Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagbir Singh & Anr. on 6 February, 2010
State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA GUPTA, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT) (SOUTH DELHI DISTRICT)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Session Case No. 17/2008
State Versus 1. Jagbir Singh @ Jaggi
S/o Sh. Swroop Singh
R/o Village-Dichaon Kalan
Delhi.
2. Suresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Daya Kishan
R/o Village-Bakkarwala
Delhi.
FIR No. : 45/93
Police Station : Kotla Mubarak Pur
Under Sections : U/s 307/304/353/186/34 IPC,
27/54/59 Arms Act & 5 TADA
Date of conclusion of
final arguments : 21.01.2010
Date of pronouncement
of judgment : 06.02.2010
J U D G M E N T :-
The accused Jagbir Singh, S/o Sh. Swroop Singh and Suresh, S/o Sh. Daya Kishan have been brought to trial by the prosecution in the instant case on the allegations that on 03.03.1993 at about 8.45 P.M. at the road opposite Kothi No. 40, Housing Society, N.D.S.E Part-I, New Delhi in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed the members of the raiding party consisting of Inspectors Sushil Kumar, Prithipal Singh, Mahabir Singh, ASI Jai Raj Singh etc. in discharge of their duties as public 1/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur servants; secondly, on the afore-said date, time and place in furtherance of their common intention, they both assaulted ASI Jai Raj Singh, a public servant by firing at him with their revolver and pistol while he was discharging his duties as a public servant with intention to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties as such public servant; thirdly, on the same date, time and place in furtherance of their common intention they both caused injuries to ASI Jai Raj Singh with their fire arms i.e. revolver and pistol with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if said ASI Jai Raj Singh had died, they would have been guilty of the offence of murder as also on the allegations that on the same date, time and place the accused Jagbir was found in possession of one .455 Smith and Wesson revolver loaded with two live cartridges and four empty cases of fired cartridges which he had used for obstructing and assaulting members of the raiding party, the public servants while they were discharging their duties as such public servant and he had fired at ASI Jai Raj Singh with his aforesaid weapon with intention to kill him and the accused Suresh was found in possession of .9MM Mauser pistol and two live cartridges which he had used for obstructing and assaulting members of the raiding party, the public servants while they were discharging their duties as such public servant and he had fired at ASI Jai Raj Singh with his aforesaid weapon with intention to kill him.
2. On the above said allegations of the prosecution charge dated 01.11.1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 186/353/307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the accused as also for the offence punishable under Section 27 Arms 2/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Act were separately framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has led the evidence of as many as 18 witnesses in its PE in the instant case, on record, out of the 29 witnesses cited by it in its list of witnesses in PE in the instant case on record viz. PW1 HC Virender Prakash, PW2 HC Roop Singh, PW3 Gopal Krishan, PW4 Inspector Ram Dal, PW5 Inspector Sohan Vir Singh, PW6 SI Arvind Kumar, PW7 Inspector Sushil Kumar, PW8 Balwant Rai, PW9 DR. O.P. Murti, AIIMS, PW10 HC Siri Pal, PW11 HC Braham Prakash, PW12 ACP Mahabir Singh, PW13 Ex-Inspector Saroop Singh, PW14 Ct. Manoj Kumar, PW15 SI Jairaj Singh, PW16 HC Virender Singh, PW17 HC Veer Pal Yadav (given up by the Ld. APP for the State) and PW18 Inspector Prithvi Singh.
4. Thereafter, the statements of the accused have been recorded under the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the instant case in which they have denied the case of the prosecution against them as false as also have alleged of their false implication in the instant case at the hands of the investigating agency.
5. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused on their behalf that the case of the prosecution for the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case have not been proved by the prosecution against them beyond reasonable doubt in the same.
It is further the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the 3/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur accused that though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused have been apprehended/arrested on the date and place of the alleged incident viz. 03/03/1993 at road opposite Kothi No. 40, Housing Society, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi vide the testimonies of the PWs 1 to 18 recorded by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on record, however no document to the said effect has been proved by the prosecution in this regard, on record, and instead they are alleged to have been arrested in the instant case vide the testimonies of the said PWs led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on 26.03.1993 i.e. after the lapse of a period of 23 days of the date of the alleged incident thereby falsifying the case of the prosecution against the accused in respect of the alleged culpable involvement of the accused in the alleged incident on the date, time and place alleged constituting ingredients of the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case.
It is further the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the star material public witnesses of the prosecution viz. PW3 Sh. Gopal Krishan and PW8 Sh. Balwant Rai who are alleged to be the eyewitnesses to the incident/occurance alleged against the accused constituting ingredients of the offences for which they stand charged in this court in the instant case have turned totally hostile to the case of the prosecution against the accused in this regard as also the PW8 Balwant Rai has resiled from the seizure memo Ex.PW4/D in respect of the alleged recovery of the incriminating arms and ammunitions i.e. Mauser Pistol Ex. P4, live cartridge Ex.P5 and empty cartridge Ex.P6 from the possession of the accused Suresh as also seizure memo Ex. PW4/C in respect 4/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur of the alleged recovery of one revolver with one live cartridge and five empty cartridges Exts. P1, P2 and P3/1 to 5 respectively from the possession of the accused Jagbir Singh on the date of the alleged incident thereby rendering the said alleged incriminating recoveries qua the accused as having not been proved in PE against the accused, in the instant case, on record and lending credence to their defence vide their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as also vide their cross-examination of the various PWs in PE of their alleged false implication in the instant case at the hands of the investigating agency as also of the said alleged incriminating arms and ammunitions being a plant on the part of the prosecution/investigating agency on them.
It is further the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that in view of the said star material public witnesses of the prosecution viz. PW3 Sh. Gopal Krishan and PW8 Sh. Balwant Rai who are alleged to be the eyewitnesses to the occurance by the prosecution itself as also the PW8 being an alleged witness to the recovery of the alleged incriminating arms and ammunitions, as above said, against the accused vide the relevant seizure memos in their respect as also in respect of the alleged preparation of the sketch of the alleged incriminating arms and ammunitions, as above said, allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused on the date alleged Exts. PW4/A and PW4/B, on record, having turned totally hostile to the case of the prosecution against the accused in this regard i.e. in respect of its allegations constituting ingredients of the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case, the case of the prosecution for the same viz. having obstructed the police officials in the due discharge of their duties as 5/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur also having assaulted the police official/PW15 SI Jai Raj Singh as also caused injury to him with their fire arms with the requisite intention or knowledge of causing his death as also being in possession of unlicensed arms and ammunitions on the relevant date, place and time, cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution against the accused in the instant case beyond reasonable doubt in the same despite the PWs 1 to 18 apart from the star material public witnesses of the prosecution viz. PWs 3 and 8, as above said, and PW17 having been given up by the Ld. APP for the State, having deposed against them in this regard.
It is further the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that even no sanction/complaint has been proved by the prosecution in the instant case, on record, for the prosecution of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 186/353 IPC for which they stand charged in this court in the instant case as mandatorily required under the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as amended up to date) and as such prosecution of the accused qua the said offences in the instant case on record is bad in law.
It is further the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the alleged MLC in respect of the alleged injured ASI Jai Raj Singh has also not been proved in the instant case, on record, as is required under the law in that the testimony of the relevant prosecution witness viz. Dr. Victor of AIIMS who is alleged to have examined the said alleged injured has not been led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on record, and accordingly, the same which is forming an important ingredient of the offences alleged against the accused and of which 6/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur they stand charged in this court in the instant case i.e. of causing injuries to the said alleged injured with their fire arms i.e. revolver and pistol with the requisite intention of causing his death has not been proved in the instant case, on record, thereby falsifying the case of the prosecution against the accused in this regard and in view of his above said submissions on behalf of the accused, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination or degree of certainty that the case of the prosecution for the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case has been proved by the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the same in spite of the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 to 18 (except PW17 having been given up by the Ld. APP for the State) led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused, in the instant case, on record, and the prosecution exhibits proved on record therein and accordingly, the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt thereof.
It is further the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that there are material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the various PWs led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on record, in respect of the allegations of the prosecution against the accused constituting ingredients of the offences for which they stand charged in this court in the instant case thereby rendering the case of the prosecution against the accused in this regard doubtful/not proved on record.
It is further the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that even the Maruti Car registration No. DL 1CB 4115 allegedly found lying parked at the scene of the incident/occurance in which the accused are alleged to have arrived at the place of the 7/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur incident/occurance on the relevant date and time which is an important ingredient of the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case and which has allegedly been seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/I in its respect, has not been produced by the prosecution against the accused as case property in its prosecution evidence against the accused in the instant case, on record, and nor its ownership established by the prosecution against the accused in its PE in the instant case, on record and thus the said alleged vehicle cannot be said to be incriminatory qua the accused in the instant case, on record.
Ld. Counsel for the accused have also filed written submissions on behalf of the accused in the instant case, on record.
6. Ld. APP for the State, however, argues to the contrary and submits that the case of the prosecution for the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case has been proved by the prosecution against them beyond reasonable doubt in the same by way of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses viz. PW Nos. 1 to 18 led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on record, as also the prosecution exhibits proved on record therein.
7. I have heard Sh. S.P. Kaushal and Sh. Ravinder Singh, Advocates for the accused Jagbir Singh and Suresh respectively, Sh. S.K. Dash, Ld. APP for the State as also have gone through the record.
8. I find force in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the 8/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur accused on their behalf, as above said, to the effect that the case of the prosecution for the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case have not been proved by the prosecution against them beyond reasonable doubt in the same; that though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused have been apprehended/arrested on the date and place of the alleged incident viz. 03/03/1993 at road opposite Kothi No. 40, Housing Society, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi vide the testimonies of the PWs 1 to 18 recorded by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on record, however no document to the said effect has been proved by the prosecution in this regard, on record, and instead they are alleged to have been arrested in the instant case vide the testimonies of the said PWs led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on 26.03.1993 i.e. after the lapse of a period of 23 days of the date of the alleged incident thereby falsifying the case of the prosecution against the accused in respect of the alleged culpable involvement of the accused in the alleged incident on the date, time and place alleged constituting ingredients of the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case; that the star material public witnesses of the prosecution viz. PW3 Sh. Gopal Krishan and PW8 Sh. Balwant Rai who are alleged to be the eyewitnesses to the incident/occurance alleged against the accused constituting ingredients of the offences for which they stand charged in this court in the instant case have turned totally hostile to the case of the prosecution against the accused in this regard as also the PW8 Balwant Rai has resiled from the seizure memo Ex.PW4/D in respect of the alleged recovery of the incriminating arms and 9/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur ammunitions i.e. Mauser Pistol Ex. P4, live cartridge Ex.P5 and empty cartridge Ex.P6 from the possession of the accused Suresh as also seizure memo Ex. PW4/C in respect of the alleged recovery of one revolver with one live cartridge and five empty cartridges Exts. P1, P2 and P3/1 to 5 respectively from the possession of the accused Jagbir Singh on the date of the alleged incident thereby rendering the said alleged incriminating recoveries qua the accused as having not been proved in PE against the accused, in the instant case, on record and lending credence to their defence vide their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as also vide their cross-examination of the various PWs in PE of their alleged false implication in the instant case at the hands of the investigating agency as also of the said alleged incriminating arms and ammunitions being a plant on the part of the prosecution/investigating agency on them; that in view of the said star material public witnesses of the prosecution viz. PW3 Sh. Gopal Krishan and PW8 Sh. Balwant Rai who are alleged to be the eyewitnesses to the occurance by the prosecution itself as also the PW8 being an alleged witness to the recovery of the alleged incriminating arms and ammunitions, as above said, against the accused vide the relevant seizure memos in their respect as also in respect of the alleged preparation of the sketch of the alleged incriminating arms and ammunitions, as above said, allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused on the date alleged Exts. PW4/A and PW4/B, on record, having turned totally hostile to the case of the prosecution against the accused in this regard i.e. in respect of its allegations constituting ingredients of the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case, 10/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur the case of the prosecution for the same viz. having obstructed the police officials in the due discharge of their duties as also having assaulted the police official/PW15 SI Jai Raj Singh as also caused injury to him with their fire arms with the requisite intention or knowledge of causing his death as also being in possession of unlicensed arms and ammunitions on the relevant date, place and time, cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution against the accused in the instant case beyond reasonable doubt in the same despite the PWs 1 to 18 apart from the star material public witnesses of the prosecution viz. PWs 3 and 8, as above said, and PW17 having been given up by the Ld. APP for the State, having deposed against them in this regard; that even no sanction/complaint has been proved by the prosecution in the instant case, on record, for the prosecution of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 186/353 IPC for which they stand charged in this court in the instant case as mandatorily required under the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as amended up to date) and as such prosecution of the accused qua the said offences in the instant case on record is bad in law; that the alleged MLC in respect of the alleged injured ASI Jai Raj Singh has also not been proved in the instant case, on record, as is required under the law in that the testimony of the relevant prosecution witness viz. Dr. Victor of AIIMS who is alleged to have examined the said alleged injured has not been led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on record, and accordingly, the same which is forming an important ingredient of the offences alleged against the accused and of which they stand charged in this court in the instant case i.e. of causing 11/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur injuries to the said alleged injured with their fire arms i.e. revolver and pistol with the requisite intention of causing his death has not been proved in the instant case, on record, thereby falsifying the case of the prosecution against the accused in this regard and in view of his above said submissions on behalf of the accused, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination or degree of certainty that the case of the prosecution for the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case has been proved by the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the same in spite of the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9 to 18 (except PW17 having been given up by the Ld. APP for the State) led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused, in the instant case, on record, and the prosecution exhibits proved on record therein and accordingly, the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt thereof; that there are material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the various PWs led by the prosecution in its PE against the accused in the instant case, on record, in respect of the allegations of the prosecution against the accused constituting ingredients of the offences for which they stand charged in this court in the instant case thereby rendering the case of the prosecution against the accused in this regard doubtful/not proved on record; that even the Maruti Car registration No. DL 1CB 4115 allegedly found lying parked at the scene of the incident/occurance in which the accused are alleged to have arrived at the place of the incident/occurance on the relevant date and time which is an important ingredient of the offences for which the accused stand charged in this court in the instant case and which has allegedly been seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/I in its 12/13 State Vs. Jagbir Singh & Anr.
FIR No.45/93, P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur respect, has not been produced by the prosecution against the accused as case property in its prosecution evidence against the accused in the instant case, on record, and nor its ownership established by the prosecution against the accused in its PE in the instant case, on record and thus the said alleged vehicle cannot be said to be incriminatory qua the accused in the instant case, on record; which I find are borne out from the record.
9. In view of my observations and findings, as above said, I hereby, accordingly, acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 186/353/307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC of which they stand charged in this court in the instant case as also of the offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act of which also they stand charged each in this court in the instant case, by giving them the benefit of doubt thereof. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (CHANDRA GUPTA)
on dated 06.02.2010 ASJ (FTC)/SD
NEW DELHI
13/13