Delhi District Court
State vs . Harvinder Singh on 2 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE01, NORTH, DELHI.
FIR No.: 575/05
PS: Patel Nagar
U/s: 307 IPC
S.C. No.: 87/2006
Case ID No.: 02404R0045402006
In the matter of:
State Vs. Harvinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Takhat Singh
R/o 2648, Shadi Kham Pur,
Main Bazar, Delhi.
Also at : H. no. 81A, Azad Nagar,
Sarhand Road, Patiala, Punjab.
Date of receiving in Sessions Court : 10.03 .2006
Arguments Heard : 20.10.2010
Date of Judgement : 02.11 .2010
JUDGEMENT
Case Of Prosecution:
1. On 7.10.2005 on receipt of DD No. 6, ASI Mohinder Singh alongwith Constable Naresh reached at the spot at house no. 2648, Village Shadipur, Main Bazar, Delhi where he met the complainant Puneet Chauhan who gave his statement that they are the owner of plot bearing no. 2648, Shadipur, Main Bazar, Delhi. There are rooms S.C. No.: 87/2006 1/19 constructed on both sides of the plot and they have given all the rooms on rent. Remaining back side of the plot is lying vacant. An old Banyan tree is planted on the back side of the plot. On 2.10.2005 Sardar Harvinder Singh who is the son of their tenant Sardar Thakht Singh was installing a gate in order to grab their plot. They had informed the police on 100 number and on the intervention of police, accused had stopped the installation of gate. But after two days accused Harvinder Singh cut the branches of banyan tree during night time and in the morning when they again informed the police, accused again stopped his activity. Thereafter on the intervening night of 6/7.10.2005 accused affixed a gate on the vacant plot and when in the morning, he and his Uncle Tej Pal and Pramod Kumar objected the same, accused became furious and brought a double barrel gun from inside his house and fired a shot upon him but the bullet did not hit him. In the meantime accused loaded another cartridge in his gun and when his uncle Taj Pal tried to rescue him, accused Harvinder Singh hit the butt of the gun on the shoulder of his uncle due to which the butt of the gun broke and dettached from the gun. In the meantime public persons gathered there and they informed the police on 100 number. On the statement of complainant, case U/s 307 IPC was registered against the accused. Crime Team was called at the spot and they inspected the scene of crime. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and recorded the statement of witnesses. The gun alongwith its broken butt and cartridges was taken into possession S.C. No.: 87/2006 2/19 and sealed vide seizure memo. Accused was arrested, Exhibits of the case were sent to FSL, Rohini for expert opinion and after completion of investigation, challan U/s 307 IPC was filed in the court against accused Harvinder Singh.
2. Since the offence U/s 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, therefore, after supply of the documents, Ld. MM committed the case to the court of Sessions.
Charge Against The Accused:
3. Prima facie case under section 307 IPC was made out against the accused. Charge was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses Examined:
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses.
5. The brief summary of deposition of prosecution witnesses are as under: Formal Witnesses:
6. PW 1 is Constable Mithlesh Kumar, the DD writer who recorded DD no. 5 and 6 dated 7.10.2005 and proved the same as Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B respectively.
7. PW3 is SI Anil Kumar, Incharge of Mobile Crime Team who stated that on 7.10.2005 he alongwith his staff was called by the IO of the case at 2648, Shadipur Main Bazar, Delhi and he inspected the scene of S.C. No.: 87/2006 3/19 crime. He further proved the scene of crime report as Ex PW3/A.
8. PW5 is ASI Ajit Singh who on receipt of the information regarding the quarrel reached at the spot. He stated that accused Harvinder Singh was trying to raise a gate in the plot whereas the owner was alleging that a court case is pending. He requested both the parties to show the papers but they had not shown any papers and so he filled DD no.3.
9. PW6 is ASI Harjit Singh, the MHC(M) who proved all the entries made in malkhana register regarding the deposition of case property in the malkhana.
10. PW8 is ASI Pushpa, the duty officer who recorded the FIR and proved the same as Ex. PW8/A.
11. PW11 is Constable Thawar Singh who took the exhibits of the case to FSL, Rohini and deposited the same there. He stated that so long the case property remained in his possession, same was not tampered with.
12. PW12 is Constable Ravinder who took the parcha 12 (Form no. 2317 (1) ) pertaining to accused Harvinder Singh for verification of address and his antecedents and submitted his report to the IO of the case and proved the same as Ex. PW12/A.
13. PW13 is Head Constable Jagat Singh who on receipt of DD no.6, reached at the spot and stated that accused Harvinder Singh met him and told him that he has not cut any tree and he has simply chopped S.C. No.: 87/2006 4/19 the small branches of the tree which used to create hindrance to the passers by. The witness further stated that on inquiry no tree was found to have been cut and he filled the DD entry.
14. PW14 is Sh. V.R. Anand, Senior Scientific Officer, Ballistic from FSL, Rohini who examined the exhibits of the case and proved the report as Ex. PW14/A. Material Witnesses:
15. PW 2 is Pramod Kumar who stated that he know the accused present in the court as his father was tenant in his house no. 2648, Mandir wali Gali, main bazar, shadi pur Delhi. He stated that he does not remember the exact date, month and year since it is a matter of 1½ or 2 years ago when the accused was installing a door in his vacant plot which is behind the tenanted premises in order to grab the plot. The accused was claiming that the said plot belongs to him through his grandfather. He asked the accused to remove the gate since the plot belongs to him. He further stated that prior to the date of incident, accused was also installing the gate therefore, he informed the police and police restrained the accused from installing the gate. But on the day of occurrence during previous night, the accused had installed the gate. He pushed the gate and the gate fell down. Thereafter the accused went in his room and brought a double barrel gun and fired bullet while aiming at his nephew Punit. He and his brothers were also present there. The bullet fired by the accused did not hit his nephew Punit and the accused hit butt of his gun on the S.C. No.: 87/2006 5/19 shoulder of Tejpal and that butt of the gun was broken. He further stated that in the meantime he informed the police on 100 number and police came there. Public persons also came there. He further stated that accused tried to hit second bullet but he could not succeed and thereafter, accused hit the butt of his gun on the person of his brother Tejpal. He further stated that the police apprehended and arrested the accused and his statement was recorded by the police in this regard. The witness further identified the case property in the court.
16. PW4 is Punit Chauhan, the complainant, PW7 is Raj Pal, uncle of the complainant and PW9 is Tej Pal Singh, the injured as well as another uncle of the complainant. They all have deposed on the lines of PW2 . They also identified the accused as well as case property in the court.
17. PW10 is Head Constable Naresh Kumar who on receipt of the information regarding the quarrel alongwith Head Constable Jagat Singh reached at the spot. In his presence, IO got the scene of crime inspected from crime team, recorded the statement of witnesses and took into possession weapon of offence recovered at the instance of accused Harvinder Singh.
18. PW15 is ASI Mahender Singh, IO of the case who conducted the investigation of the case, prepared the site plan, arrested the accused, recorded the statement of witnesses, sent the exhibits of the case for expert opinion and after completion of investigation, filed the challan in S.C. No.: 87/2006 6/19 the court.
19. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused denied the case of prosecution and stated that no such occurrence took place. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case because the complainant and his family members want to grab his property bearing no. 2648 A, Shadi Khampur, Main Bazar, measuring 300 sq. yds.
20. Accused further chose to lead evidence in defence and examined one witness in his defence.
21. DW1 is Sh. Gurdev Singh, son of accused who stated that he is residing at house No. 2648, Shadipur, Main Bazar, New Delhi as a tenant since his birth. The witness also brought the original rent receipt issued to him by the landlord and stated that his father is owner of the premises No. 2648A, Shadipur, Main Bazar, New Delhi and at present they are in possession of the same and his father had purchased premises no. 2648A Shadipur, Main Bazar, New Delhi in the year 1984 from one Dalip Singh.
22. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for accused as well as Ld. APP for the state and have carefully perused the record.
23. Ld. Defence counsel argued that no case U/s 307 IPC is made out against the accused and neither any intention nor knowledge has been proved against the accused and at the most, only case U/s 324 IPC can be made out against the accused. In his written arguments, Ld. Defence S.C. No.: 87/2006 7/19 counsel has pointed out to various discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses and submitted that in view of these discrepancies, no case is made out against the accused.
24. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state argued that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have duly supported the case of prosecution. They have duly stated that accused fired at the complainant Puneet Chauhan and also hit the injured Tejpal with butt of the gun. He further submitted that receipt of the injury is not a necessary ingredient for the purpose of section 307 IPC and minor discrepancies here and there in the statement of witnesses, does not go to the root of the case and prosecution has been fully able to establish its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt.
25. Section 307 IPC deals with attempt to murder. It reads as under: Section 307 IPC: Attempt to Murder: " Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned."
26. In order to prove its case U/s 307 IPC, prosecution is required S.C. No.: 87/2006 8/19 to prove the following ingredients:
(i) that the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of, the act of the accused;
(iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
27. PW1 in the present case is Constable Mithlesh Kumar, the DD writer. He has duly proved the DD regarding the quarrel at house no. 2648, Village Shadi Pur, Main Bazar, Delhi. His testimony has gone unrebutted and unshattered. From his testimony, it duly stands proved that DD regarding the quarrel at house no. no. 2648, Village Shadi Pur, Main Bazar, Delhi was duly received in the police station Patel Nagar at 100 number. From the testimony of PW1, it also stands proved that another DD was received at 9.28 A.M regarding the firing of bullet at house no. 2648, Shadi Pur Village, Main Bazar, Delhi.
28. PW2 is Pramod Kumar who is one of the eye witness of the case. This witness has duly supported the case of prosecution and has stated that he asked the accused to remove the gate as the accused had installed the gate during the previous night of the occurrence. He pushed the gate and the gate fell down. Thereafter accused went to his room and brought a double barrel gun and he fired the bullet while aiming at his S.C. No.: 87/2006 9/19 nephew Puneet. But the bullet did not hit his nephew Puneet and thereafter accused hit the butt of his gun on the shoulder of Tejpal and the butt of the gun was broken. The witness has duly identified the butt and double barrel gun which was broken as well as the fired cartridges. The cross of witness PW2 is relevant and some of the portion of cross of PW2 is extracted here as under: " We all three brothers and my nephew Puneet reached at the spot in the morning of 7.10.2005. It is incorrect to suggest that more than 20 persons from our house had gone to the spot on 7.10.2005. Before reaching the spot in the morning of 7.10.2005, I did not inform the police. When we reached at the spot, we found that the gate was already installed there and the raw cement was lying near the gate. The accused had got the gate cemented in the preceding night. It is incorrect to suggest that the gate was installed 34 days prior to 7.10.2005.
When I reached at the spot on 7.10.2005 the accused was standing in front of the gate. I did not inform the police even after reaching at the spot. We rather asked the accused to remove the gate. We were standing at the place where the rooms were constructed and the accused was standing in front of the gate. Accused Harvinder was in possession of 2/3 rooms which were approximately 10/20metres away from the place where the accused was standing at that time. One tree which was cut and some scrap (kabad) including the old tyres were lying in the vacant plot. We ourselves removed the gate. We pushed the gate which fell down. We were only four when the quarrel took place and someone from the public had called the police ".
29. PW3 is SI Anil Kumar from Mobile Crime Team who inspected the scene of crime and stated that one used/empty cartridge of 12 bore and one live cartridge of 12 bore were found lying on the ground. S.C. No.: 87/2006 10/19 The testimony of this witness has also remained unrebutted and uchallenged.
30. PW4 is witness Puneet Chauhan. Though this witness has stated that accused fired the bullet while aiming them and has not specifically stated that accused fired the bullet while aiming him but this discrepancy in the statement of PW2 and PW4 is minor and can be overlooked as both the witnesses have stated that accused fired from his gun while aiming at PW2, PW4, PW7 and PW9. Merely because the witness had not seen the father of accused or is not able to tell when he died or where he died or if he died before the birth of PW4 or not, does not mean that the incident did not take place or that the accused did not fire at PWs. The cross of PW4 is extracted here under which also shows the admission on the part of accused that the incident took place: " I was not present at the site on 2.10.2005 and on 4.10.2005 when the tree was cut. The place of occurrence is approximately 1 Km away from my residence. I was informed by my uncle Tajpal that the accused has affixed a gate on their plot on the intevening night of 6.10.2005 and 7.10.2005. On the day of occurrence, I was doing a Pvt. Job in Naraina.
The gate on which the occurrence took place was affixed with cement and concrete and I saw the same when I reached there. I do not remember if there was any building material or "Ballis" which are used to affixed the gate were there or not when I reached there. I alongwith my uncles Rajpal, Tejpal and Pramod went at the place of occurrence.
When accused Harvinder was loading the bullet in his gun, I and my uncles remained standing there. I and my uncles were standing in the plot and tenants were standing on the other side of the plot. The S.C. No.: 87/2006 11/19 plot was vacant and waste material was lying there which was of the brother of accused . The bullet which was fired by the accused did not hit me. But it passed aside my arm. It is wrong to suggest that I alongwith my uncles went at the place of occurrence alongwith approximately 20 other persons.
The accused tried to relaoad his gun but one bullet fell down. I had stated before the police in my statement that two bullets fell down on the ground. The accused had loaded the bullet at second time. The accused had hit the butt of his gun on the left shoulder of my uncle Tejpal. My uncle did not receive any external injury with which blood was oozed. No fracture was caused to my uncle Tejpal in that incident. Neither I nor my abovesaid uncles went to the hospital for our medical examination nor the police took us for our medical examination. My statement was recorded at the place of occurrence. Statement of my uncles and other witnesses were also recorded at the place of occurrence. I do not know in which manner the police had seized the guns and bag of bullets. The police had not prepared sealed parcels of the guns and bag of bullets. I do not remember if I signed on any other paper or not but I had signed on his statement ".
31. Merely because no papers were shown by the public witnesses at the spot regarding their plot is no ground to throw away the case of prosecution. The present case is a criminal case U/s 307 IPC and not a suit for possession of any land filed against the accused by the complainant.
32. PW7 and PW9 have also deposed on the lines of PW2 and PW4 and some portions of the cross examination of PW7 are extracted here under which fortifies the case of prosecution regarding the incident: S.C. No.: 87/2006 12/19 " It is wrong to suggest that 1998 property No.2648A has been mutated in the name of Havinder Singh and he is paying the house tax for the same. It is wrong to suggest that since we want to grab the property of the accused, therefore he has been falsely implicated in this case. We have constructed a residential premises in the area of 135 square yards. It is wrong to suggest that we want to grab the property of the accused.
On 2.10.2005 I reached at the place in the noon time. The time must be around 10 am, 11 am or 12 noon. I had gone to see the property. I saw the accused was fixing a gate which was newly installed. I had informed the police. I do not remember the time when the police reached at the spot. I showed my documents to the police but the accused did not show his documents. It is wrong to suggest that accused also showed his documents.
On 4.10.2005 we made the report to the police. We reached at the place in the day time. At that time accused was cutting the branches of the Banyan tree. It is wrong to suggest that accused was cutting the branches as the branches were creating hindrance in his movement. (vol. He had prepared to cut the tree).
When I reached at the spot I saw that the gate has been constructed at the spot and the construction was very fresh. The fresh concrete, badarpur and the bricks were also lying at the spot. When I reached first time in the morning, the accused was not at the spot. However, he was inside the room and came out from the room. After I informed my brother and nephew reached at the spot , accused Harvinder was standing with my nephew. In the month of October 2005 my tenants were not residing in my premises, however, they were my tenants and were residing as where. In front of plot no. 2648 there is a main road which is market. The market opens at about 10/10:30 a.m. When I came to the spot after informing my brother and nephew , no other person except my brothers, nephew and the accused was present there. It is incorrect to suggest that at least 20 more members of my family gathered at the spot. It is further wrong to suggest that I was not present at the spot.
S.C. No.: 87/2006 13/19
Heated conversation with the accused took place after the fall of the gate. The room where from the accused Harvinder had brought the gun is at the distance of 8/10 meters from the spot. The accused fired the shot from his gun at Puneet from the distance of 3 meters. Police was informed after the firing. After the firing about 1015 persons come to the spot. We were standing at the spot when the accused fired. My brother Tej Pal was standing by the side of Puneet and my brother Pramod was standing at some distance behind. I was standing at the distance of about 10 meters. The moment accused fired the shot my nephew Punet managed to escape. Had Puneet not manged to escape bullet would have hit him. The accused was loading the second cartridge but he failed to load. The accused had strike on the right shoulder of my brother by the butt. The public person might have called the police. The police reached at the spot after about 20/30 minutes. It is wrong to suggest that accused did not fire from his gun.
33. Some portions of the cross examination of PW9 are also extracted here under which belies the plea of accused that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant and his family members: " It is correct that there is no will in respect of plot no. 2648 A and there is no mention about this plot in the will. it is incorrect to suggest that my grand father had sold our plot no. 2648 A for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/ to the accused present in the court. I and my brothers have been depositing the house tax of our plot no. 2648.
I was present at the plot on 2.10.2005 and 4.10.2005. The accused tried to affix the gate and cut down the tree in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the plot on 2.10.2005 and 4.10.2005.
I showed the title document of plot No.2648. On 7.10.2005 I alongwith my brother Pramod Kumar and nephew Puneet Chauhan went to the place of occurrence. My other relatives came to the plot later on. When we started breaking the gate then the other brothers were also informed and they reached at the sport. We reached at the place of occurrence on 7.10.2005 at about 10 am in the morning. When we S.C. No.: 87/2006 14/19 reached at the spot, the gate was already errected/affixed there. The gate was affixed during the night time. It was cemented and there was no balli etc. to support it. The construction material was lying there. Before reaching the spot we did not inform the police. When we reached there accused present in the court was present there at the plot. When we were breaking the gate the accused resisted. It is wrong to suggest that we 2025 people reached at the spot and overpowered the accused. (vol. initially we three went at the spot.) The room from where the accused brought the gun is at the distance of about 15/20 paces. I cannot tell the number of tenants in the room. Those persons also came out from the tenanted premises during the quarrel. In front of the plot there is a gali and the front portion also lying vacate and there are residential premises in the neighbourhood including the shop. Lot of people collected at the spot. When accused fired the shot, so many public persons were there. We were standing at the distance of 4/5 feet from the accused when he fired. We kept standing when the accused brought the gun from his room. When accused fired, nobody got injured.
When the shot fired did not hit, the accused present in the court hit me with the butt of the gun on my left hand " .
34. This cross examination itself prove the fact that incident occurred on the date and accused fired at the complainant while aiming at them. No doubt the public witnesses examined in this case are all relatives but merely because they are the relatives is no ground to throw away their testimony. Moreover if these were the witnesses who were present at the spot then only they can depose about the incident happened with them .
35. In Vinay Kumar Rai and Another Vs. State of Bihar 2008 V AD (Cr.) (SC) 392 it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Para no. 6: Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being S.C. No.: 87/2006 15/19 relative of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. Para no.13: The over insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going away. When any incident happens in a dwelling house the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house, it is upragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsiders who would not have even seen any thing. If the court has discerned from the evidence or even from the investigation records that some other independent person has witnessed any event connecting the incident in question then there is justification for making adverse comments against nonexamination of such person as prosecution witness. Otherwise, merely on surmises the court should not castigate a prosecution for not examining other persons of locality as prosecution witnesses. Prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnesses the events and not those who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be replete with other residents also''.
36. So far as the non joining of independent public witnesses are concerned then it is of common knowledge that now a day in city like Delhi though a crowd collects at the spot whenever an incident takes place but hardly any one is willing to join the investigation for the fear of police or court rounds and present case is also no exception to this rule.
37. Regarding the testimony of other police officials, they joined S.C. No.: 87/2006 16/19 the IO during the investigation of this case and they are the important link witnesses of the case. Through their testimony, the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of link witnesses also.
38. PW14 is Sh. V.R. Anand, Senior Scientific Officer from Ballistic, FSL, Rohini who stated that the right barrel of DBBL gun F1 was designed to fire 12 bore cartridge and it was in working order. Test fire conducted successfully through the right barrel but test fire could not be conducted through the left barrel due to non availability of cartridge and the 12 bore cartridge A1 was live one.
39. So far as the intention or knowledge on the part of accused is concerned, it is not necessary that injury should have been caused for the purpose of invoking section 307 IPC.
40. In Mutalli AIR 1930 Lah 253: (1930) 31 Cri LJ 782 (Lah) it has been held that: " This section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. If a person knows that a certain result will ensue from his act he must be deemed to intend such result by the act. Further, it is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to caue the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient by law, if there is present an intent coupled with some over act in execution thereof. For purposes of S.C. No.: 87/2006 17/19 criminal liability, it is sufficient, if the attempt had gone so far, that the crime would have been completed, but for the extraneous intervention which frustrated its consummation. Where the High Court had acquitted of a charge under this section merely because the injuries inflicted on the victims were in the nature of a simple hurt, it was held to be an incorrect finding."
41. In Bipin Bihari (2006) 8 SCC 799 it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that: " For the purpose of constituting an attempt under this section there are two ingredients required, first an evil intent or knowledge, and, secondly, an act done. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under section 307 if thee is present an intent couoped with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under section 307. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under section 307 merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. The complainant was grazing his ox in his field when he found the accused carrying a gun restraining his sister in law from cutting the crop and on seeing the complainant, the accused brandished the gun and gave threat of dire consequences. Despite the threat, the complainant caught hold of the gun of the accused when the accused fired the gun and the bullet struck the right calf of the complainant, as a consequence of which the flesh of that region was ripped open. The accused was convicted for the offence ". S.C. No.: 87/2006 18/19
42. Accused after fighting with the complainant and his relatives went to his room, brought a gun, fired at the complainant and his relatives. Under no circumstances it can be said that accused had no intention or knowledge. Not only this, when the first bullet did not hit anyone accused tried to load the second one and when it could not be loaded he also attacked with the butt of his gun on the person of PW Tejpal. No doubt the intention or knowledge can be gathered only from the circumstantial evidence and there can be no direct evidence for the same but in the present case not only the knowledge but also the intention on the part of accused has been successfully proved by the prosecution. Accused not only brought the gun but also fired from the same. He also tried to load the gun again and when he did not succeed, he hit PW Tejpal with its butt. All these actions on the part of accused shows the means rea or criminal intention on the part of accused.
43. As such prosecution has been fully able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is, therefore, held guilty and convicted for the offence U/s 307 IPC.
(MADHU JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge01 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open court today i.e. On 02.11.2010 S.C. No.: 87/2006 19/19