Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Khurana ... on 3 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 255/17
Digitally
signed by
PS : Amar Colony (AATS/CB) MANISH
U/s : 186/353 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act MANISH KHURANA
State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala KHURANA Date:
2018.10.03
14:23:28
Unique ID No. : 4218/2017 +0530
Date of institution of case : 02.09.2017
Date of reserving the judgment : 13.09.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.10.2018
J U D G M E N T
1. S. No. of the Case : 83/05/17
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 05.07.2017
3. Name of the complainant : SI Ashish Kumar,
AATS/SED/New Delhi
4. Name,parentage & address of accused : Ajay Dabas @ Ajay
Barwala @ Kala
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh
R/o VPO Barwala, Delhi
5. Offence complained of : u/s 186/353 IPC &
s. 25/27 Arms Act
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Convicted u/s 186/353 IPC &
s. 25/27 Arms Act
Case of the Prosecution
1. The prosecution case is that on 05.07.2017 at about 11.15 pm at Captain Gaur Marg near Jama Masjid, Delhi accused Ajay Dabas was spotted while riding on a Hero Honda CD Delux Motorcycle bearing no. HR30E FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 1 of 16 8960 and when police party signalled him to stop, he assaulted/used criminal force against the police party while pointing towards them one pistol (illegal arm), which the accused was carrying at that time, with intention to prevent or deter the police persons who were discharging their duties as public servants and thus the accused voluntarily obstructed the police party/public servants in the discharge of their public duty and thereby accused committed offences u/s 186/353 IPC. Further, at the abovementioned date, time and place, accused was found in possession of abovesaid illegal arm and ammunition i.e one pistol alongwith magazine mentioning the words "NO. 1711 AUTOMATIC PISTOL MADE IN USA" and five live cartridges mentioning 7.65 KF and the accused used the said firearm by pointing it towards the police party and thereby accused also committed offence punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
2. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned, copies of chargesheet were supplied and thereafter, charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 186/353 IPC & s. 25/27 Ams Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During admission/denial of the documents, accused admitted FSL result as Ex.P1, factum of registration of FIR as Ex.P2, sanction u/s 39 Arms Act as Ex.P3, registration of DD No. 5 and 6 both dated 05.07.2017 AATS SED and DD No. 10 dated 06.07.2017, AATS SED as Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 vide his statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses.
4. PW1 ASI Viju and PW3 Ct. Arvind deposed that on 05.07.2017 at about 9.30 pm, one secret informer reached in their office and informed SI Ashish Kumar that one known and rewarded criminal namely Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala would reach near Jama Masjid near Okhla FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 2 of 16 Mandi, Captain Gaur Marg, Delhi at about 11.00 pm on the same day to meet his associate. They further deposed that informer also informed that accused Ajay Dabas would be carrying illegal arms and he could be apprehended if raided. They further stated that thereafter SI Ashish Kumar searched about information of accused Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala and came to know that accused Ajay Dabas was rewardee of Rs. 1.50 Lacs from Govt. of Delhi. They further stated that thereafter, SI Ashish Kumar produced the secret informer before Inspector AATS SED and narrated him about the incident and with the permission and instruction of Inspector AATS, SI Ashish Kumar formed a raiding party consisting themselves, ASI Surender, myself, ASI Rajesh, ASI Vijender, ASI Harbir, HC Neeraj, HC Manoj and they left their office after recording DD No. 5 dated 05.07.2017 by government gypsy and one private car and reached near Arya Samaj Temple, Tpoint Captain Gaur Marg near Okhla Mandi. They further stated that there IO SI Ashish Kumar requested 45 passersby to join the raiding party after informing them about the nature of raid and gist of secret information but none of them agreed and left without disclosing their name and identity and due to paucity of time, they proceeded and reached near Jama Masjid (near Okhla Mandi, Captain Gaur Marg, Delhi) where SI Ashish Kumar briefed the members of raiding team to take position around Mosque. They further stated that they parked the government gypsy at the side of Okhla Mandi and private car on road side near the Mosque and they kept waiting for the arrival of the accused. They further stated that at about 11.15 pm, one person wearing a helmet came on a Hero Honda CD Delux motorcycle bearing no. HR30E8960 and stopped near bus stand opposite the abovesaid Mosque near Okhla Mandi and after halting his bike, the said person removed his helmet while sitting on the bike itself and kept FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 3 of 16 waiting for his associate. They further stated that thereafter, the secret informer accompanying them pointed out towards the said person and identified him as accused Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala and thereafter, at the instance of secret informer, all the members of raiding team cordoned off accused and first IO SI Ashish Kumar told the accused in loud voice about his identity and about raiding party members and thereafter, seeing him cordoned off by the police team, accused Ajay Dabas @ Kala took out a pistol from left side dhub of his wearing pant and after waving it in the air pointed it towards the police party. They further stated that thereafter, first IO SI Ashish Kumar without fearing his life somehow overpowered accused and with the help of Ct. Arvind Kumar pistol was snatched from the hand of accused. They further stated that they apprehended accused who upon interrogation disclosed his identity as Ajay Dabas @ Kala resident of Barwala, Delhi and thereafter, SI Ashish Kumar checked the pistol found from the possession of the accused and found four live cartridges in the magazine of the pistol and after checking one live cartridge was also found from the barrel chamber of the pistol. They further stated that on all live cartridges, 7.65 KF was inscribed and first IO SI Ashish Kumar prepared sketch memo of the recovered pistol, magazine and five live cartridges on a white paper Ex.PW1/A. They further stated that the recovered pistol was having wooden panel on the both side of its butts and NO.1711 AUTOMATIC PISTOL MADE IN USA was inscribed on the pistol and after preparing sketch and after measuring the pistol, its magazine and cartridges SI Ashish Kumar seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B after sealing them in a plastic box with the seal of "AK". IO also filled FSL form. They further stated that after use IO handed over seal to Ct. Arvind and thereafter prepared rukka and got FIR registered through Ct. Arvind.
FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 4 of 16They further stated that after some time second IO SI Rakesh Ahluwalia reached the spot to whom first IO handed over custody of accused, seized case properties and already prepared documents and thereafter second IO prepared site plan at the instance of first IO and seized the motorcycle alongwith helmet of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. They further stated that thereafter, they took the case property and accused with them and case property was deposited in the Malkhana of PS Amar Colony and accused was taken to their office. They further stated that IO recorded his statement to the abovesaid effect. They identified the accused Ajay Dabas in the Court and case property as Ex.P2 (colly). During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel, PW1 stated that he reached the spot i.e Arya Samaj Mandir at about 11.00 pm and the distance between the spot of apprehension of accused and Arya Samaj Mandir was about 2 minutes by walk. PW1 further stated that accused came on the motorcycle from Garhi side and he alongwith raiding team was on the road towards Nehru Place. PW1 admitted that raiding party was located near Okhla Mandi and some people were present in Okhla Mandi. PW1 admitted that Okhla Mandi used to work for 24 hours. PW1 also admitted that the accused was apprehended when no vehicle or public person was passing through. PW1 denied that accused was not apprehended from the spot or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. PW1 denied that he never participated in the raid proceedings or never visited the spot. PW1 denied that he was deposing falsely. During cross examination by Ld defence counsel, PW3 stated that he reached the spot i.e Arya Samaj Mandir at about 11.00 pm and the distance between the spot of apprehension of accused and Arya Samaj Mandir was about 2 minutes by walk. PW3 further stated that accused came on the motorcycle from Lajpat Nagar side and they were on FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 5 of 16 the road towards Nehru Place. PW3 admitted that raiding party was located near Okhla Mandi and some people were present in Okhla Mandi. PW3 admitted that Okhla Mandi used to work for 24 hours. PW3 also admitted that the accused was apprehended when no vehicle or public person was passing through. PW3 denied that accused was not apprehended from the spot or that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. PW3 denied that he never participated in the raid proceedings or never visited the spot. PW3 denied that he was deposing falsely.
5. PW2 HC Vishwajit deposed that on 18.07.2017 he was posted as HC at AATS SouthEast and on that day he got road certificate vide no. 83/21/17 MarkA regarding the case property from the malkhana of PS Amar Colony for depositing the same to FSL, Rohini duly sealed with the seal of "AK". He further stated that he went to FSL Rohini for depositing the same and got acknowledgment receipt MarkB from FSL Rohini and deposited it in PS Amar Colony. He further stated that till the case property remained in his custody it was not tempered with. This witness was not cross examined by Ld defence counsel.
6. PW4 SI Rakesh Ahluwalia deposed that on 06.07.2017, he was posted as SI at AATS SouthEast District, Delhi and on that day, after registration of present FIR, investigation was handed over to him. He further stated that Ct. Arvind handed over him copy of FIR and original rukka in his office and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Arvind reached at the spot i.e. Captain Gaur Marg, near Jama Maszid, near Okhla Mandi, Delhi where he met SI Ashish alongwith police staff who had apprehended accused Ajay Dabas @ Kala. He further stated that first IO SI Ashish handed over him custody of accused, already prepared memos i.e. seizure memo of recovered pistol and five live cartridges, sketch memo FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 6 of 16 and FSL form, alongwith seized case property. He further stated that he mentioned FIR number on already prepared memos and thereafter, he prepared site plan at the instance of first IO Ex.PW4/A and he seized the motorcycle and helmet which accused was wearing at the time of incident vide memo seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He further stated that he arrested accused Ajay Dabas vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW4/C. He further stated that he took accused and case property alongwith documents to PS Amar Colony where case property was deposited in the malkhana and he took accused in his office where he was interrogated and he recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW4/D. He further stated that he took two days PC remand of accused during which he recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW4/E and he sent the case property for ballistic examination, obtained its report and placed on file. He further stated that he also obtained permission u/s 39 Arms Act and placed the same on record. He further stated that he recorded statement of witness and after conclusion of investigation he filed the chargesheet. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he stated that Ct. Arvind reached in the office at about 01:30 a.m on 06.07.2017 and handed over him copy of FIR and rukka. He stated that he alongwith Ct. Arvind reached at the spot by his motorcycle and they reached the spot within five minutes. He stated that no public person was available at the spot and, therefore, he did not join any independent public person in the investigation. He stated that he took accused to PS Amar colony at about 02:00 p.m and SI Ashish / first IO was relieved from the spot after he reached there. He denied that he never visited the spot or that he prepared all the exhibited documents while sitting in the office. He denied that accused was falsely implicated in the present case or that the FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 7 of 16 case property was falsely planted upon the accused. He stated that he prepared site plan, arrest memo, personal search memo and seizure memo of motorcycle and helmet and other documents in his office. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW5 SI Ashish Kumar was the First IO who deposed regarding the manner in which he conducted the investigation. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he stated that he reached near Arya Samaj Mandir, Capt. Gaur Marg at about 11:00 p.m. He stated that he did not note down the names and addresses of public persons / passerby whom he requested to join the investigation. He stated that he did not serve any written notice to them to join investigation upon their refusal. He denied that he did not request any public person / passerby to join the investigation willingly as no such raid was ever conducted. He stated that the distance between Arya Samaj Mandir and the spot was about 100 meters. He did not remember the registration number of the other private vehicle or its source, which was used for reaching at the spot. He stated that secret informer pointed out towards accused from a distance of 2025 meters. He denied that no secret information was received by them or that no secret informer ever met him as stated by him in his examination in chief. He denied that accused was falsely implicated in the present case. He denied that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused. He denied that accused was lifted from some other place and alleged recoveries were falsely planted upon him. He admitted that no independent public person was passing near the spot after apprehension of accused and before he left from the spot. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
8. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, during which all the incriminating evidence was put to the FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 8 of 16 accused to which accused denied in its entirety and claimed innocence. Accused further stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. No evidence was led by the accused in his defence.
9. I have heard Ld APP for the State and Ld LAC for the accused and also carefully gone through the record.
Finding of the Court
10. Allegation against the accused are that on 05.07.2017 at about 11.15 pm at Captain Gaur Marg near Jama Masjid, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Amar Colony (AATS South East District), accused Ajay Dabas was spotted while riding on a Hero Honda CD Delux Motorcycle bearing no. HR30E8960 and when police party signalled him to stop, he assaulted/used criminal force against the police party while pointing towards them one pistol (illegal arm) which the accused was carrying at that time, with intention to prevent or deter the police persons who were discharging their duties as public servants and thus the accused voluntarily obstructed the police party/public servants in the discharge of their public duty and thereby accused committed offences u/s 186/353 IPC. Further, at the abovementioned date, time and place, accused was found in possession of illegal arms and ammunition i.e one pistol alongwith magazine mentioning the words "NO. 1711 AUTOMATIC PISTOL MADE IN USA" and five live cartridges mentioning 7.65 KF and the accused used the said firearm by pointing it towards the police party and thereby accused also committed offence punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
11. The Ld. APP contended that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts as the PWs have deposed on the lines of prosecution case in respect to the allegations. It is further argued that merely non examination of the public witness does not hamper or FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 9 of 16 create doubt on the testimony of police officers and it does not show that the recovery has been planted upon the accused.
12. On the other hand, Ld. LAC for accused submitted that no public witness has been examined in the present case and the case put forth by the prosecution is not probable and there are contradictions in the case of the prosecution. Ld LAC also submitted that the accused was lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in the present case and therefore, he may be acquitted.
13. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its on legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shits to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
14. Further the crux of legal position regarding joining of independent witness, to my mind is that as far as possible recovery of contraband, is to be authenticated by affecting it in presence of any independent witness. Joining of independent witness, forcefully establishes the recovery of contraband, beside compliance of other procedure as required under Arms Act. However, it is not that if recovery is not in presence of independent witness, then the same is to be mechanically ignored on score. If on one hand law requires to join independent witness at the time of recovery, it FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 10 of 16 is only to ensure the authenticity of alleged recovery. On the other hand, non joining of independent witness only make the court circumspect, in such situation, evidence of official witness is to be examined more critically in facts of case. If sincere efforts are made by investigating officer, to join an independent witness and it is also proved by evidence of official witness, that there has been genuine efforts to join an independent witness, then court if finds that evidence as a whole is acceptable regarding recovery of contraband, there being nothing coming on record showing planting of recovered articles or any circumstance even remotely indicating towards false implication, then non joining of independent witness is not fatal to case of prosecution.
15. The case of prosecution is that upon receiving the secret information at about 9.30 pm by SI Ashish Kumar about the accused who was a rewarded criminal, a raiding party was prepared under the instructions of Inspector AATS SouthEast comprising of SI Ashish Kumar, ASI Surender, ASI Viju, ASI Rajesh, ASI Vijender, ASI Harbir, HC Neeraj, HC Manoj and Ct. Arvind and they all left the office after recording DD No. 5 dated 05.07.2017 (admitted by accused as Ex.P4) and reached at the spot i.e TPoint, Captain Gaur Marg, near Okhla Mandi near Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi where SI Ashish Kumar requested 45 passerby to join the raiding party but none of them agreed and left without disclosing their names. Thereafter, the raiding party reached near Jama Masjid and they all took their positions and kept waiting for arrival of the accused and at about 11.15 pm the accused came on Hero Honda CD Delux motorcycle bearing No. HR30E8960 and stopped near bus stand opposite the Jama Masjid Mosque near Okhla Mandi and removed his helmet while sitting on the bike and kept waiting for his associate. Thereafter, the secret informer accompanying the raiding party identified FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 11 of 16 the accused Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwal @ Kala and the accused was cordoned off by the members of raiding party on which accused Ajay Dabas took out the pistol from his pant and after waiving the same in the air he pointed the pistol towards the police party, however, he was over powered by SI Ashish Kumar with the help of other police personnels and his pistol was snatched and the identity of the accused was disclosed as Ajay Dabas @ Kala resident of Barwala, Delhi. The said pistol alongwith four live cartridges in the magazine of the said pistol and one live cartridge in the barrel chamber of the said pistol was recovered and on all the live cartridges 7.65 KF was inscribed and on the pistol the words no.1711 AUTOMATIC PISTOL MADE IN USA were inscribed. Further, the motorcycle bearing no. HR30E8960 upon which the accused came at the spot was also seized alongwith his helmet vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C.
16. All the PWs examined by the prosecution corroborated the testimony of each other and there is no material contradiction in the testimonies of the PWs recorded during prosecution evidence. Ld LAC for the accused argued that no public person was made to join the investigation and therefore, the case put forth by the prosecution should not be believed. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that the accused was allegedly apprehended at the spot at about 11.15 pm and at that time a few public persons only would have been present at the spot. The IO as well as the prosecution witnesses deposed that efforts were made to join the public persons in the investigation, however, they refused and left the spot without disclosing their names. It is further pertinent to mention that generally public persons are not inclined to join the raiding party comprising of police persons especially when a hardened criminal is involved.
FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 12 of 1617. It is further pertinent to mention that Ld LAC has argued that the alleged pistols and live cartridges were planted upon the accused, however, no explanation could be provided by Ld LAC regarding the recovery of motorcycle bearing no. HR30E8960 from the possession of the accused at the spot alongwith his helmet.
18. The accused admitted the FSL result regarding the pistol and cartridges as Ex.P1, the factum of registration of FIR as Ex.P2, sanction u/s 39 Arms Act given by the concerned DCP as Ex.P3 and registration of DD No. 5 & 6, both dated 05.07.2017 vide which the police party left the police station for the alleged raid and DD No. 10 dated 06.07.2017, AATS SouthEast as Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 u/s 294 Cr.PC during the trial.
19. The accused has been charged for the offence u/s 186/353 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act and as per the case put forth by the prosecution the accused assaulted the police party while pointing pistol towards them with an intention to deter the police persons from discharging their duties and the illegal firearm i.e one pistol and five live cartridges were recovered from his possession.
20. Section 186 IPC provides the punishment for obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions and it provides that whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in discharge of public functions shall be punished. Section 353 IPC provides that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant shall be punished with imprisonment.
21. Section 351 IPC defines the term 'Assault' as whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 13 of 16 makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.
22. As per the evidence recorded and the testimonies of PWs, the accused Ajay Dabas came on his motorcycle bearing no. HR30E8960 at the spot and he was cordoned off by members of raiding party. The accused also took out of his pistol from his pant and waived the same in the air and also pointed it towards the police officials present at the spot, however, SI Ashish Kumar with the help of other police officials present at the spot overpowered the accused. The accused obstructed the police officials in discharge of their public duties by waiving the pistol in the air and by pointing the pistol towards them when they tried to apprehend the accused and the accused is consequently liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 186 IPC. Further, the accused also committed assault as defined u/s 351 IPC as the gesture of the accused in using the pistol caused the police officials to apprehend that the accused would use criminal force against them. Therefore, as per the evidence on record the accused Ajay Dabas is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 186/353 IPC.
23. The accused has also been charged for the offence punishable u/s 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 as he was found in possession of firearm without any valid licence or authority in that regard and he also used the said firearm in contravention of section 5 of the Arms Act by waiving the said firearms i.e pistol and by pointing it out towards the police party.
24. Section 5 of the Arms Act provides that no person shall use, manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test, expose, offer for sale, transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof any firearm or any other arm unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 14 of 1625. Section 25 of Arms Act provides the punishment for contravention of section 5 of the Arms Act. Section 27 Arms Act provides the punishment for using the firearm in contravention of section 5 of Arms Act.
26. Section 2(e) Arms Act defines the term 'firearm' as the arms of any description designed or adapted to discharge a projectile or projectiles of any kind by the action of any explosive or other forms of energy, and includes riotpistols and the accessories of such firearm.
27. In the case in hand, the accused Ajay Dabas was apprehended at the spot alongwith one pistol and five live cartridges without any valid licence regarding the same and he used the said pistol i.e firearm by waiving the same in the air and accused also pointed the pistol towards the abovesaid police officials to deter or prevent the police officials in discharge of their public functions. The accused was cordoned off by the police officials who have been examined by the prosecution as PWs during the trial. All the PWs have corroborated each others testimony and they stood well during their cross examination and there is no material contradiction in their testimony. All the PWs explained the manner in which the accused was apprehended at the spot and the testimonies of PWs recorded by the prosecution categorically points towards the guilt of the accused. Even the motorcycle bearing no. HR30E8960 upon which the accused came at the spot and helmet of accused was recovered at the spot and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. Considering the testimonies of PWs recorded, it cannot be said that the alleged pistol, five live cartridges, one motorcycle and a helmet were planted upon the accused. Further, the accused has not alleged any personal animosity with any of the police officials in order to justify his false implication in the present case nor had he led any defence evidence to controvert the case put forth by the prosecution. The accused has simply denied the allegations during FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 15 of 16 his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC and he has not explained as to where was he at the time of the alleged incident if he was not present at the spot as alleged by him.
28. Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 186/353 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.
29. Hence, accused Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala is hereby convicted for the offence u/s 186/353 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act. Let he be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Announced in the open court Today on 03.10.2018 (Manish Khurana) CMM/SE/District Court, Saket New Delhi/03.10.2018 FIR No. 255/17 State Vs. Ajay Dabas @ Ajay Barwala @ Kala Page 16 of 16