is credit worthy with regard to the death of his brother Rajveer Singh as his testimony gets corroborated from medical evidence but exhortations alleged on the other accused persons are unreliable due to modifications in the statements under Section 161 of CrPC whereby the eye witness has tried to widen the scope of exhortations.

40.4. For the above stated reasons, accused persons namely Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Rupak Rana (A2) are acquitted for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC.

Whether the accused Pushpak Rana is guilty for the offence under Section 25 & Section 27 of the Arms Act

41. Accused Pushpak Rana @ Bunty (A2) has also been charged for the offences u/s 25 Arms Act and u/s 27 Arms Act. As discussed above, it has been SC No. 57341/2016 FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors. Page 81 of 82 proved on record that the said accused (A2) had got recovered one licensed revolver (which was in the name of his father/coaccused Prem Prakash Rana {A1}) along with one live cartridge and four empty cartridges, which was used by him for causing gunshot injuries upon deceased Rajveer. Accordingly accused Pushpak Rana (A

2) is held guilty for the offences u/s 25 of Arms Act and is convicted thereunder.

41.2. It has also been proved on record that at the time of commission offence, accused Pushpak Rana (A2) had used the said licensed revolver of his father Prem Prakash Rana/coaccused (A1) in causing gunshot injuries to Rajveer (since deceased) as a result of which he died. Accordingly accused Pushpak Rana (A2) is held guilty for the offence u/s 27 of Arms Act and is convicted thereunder.

Whether accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) is guilty for the offence u/s 30 of the Arms Act.

42. Accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) has also been charged for the offence u/s 30 of Arms Act, 1959. Since the testimony of PW12 Rajpal Rana (brother of the deceased) has been disbelieved qua the exhortations made on the part of accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) and Rupak Rana (A3), accused Prem Prakash Rana (A1) is acquitted for the offence u/s 30 of Arms Act, 1959.

                                                                                    Digitally signed
                                                                                    by SHIVAJI
Announced in the Open Court
                                                                         SHIVAJI
                                                               (Shivaji Anand)
                                                                                    ANAND

On 27th of August 2020                                                   ANAND      Date:
                                                        Addl. Sessions Judge: 04 (North)
                                                                                    2020.08.27
                                                                 Rohini Courts: Delhi15:58:35 +0530




      SC No. 57341/2016       FIR no. 246/2014 PS Alipur State Vs Prem Prakash Rana & Ors.   Page 82 of 82

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . on 27 August, 2020