Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Surinder Singh vs The Union Territory Of Chandigarh ... on 31 January, 2023

                  IN THE COURT OF MR. VISHAL GOGNE:
                     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­02
             (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

CNR No.DLET01­015045­2016
S.C. No.2394/2016
FIR No.347/2016
U/s 302/308 IPC
PS Mandawali

State
                               versus

Ganesh Prasad Shukla
S/o Late Sh. Badri Prasad Shukla
R/o 358/3A, Gali No.1, Hanuman Gali
Mandawali, Fajalpur, Delhi.                       ...Accused

Date of Institution            :     24.12.2016
Reserved for Judgment on       :     13.12.2022
Judgment pronounced on         :     31.01.2023


JUDGMENT

1. Accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla has faced trial under section 302 IPC for the murder of his son and under section 308 IPC for an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder of his daughter in law. A fire arm having been used by the accused in causing the death of his son also occasioned a charge under section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegations emerging from the FIR

2. The contents of the original complaint dated 09.09.2016 made by PW­2, which forms the basis of the FIR (Ex. PW5/A) may first be noted.

(i) The complainant stated in the original complaint (proved by her during deposition as Ex. PW2/A) that she was residing at the place of incident i.e. House No.358/3A, Ground Floor, Gali No.1, Hanuman Gali, Mandawali, Delhi with her family including her father in law and mother in law. She alleged that as she was cleaning the house in the afternoon on 09.09.2016, her father in law i.e. accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla abused her and rebuked her for not cleaning the house properly. As she objected and asked him to speak with greater respect with her, he again misbehaved with her and started abusing her. On a quarrel being picked by the accused with her, she implored him to recognise her self respect and to let her work.

However, the accused continued to quarrel with her.

(ii) The complainant now expressed to the accused that she would call her husband. This assertion from the complainant further infuriated the accused who then allegedly picked up a stick (danda) and hit the complainant on her head with this stick. The complainant stated that this caused her to become disoriented for a while. She then made a phone call to her husband namely Mahender Nath Shukla and asked him to come home quickly.

(iii) Her husband reached home at about 1:00 pm and the complainant narrated the incident to him. He immediately confronted the accused for having abused and misbehaved with his wife and pleaded with his father to rather address any grievances about her conduct to him.

(iv) Upon this plea from his son, the accused now started abusing him. When the complainant asked the accused to calm down, he infact became angrier and further threatened her. The complainant alleged that the accused picked up a single barrel gun already kept loaded in the room and pointed it towards her husband. Before the complainant and her husband could react, the accused fired on his son Mahender Nath Shukla with the said gun. The bullet hit him on the chest and he started bleeding from the wound. As the injured started crying from pain, the accused escaped from the house.

(v) The complainant now shouted for her neighbours and took her husband to Ram Lal Kundan Hospital, Parparganj Road, Delhi where the doctor declared him dead.

(vi) The complainant thus registered the complaint against the accused for committing the murder of her husband and for inflicting injuries upon her.

3. The FIR (Ex. PW5/A) consequently came to be registered under sections 308/302 IPC and section 27 Arms Act.

4. The accused was arrested two days later i.e. on 12.09.2016 and the gun as well as danda (wooden stick) in question were purportedly recovered at his instance from the place of incident i.e. his house.

5. The post mortem report (Ex. PW13/A) of the deceased recorded the cause of death to be "shock and hemorrhagic shock due to ante­mortem injury to chest and abdominal organs produced by projectile of Smooth Bore fire arm and sufficient to caused death in ordinary course of nature". The report found all the injuries upon the person of the deceased to be fresh in duration and ante­mortem in nature.

6. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court framed the following articles of charge against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

"That on 09.09.2016 at about 1:00 pm, at H. No.358/3A, Ground Floor, Gali no.1, Hanuman Gali, Mandawali, Delhi, within the jurisdic­ tion of PS Mandawali, you had wielded a danda blow on the head of Punam Mishra, with such intention or knowledge, and under such circum­ stances that, if by that act caused death of Punam Mishra, you would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and thereby you committed an offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide, punish­ able under Section 308 IPC, and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you had fired a gun shot on the chest of your son Mahender Nath, and thereby caused his death and committed an offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC, and within my cognizance.
Lastly, on 12.09.2016 during investigation, you got recovered a sin­ gle barrel gun from your house at 358/3A, Gali No.1, Hanuman Gali, Mandawali, Delhi­110092, which was used by you for firing gun shot on your son Mahender Nath, which was in contravention of section 5 of the Arms Act, and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by me for the aforesaid charge.
District & Sessions Judge, East KKD Courts, Delhi/18.01.2017

7. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in furtherance of the charge whereas the accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

8. The accused denied the allegations when the incriminating evidence was projected to him under section 313 Cr. PC.

Submissions on behalf of the State and the accused

9. It was submitted by the ld. Prosecutor during the course of final arguments that the complainant viz PW­2 had supported the allegations in entirety and described the assault upon her as well as her husband by the accused in support of the articles of charge. The prosecutor contended that the solitary eye witness account of PW­2 was sufficient proof of the offences and that the assault having occurred inside the house of the parties, there was no prospect either of an independent witness being present.

10. Further, that the deposition of the expert witnesses including the doctor who conducted the postmortem and the witnesses from the FSL had connected the injuries upon the deceased and PW­2 as well as the gun in question to the accused. Also, that the chain of police witnesses deposed cogently qua the various steps in investigation.

11. In response, the ld. Counsel for the accused referred to certain portions of the deposition of PW­2 to argue that her presence at the exact moment of the alleged firing by the accused upon his son was doubtful. It was submitted by the counsel that the benefit of competing constructions must accrue to the accused. The counsel also agitated that none of the available neighbours had been joined to the investigation to at least reflect the immediate aftermath of the incident including the movement of the injured husband of PW­2 to the hospital. The absence of a corroborative eye witness was represented by the counsel to be a circumstance diluting the credibility of PW­2.

12. It was submitted in the context of the deposition of the expert witnesses that their testimony could not be construed as ruling out a self inflicted fatal injury by the deceased. The counsel argued that when the presence of PW­2 itself was doubtful at the time of incident, any corroborative effect of the statements of expert witnesses would get negated.

Analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution

13. The most material deposition in support of the articles of charge against the accused was rendered on behalf of the prosecution by the solitary eye witness viz complainant Poonam Mishra as PW­2. The testimony of this witness is thus discussed at the outset.

Sole eyewitness/complainant (PW­2)

14. In a complete reading of her deposition, the Court finds her to have credibly supported the allegations first made by her in the complaint Ex. PW2/A.

15. To elucidate, PW­2 explained the preface of the incident dated 09.09.2016 by deposing that as she was cleaning her house around noon on 09.09.2016, her father in law namely Ganesh Prasad Shukla, whom she identified in Court, abused her and expressed the grievance that she was not cleaning the house properly. Further, that he misbehaved with her even upon her requesting him to behave properly and not abuse her. PW­2 reiterated that despite her objections, the accused continued to abuse her and misbehave with her.

16. This introductory portion of her examination in chief was in complete consonance with the description of the events leading upto the assault on her and her husband which she had given in her complaint Ex. PW2/A. There is no particular reason for the Court to disbelieve the quarrel having occurred prior to the assault.

17. The Ld. Counsel for the accused had referred to PW­2 admitting during cross examination that she and her husband had never filed any previous complaint against the accused for any misbehaviour on his part. This circumstance is of no mitigating value for the quarrel initiated by the accused with PW­2 over a trivial issue relating to cleaning of the house. The lack of any previous complaint is not an adequate basis for the inference that no incident occurred on 09.09.2016 either. The opposing inference may rather be more favourably accepted inter alia that the accused is a person with a short temper and intolerant towards his daughter in law (the complainant).

18. PW­2 next described the incident of assault in similar corroboration of her previous statement when she deposed that the accused picked up a danda during the course of the quarrel and inflicted a blow on her head with the said danda. Also, that blood then started oozing from her head. The witness also described the subsequent events by deposing that she made a call from her mobile phone 7838883063 to the mobile phone number 9971931966 of her husband i.e. Mahender Nath Shukla and asked him to come soon. She stated that her husband reached the house at about 1:00 pm and she narrated the incident to him. Further, that her husband confronted the accused as to why he was abusing, misbehaving and quarreling with her. PW­2 described the accused as having rebuked her husband stating that he was misbehaving with him despite residing in his house. The accused then next stated that he would "see" him (the husband of PW­2).

19. The above account of events commencing from infliction of the danda blow by the accused upon the head of PW­2 and leading upto him threatening his son for coming to the aid of his wife amply highlights the continuum of anger, quarrel and violence emanating from the accused. The accused, rather than being assuaged by the intervention of his son or being subdued by his support for his wife, became more volatile as apparent from his rebuking his son.

20. Here, the Court must refer to a significant link in the chain of evidence inter alia the deposition of the nodal officer from Vodafone (PW­10) who was examined in corroboration of the statement of complainant PW­2 to the extent that she had made a telephonic call from her mobile no.7838883063 to her husband on his mobile phone no.9971931966 after the accused had inflicted a danda blow to her head at the time of incident.

21. PW­10 proved the customer application form, election ID card and call detail records for mobile phone no. 7838883063 in the name of deceased M N Shukla alongwith the certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW10/A to Ex. PW10/D respectively. The other mobile phone No. 9971931966 was also deposed to be in the name of deceased Mahender Nath Shukla. PW­10 similarly proved the customer application form, election ID card and call detail records for mobile phone no. 9971931966 in the name of deceased M N Shukla alongwith the certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW10/E to Ex. PW10/H respectively.

22. A perusal of the call detail record (Ex. PW10/G) of mobile No. 9971931966 reveals that a phone call was indeed exchanged between this phone number and the other mobile phone in the name of the deceased i.e. 7838883063 at about 1:02 pm on the date of incident i.e. 09.09.2016. This technical evidence corroborates the statement of PW­2 firstly with respect to her placing the time of the quarrel to be about 1:00 pm and secondly regarding her having made a call from mobile phone No. 7838883063 to the mobile phone no.9971931966 of her husband after the accused quarreled with her and inflicted a danda blow to her head.

23. PW­2 next described the immediate aftermath which constitutes the core of the charge under section 302 IPC. She deposed that :

"Before we could understand anything, accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla took a gun and fired at my husband Mahender Nath Shukla and bullet hit on the left side chest of my husband Mahender Nath Shukla as a result of which blood started oozing out from his chest. My husband Mahender Nath Shukla fell down.
Thereafter, accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla fled away from there. I shouted as well as on hearing sound of fire, neighbours cam there. I removed my husband Mahender Nath Shukla to Ram Lal Kundan Lal Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi, where doctor declared him dead."

24. This account of the causation of death of the husband of PW­2 is not only in conformity with the allegations in the FIR but is also an unambiguous and direct incrimination of the accused in committing the murder of Mahender Nath Shukla. A person aiming a gun at the victim from close quarters and firing upon the chest of the victim is an overwhelming proof of the intention with which the act was committed. The only outcome intended by firing at the chest of his son at close quarters was the death of the victim. Both ­ by reason of the nature of the weapon and the locus of the injury i.e. the left side chest of the victim, the intention of the accused can only be determined to have been to kill his son.

25. Clause Firstly of section 300 IPC invites complete application in the above description of the act of the accused in firing at his son. The said provision reads as under:

300. Murder.­Except 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 ­ .......

26. Illustration (a) to section 300 IPC is an instance of an act falling within the description of clause Firstly and reads as under:

(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.

27. With the aggression from the preceding quarrel that he picked with PW­2, continuing with his assault upon PW­2 and merging into a continued state of acrimony with his son, accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla was evidently in such infuriated a mental state that his act of picking up a gun and shooting his son in the chest is commensurate only with it being held to be an act done with the intention of causing death. The deposition of PW­2 actualises section 300, Firstly, against the accused.

28. Besides, the act of firing from a long barrel gun at a vital part of the body also constitutes an act satisfying the requirements of clause Fourthly of section 300 IPC which reads as under:

300. Murder. ­.......

Fourthly.­ If 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 excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

29. Illustration (d) to section 300 IPC illustrates clause Fourthly as under :

(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.

30. Although the actions of the accused lie wholly within the ambit of clause Firstly, any residual doubt about his intention are dispelled when it is determined, on the standards of a prudent person in law, that firing a gun in the close confines of a room where his son was directly in front of him was per se an act carrying imminent danger within the exact contemplation of clause Fourthly.

31. The Ld. Counsel for the accused had sought to doubt the credibility of PW­2 citing her cross examination dated 10.11.2017 when she seemingly admitted that the gun shot was not fired in her presence.

32. The court must reproduce the relevant extract from her cross examination to understand its contents and import.

33. PW­1 stated during her cross examination on 10.11.2017 as under:

"I do not remember if I had stated to the police in my statement that neighbours had collected on hearing the gunfire sound. It is correct that the gunshot was not fired in my presence. I do not remember if I had stated to the police regarding shifting of my husband along with our two tenants in cycle rickshaw and auto to the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that I am feigning ignorance deliberately or that I did not state the aforesaid facts to the police or that I did not shift my deceased husband to the hospital at any point of time and for the same reason my blood stained clothes were collected by the police as no such smearing occurred. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present in the house when the gun shot was fired or that I had gone to the school to bring my younger child Harsh".

34. If the above excerpt from her cross examination is seen in entirety, what emerges is that though PW­2 admitted as correct that the gun shot was not fired in her presence, she maintained the consistency of her examination in chief by denying the suggestion that she was not present in the house when the gun shot was fired or that she had gone to school to bring home her owner's child. The court would observe that there is indeed a cause for the court to consider the effect of the admission noted above. Yet, it is an uncertain approach for the court to place greater reliance on a standalone statement during deposition to the detriment of what is otherwise a consistent statement in corroboration of the initial version of the complaint.

35. Not only did PW­2 deny the suggestion that she was not present at the house at the time when the gun shot was fired, she also reiterated during re­examination by the prosecutor on 31.01.2018 as under:

"XXXX by Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State. Question: On 22.08.17, in your examination in chief, you had specifically stated that accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla took a gun and fired at your husband Mahender Nath Shukla and bullet hit on the left side chest of your husband as a result of which blood started oozing out from his chest and he fell down and thus, accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla committed murder of your husband by causing gun shot injury, whereas, in your cross
- examination dated 10.11.17 at page ­3, you have admitted it as correct that the gun shot was not fired in your presence. Which of your statement is correct?
Answer: I do not know as to what was asked in the questions but the gun shot was fired by the accused at my husband, as a result of which, he was killed.

36. The witness thus reiterated the consistent allegation that it was the accused who had fired at her husband thereby causing his death.

37. PW­2 also did not admit the rather outlandish defence sought to be projected to her viz the deceased having himself inflicted the gun shot injury to commit suicide. When this version was put to her as a suggestion during cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused on 10.11.2017, she replied as under:

"It is wrong to suggest that deceased took out the licence gun of the accused and tried to fire the same upon himself to commit suicide, if his demand is not met by the accused. It is wrong to suggest that accused tried to pacify the deceased that he will make a will to the said transfer, but deceased insisted that accused should transfer the house immediately and that the deceased committed suicide. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident occurred in my presence or no proceedings in the present case were conducted in my presence or that my signatures were taken on the memos subsequently by the IO".

38. It is quite evident that the repeated questioning of the witness during cross examination by the accused and re­examination by the prosecutor had a disconcerting effect upon her so as to cause her to state that she did not know as to what was asked in the questions but she still maintained fidelity to her original complaint by deposing that the gun shot was fired by the accused at her husband.

39. The court must not confuse the destabilizing effect caused upon witnesses during court examination with their credibility as witnesses. It is the holistic reading of the examination in chief, cross examination and re­examination which must dictate the findings from the court. Seen in continuity, the court finds the witness to have consistently identified the accused as the assailant who fired at her husband with a gun. The court also finds the witness to have been steadfast in denying suggestions to the contrary and to have positively confirmed the manner of the incident viz shooting of the victim by his father.

40. The last bit of deposition, which emanated from the further cross examination of the witness (after she had been re­examined by the prosecutor) may still be noticed.

41. PW­2 stated in further cross examination by the counsel for the accused on 31.01.2018 that :

"Although, I have given said statement but it is true that the gun shot was not fired in my presence as I was inside my house when the fire was shot and at that time, my mother in law, accused and other tenants were there in the house and deceased had come from the outside".

42. The above excerpt is as much a creation of the imperfect language in which the statement came to be recorded as it is an expression of the version of the witness. The court can decipher from the broken content of the above cross examination that PW2 still reiterated that she was inside the house when the shot was fired and that her mother in law, accused and other tenants were also present whereas the deceased had come from outside. Again, the introduction of other persons in the answer is more a function of how the question was framed to the witness rather than being a non supportive account given by the witness.

43. In sum, the court finds PW­2 to have cogently identified her father in law i.e. accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla to have fatally shot her husband with a gun.

44. The alternate version of a suicide by the deceased remains completely improbable. It is not only the denial of the above suggestion by PW­2 but also the sheer improbability of a person picking up a long barrel gun to somehow position it against his chest and cause a bullet injury which travels down wards in the body. It is noticed from the postmortem report Ex.PW13/A and its reiteration by the doctor who conducted the postmortem (PW­13) that the bullet entered the chest cavity by making a hole over the rib cage between the fourth and fifth rib and travelled backwards in the downward direction to pierce the left lung, shatter the heart and then pierce the posterior part of the diaphragm. The bullet travelled further to lacerate the left lobe of the liver. Such an angle for a self inflicted injury is too unusual and improbable for the Court to accept only on the basis of a suggestion floated during cross examination by the counsel for the accused. That the suggestions were denied takes away any hope from the virtually impossible version of suicide by the deceased.

45. The ld. Counsel for the accused had also referred to the cross examination of PW­2 to highlight that two neighbours (named by her as Dinesh Bisht and Sunita Bisht) had been described by her as having helped in the shifting of her husband to a hospital. It was pointed out that these neighbours had not been cited as witnesses.

46. The court would express that while these witnesses could have offered supporting testimony regarding the efforts to provide medical attention to the victim, they were not eye witnesses to the incident. Thus, their not being joined to the investigation may only be classified as an omission in investigation but not detrimental to the charge against the accused.

47. It may be observed that there is no rule in evidence requiring corroboration of the sole eye witness. If the eye witness is credible in her account, the rule of prudence requiring corroboration is not to be employed to defeat an otherwise believable account.

48. The court finds PW­2 to be a truthful and credible witness who has established firstly that the accused inflicted a danda blow on her head and secondly that he killed her husband with a gun shot injury.

49. The next quest in linking the chain of evidence is to decide the following four facts in issue:

(i) whether the gun in question was indeed recovered from the accused.
(ii) whether the medical evidence supports the manner infliction of injuries/cause of death as deposed by PW­2.
(iii) whether the gun in question was used to fire the fatal projectile.
(iv) whether the articles/clothes of the deceased, pellets recovered from his body and the blood samples are relatable to injuries caused by the fatal projectile.

50. These aspects are next discussed by the Court.

Fact in issue no.(i) Whether the gun in question was indeed recovered from the accused.

Proof of the recovery, identification and use of the gun (and danda).

51. Two police witnesses inter alia Constable Lalit Kumar (PW­1) and the IO i.e. Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh (PW­18) deposed regarding the circumstances of the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the weapons of offence at his instance.

52. PW­1 deposed that on 12.09.2016, the accused had been arrested near Sanjay Jheel, Pandav Nagar, Delhi at the instance of a secret informer through arrest memo (Ex. PW1/B). Further, upon him making a disclosure statement (Ex.PW1/D), the accused had been taken to his house i.e. the place of incident where he got recovered a single barrel gun alongwith three live cartridges from the box of a bed. The accused also told the police team that the fired cartridge was still lodged in the barrel of the gun. The fired cartridge was then recovered from the barrel of the gun bearing No. 12474A/9­1973. The 0.12 bore gun was found to bear the inscription "cooperative society limited". The sketch of the gun and cartridges was proved as Ex. PW1/E and the seizure memo of the same was proved as Ex. PW1/F.

53. The accused also got recovered one danda from the box of the bed. This danda was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex. PW1/G.

54. The IO (PW­18) corroborated the version of PW­1 regarding the arrest of the accused, recording of his disclosure statement and recovery of the weapons of offence through Ex. PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G respectively.

55. It is seen that the identity of the arms licence recovered from the personal search of the accused was not disputed by the counsel for the accused during the examination in chief of PW­1. The personal search memo was Ex. PW1/C mentions the recovery of the arms licence with the following particulars:

Licence NBP Gun .12 bore No.1247HA/9 valid till 1.11.2017 vide licence No. EDMI/11/1984/12

56. The personal search memo depicts the details of the licence as relating to a 0.12 bore gun and being valid till 01.11.2017. The number of the gun is mentioned as 1247HA/9 in this memo. The same number finds mention in the sketch of the gun on the sketch Ex.PW18/G. It is thus not in any measure of doubt that the accused was holding a valid licence for the gun recovered from him.

57. PW­2 identified the gun and danda (Ex. P1 and P4) as being the weapons used by the accused to fire at her husband and hit her on her head respectively.

58. The deposition of PW­2 in identifying the weapons of offence was not subjected to any potent challenge during cross examination. As a resident of the same house with her father in law and husband, PW­2 can reasonably be expected to have been aware of the existence and identity of a fire arm kept by her father in law. Her familiarity with the single barrel gun i.e. Ex. P1 can be presumed on ordinary standards of prudence. Besides, she also actively saw the gun in the hands of the accused at the time of the incident. She also had occasion to see the danda (Ex.P4) with which he hit her. Her identification of both weapons of offence is therefore believed by the Court.

59. The gun Ex. P1 and the danda Ex. P4 are held to be proved as the weapons used in assaulting the deceased and PW­2.

60. It may be highlighted that the absence of other eye witnesses was still compensated by the allied testimony of the expert witnesses which acted to corroborate the deposition of PW­2. Corroboration emerged in the following three contexts:

(i) Corroborative Medical Evidence/Post mortem Report
(ii) Corroborative Ballistic Evidence.
(iii) Corroborative Biological/serological evidence.

These expert opinions are next taken up in context of the remaining facts in issue.

Fact in issue no. (ii) whether the medical evidence supports the manner of infliction of injuries/cause of death as deposed by PW­2. A. Corroborative Forensic Evidence/Post mortem Report of deceased Mahender Nath Shukla

61. Two doctors (PW­15 and PW­13) were examined in support of the cause of death of deceased Mahender Nath Shukla.

62. PW­15 (Dr. Ajeet Kumar Gupta) deposed that patient Mahender Nath Shukla was declared brought dead on the MLC dated 09.09.2016 prepared by Dr. Ankit whose signatures he identified on the said MLC Ex. PW15/A. He also proved the handing over documents of the body prepared in the handwriting of Dr. Ankit as Ex. PW15/B.

63. The next witness examined for proving the cause of death was the doctor who conducted the postmortem upon the deceased. Dr S Lal (PW­13) conducted the post mortem of deceased Mahender Nath Shukla. The postmortem report was proved as Ex. PW13/A while the 15 inquest papers were identified as Ex. PW13/B1 to Ex. PW13/B15.

64. The witness described the course of the postmortem examination in detail. At the outset, he noted that the blue colour shirt worn by the victim was having a tear mark of the size 4 x 3 cm on left side upper middle front of chest area over pocket not associated with any blackening and singeing. Further, that the torn area of the shirt was corresponding to the wounds present over the body. The vest worn by the victim was also having a tear mark of size 6x4 cm on left side middle upper front of chest area not associated with any blackening and singeing. The tear mark on the vest was corresponding to the wound on the body. Another tear was noticed over the right lateral aspect but not corresponding to the wound over the body. A violet colour chunni was wrapped around the wound over the chest and soaked in blood.

65. The injuries found by PW­13 upon external and internal examination of the body are reproduced below from his deposition dated 05.01.2019 as under:

"On external examination, following injuries are found:
Fire arm entry wound of size 4 x 3 cm x chest cavity deep over left side upper middle front of chest over nipple. The wound was placed 6.5 cm left to mid line of chest. The wound was not associated with blackening, singeing and tattooing around the wound. The wound entered the chest cavity by making a whole of size 7 x 4 over rib cage is on 4th & 5th rib and goes backward and downward direction to pierce to left lung at inter lobular fissure and shattered the heart and then pierce the posterior part of diaphragm and lacerated the left lobe of liver. On dissection 26 numbers of pellets alongwith wad and cardboard disc were recovered from lung, heart and from the liver. About 2 liters of blood seen in chest cavity.
On internal examination, the injury over lungs, chest wall, heart and liver mentioned as above. All the viscera of the deceased were pale. The stomach contain about 200 ml of semi digestive food material and wall was NAD. (No abnormality was detected)".

66. PW­13 testified that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to anti­ mortem injury to chest and abdominal organs produced by projectile of smooth bore fire arms and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further stated that all injuries were ante­mortem in nature and fresh in duration. The time since death was stated to be 24 hours.

67. It is quite evident from the deposition of PW­13 that the tear marks on the shirt and vest of the deceased as well as the location of the entry wound of the fire arm were in consonance with the description by PW­2 of the accused having fired at the chest of her husband. The determination by PW­13 that death was caused due to a projectile of a smooth bore fire arm confirms that the victim died from a gun shot injury as described by PW­2.

B. Injuries upon complainant Poonam Mishra (PW­2).

68. The MLC of Poonam Mishra, also prepared by Dr. Ankit, was proved by PW­ 15 as a document previously identified as Ex. PW3/C. It may be noted that while the said document was not deemed to have been proved by PW­3, the same was proved by PW­15 through his identification of the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who prepared this MLC viz Dr. Ankit.

69. A perusal of the MLC/injury report (Ex. PW3/C) of PW­2 reveals the presence of a contused lacerated wound over the scalp, of the dimension 2.5x1 cm, with active bleeding from the wound. This injury, notwithstanding the want of an opinion regarding the nature of the same, was on a vital part of the body i.e. the head and is commensurate not only with the history recorded (in Ex.PW3/C) as assault by father in law Ganesh Prasad Shukla using a stick but is also relatable to the deposition of PW­2 inter alia that the accused struck her on the head with a danda (stick). The medical evidence thus establishes an assault on PW­2 by the accused in the manner described by her.

Fact in issue no.(iii) whether the gun in question was used to fire the fatal projectile.

Corroborative ballistic evidence

70. Corroboration regarding the gun Ex. P1 being the weapon of offence in commission of the murder of the victim emerged from the expert witness from the FSL i.e. PW­16 who was the Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) from the FSL. This witness proved his report Ex. PW16/A and also identified the full sleeve shirt and vest with a bullet hole on the front left side, one pant with belt, one underwear, one envelope containing handkerchief and chunni as Ex. PW16/A1 (Colly.). He also proved 26 pellets and two pieces of wad as Ex. PW16/A2. This witness also identified the single barrel gun purportedly used in the incident as Ex. P1. Three 12 bore live cartridges and one 12 bore cartridge case were proved as Ex. P2 and P3 respectively.

71. The result of the examination conducted by PW16, as reflected in his report Ex. PW16/A was as under:

(1) The single barrel breech loaded (SBBL) gun 12 bore marked exhibit 'F1' is designed to fire a standard 12 bore cartridge. It is in working order in its present condition. Test fire conducted successfully.
(2) Three 12 bore cartridge marked exhibits 'A1' to 'A3' were attempted to test fire through the single barrel breech loaded (SBBL) gun 12 bore marked exhibit 'F1' above, but resulted in the misfired cartridges.
(3) One 12 bore cartridge from laboratory stock was test fired through the single barrel breech loaded (SBBL) gun 12 bore marked exhibit 'F1' above, the test fired cartridge case was marked as 'TC1'.
(4) Twenty six pellets marked exhibits 'P1' to 'P26' correspond to the pellets of 12 bore cartridge.
(5) Two pieces of wad marked exhibits 'W1' & 'W2' correspond to the part(s) of wad(s) of a 12 bore cartridge.
(6) The individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on evidence fired cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' and on the misfired cartridges marked as 'A1' to'A3' and test fired cartridge case marked as 'TC1' were examined and compared under the Comparison Microscope Model Leica DMC and were found identifical. Hence, the evidence cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' has been fired through the single barrel breech loaded (SBBL) gun 12 bore marked exhibit 'F1' above.
(7) The suspected bullet hole marked 'H1' on the full sleeves shirt marked exhibit 'C1' and suspected bullet hole marked 'H2' on the baniyan marked exhibit 'C2' alongwith their control sample were analyzed for the detection of gunshot residue particles (GSR) on Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS). As a result of analysis, gunshot residue (GSR) particles were detected around the suspected bullet hole marked 'H1' on the full sleeves shirt marked exhibit 'C1' and constituent of gunshot residue (GSR) particles i.e. element lead was detected round the suspected bullet hole marked 'H2' on the baniyan marked exhibit 'C2'.
(8) The exhibit marked 'F1'/EC1, 'P1' to 'P26', 'W1' and 'W2' are firearm/ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959.

72. The Court would point out that the cartridge case Ex. P3 (marked as Ex. EC1) in his report Ex. PW16/A was the cartridge recovered from the barrel of the gun which had been seized from the house of the accused through seizure memo Ex. PW1/F whereas the sketch of the said gun alongwith the empty cartridges (and three live cartridges) was Ex. PW1/E. The empty cartridge Ex. P3 had apparently remained in the barrel after the gun was fired at the victim by his father. The finding from PW­16 that Ex. P3 had indeed been fired through the single barrel breech loaded gun (Ex. P1), which was in working order, leaves no element of doubt that accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla used this gun to fire the fatal shot at the victim.

73. Since the import of evidence is always in clusters of depositions read together or the entire evidence seen together, the combined effect of the identification of the gun Ex. P1 by PW­2 and the expert opinion rendered by PW­16 is that the gun in question is proved beyond doubt to have been used by the accused to fire the projectile through cartridge case Ex. P3 at his son Mahender Nath Shukla.

74. The detection of gun shot residue particles (GSR) around the bullet holes on the full sleeve shirt (Ex. C1) and the vest (Ex. C2) of the deceased, as reflected in the report Ex. PW16/A further connects the gun, cartridge and entry holes on the clothes of the deceased to the act of the accused in firing at the victim, as deposed by PW­2. The detailed description of the fire arm entry wound in the chest cavity over the left side upper middle front of chest over nipple, in the postmortem report (Ex. PW13/A) reiterated by PW­13 which was referred to in the earlier part of this judgment further brings the findings of the Ballistic Expert (PW­16) in allignment with the allegation of the accused having shot his son in the chest.

Fact in issue no. (iv) whether the articles/clothes of the deceased, pellets recovered from his body and the blood samples are relatable to injuries caused by the fatal projectile.

Biological/Serological Evidence

75. PW­17 was the examiner from biological division from CFSL who deposed that blood had been found on most of the material including cloth gauze, shirt, vest, underwear, chunni, mosaic floor. The serological reports were proved as Ex. PW17/A and Ex. PW17/B respectively. The report Ex. PW17/A dated 27.03.2017 recorded the result of analysis as disclosing blood on all exhibits except the pieces of the mosaic floor described as earth control. The report Ex. PW17/B, also dated 27.03.2017, which was essentially a report of serological examination found the blood on the exhibits to be of human origin and to be of the 'AB' Group. The blood of this blood group was found on Pieces of mosaic floor, Gauze cloth piece, Blood stained gauze as well as Open shirt, Pants, Underwear, Pellets and Wads (Ex. PW16/A1 and Ex. PW16/A2).

76. It may be noted that PW­13 had deposed regarding the extraction of 26 pellets alongwith wad from the lung, heart and liver of the deceased during the postmortem.

77. Essentially, the blood stained clothes and pellets conclusively proved the deceased to have suffered a fatal injury from the pellets fired through cartridge Ex. P3 cited by PW­16.

78. Seen in conjunction, the postmortem report, ballistics report and serological reports are in confirmation of the version of PW­2 relating to a gun shot wound having been inflicted by the accused upon her husband by firing at him from a single barrel gun (Ex. P1).

Police witnesses

79. The Court would observe that the material sequence of events constituting incrimination of the accused in causing the death of his son by intentional firing from the gun Ex. P1 and inflicting a blow upon the head of PW­2 using the danda Ex. P4 have been proved through the cogent and mutually supportive testimonies of PW­2, PW­13, PW­16, PW­17 as well as the recovery witnesses viz PW­1 and PW­18.

80. The Court may, however, in the interest of addressing all facets of evidence, still examine the string of police witnesses in the sequence in which they became a part of the present investigation or its allied aspects.

81. The most initial interface with the allegations occurred with woman constable Shashi Bala (PW­8) who deposed that on 09.09.2016 she had received a call from Sanjeev Gupta at about 1:25 pm to the effect that "Ek aadmi ko goli mar di hai". Since this witness was posted at the CPCR (PHQ) on the said date, her proof of the PCR form (Ex. PW8/A) is beyond any doubt. This witness was not cross examined either. A perusal of the PCR form does reveal the above information regarding the person having been shot. As such, the Court treats it as proved that information regarding a person having shot soon after the occurrence at about 1:00 pm was indeed received by the PCR at about 1:22 pm.

82. The next witness of note regarding the information of the incident was PW­6 (ASI Deshraj) who proved DD No. 23A (Ex. PW3/A) from the Daily Diary Register for 09.09.2016 at PS Mandawali. This witness deposed that at about 1:25 pm, the wireless operator had informed him that one man had been shot at house No. 358 near Hanuman Mandir, Mandawali, Delhi. This information was recorded by PW­6 as DD No. 23A. The above address was the place of incident viz the residence of the deceased and his family.

83. PW­6 stated that having passed on this information to the SHO, the later directed him to send Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh (PW­18) to the spot. PW­6 further deposed that he recorded the departure of Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh and Constable Vikas Tyagi in DD No. 23A. Also, that at about 2:10 pm, a wireless operator again informed him that a patient had reached the RK hospital, Pandav Nagar near Parparganj Road and the caller had disclosed the address of the place of incident to be house No. 358/3A, Gali No. 1, Hanuman Gali, Mandawali. This information was also reduced as a DD entry of the description DD No. 25A by PW­6 who proved the same as Ex. PW6/A.

84. The deposition of PW­6 was thus in continuity of the statement given by the PCR official (PW­8).

85. An associated witness regarding the initial information of the incident was PW­ 11 ASI Yogender Singh who was posted at the PCR and who deposed that he had received a call from the control room regarding a person being shot at the above address. Further, that he had reached the spot and found a crowd to be present. He learnt that the father of Mahender Nath Shukla had shot him and the victim had been taken to RL hospital by his wife. PW­11 deposed that he left since local police officials had reached the spot.

86. The collective import of the deposition of PW­8, PW­6 and PW­11 is that soon after the incident of deceased Mahender Nath having been shot at about 1:00 pm (as deposed of PW­2 Poonam Mishra), the information of the incident was received or processed by at least three police officials from about 1:22 pm to 1:25 pm. One of these officials i.e. PW­11 did also reach the spot to enquire about the same. The incident was apparently reported without any delay whatsoever. Though the question of delay has not been agitated either, the Court is taking care to highlight the immediate nature of reporting of the incident as it signifies the non availability of any tangible time period with the complaint to visualize and create a false narrative.

87. The next group of police witnesses who now became actively involved in the investigation were PW­3, PW­4 and PW­18.

88. ASI Deshraj (PW­3) was the police official who had received DD No. 23A (Ex. PW3/A). He then accompanied the IO (Inspector Arvind i.e. PW­18) and constable Vikas Tyagi (PW­4) to the place of incident i.e. house No. 358/3A, Gali no.1, Hanuman Gali, Mandawali. PW­3 deposed that on reaching the spot they saw a crowd outside the house and the presence of a lot of blood. It was learnt by PW­3 that injured Mahender Nath Shukla had been taken to Ram Lal Kundan hospital by his wife. PW­3 now accompanied PW­18 (IO) to the said hospital leaving PW­4 behind at the place of incident. PW­3 next collected the MLC of the injured who had been declared brought dead. He further deposed that Poonam Mishra i.e. the wife of the deceased was found as an eye witness at the hospital and that the IO had recorded her statement. The body was shifted to the LBS hospital mortuary by PW­3 from Ram Lal Kundan hospital on the instructions of PW­18.

89. PW­3 next deposed that when he went back to the place of incident from the hospital, Poonam Mishra had also reached the spot and a site plan was prepared by the IO on her pointing out. This site plan was infact proved as Ex. PW14/A by a draughtsman (PW­14 namely Inspector Mahesh Nath) who deposed that at the instance of Poonam Mishra, he had taken rough notes and measurements on 04.12.2016 and later prepared the scaled site plan on 19.12.2016 on the basis of these rough notes and measurements.

90. Coming back to the deposition of PW­3, he deposed that the IO had relieved Poonam Mishra after recording her statement under section 161 Cr. PC. Further, that constable Vikas Tyagi had got the case registered at the police station and come back to the spot with the rukka as well as the copy of the FIR which he then handed over to the IO. Further, that earth control, earth control blood and blood were separately collected from the spot with the help of a hammer and scissors. These were then converted into a sealed parcel with the seal of LBS. PW­3 proved the seizure memo of this parcel as Ex. PW3/B and stated that the seal had been handed over to constable Vikas Tyagi whose statement was also recorded by the IO. By this time, complainant Poonam Mishra, who had earlier left the spot, came back to state that she was suffering from a headache. She was sent to RML Kundan hospital by the IO and examined by the doctor. Her MLC was cited by PW­3 as Ex. PW3/C. Since this MLC was objected to on behalf of the counsel for the accused, apparently for reason of PW­3 not being competent to prove the same, this MLC remained not proved by PW­3. However, this MLC was proved by another witness i.e. PW­15 (Dr. Ajeet Kumar Gupta) through identification of the signatures of the doctor who had prepared Ex. PW3/C viz. Dr. Ankit.

91. The deposition of PW­3 was corroborated in all material particulars by PW­4 including him reaching the spot with PW­3 and PW­18, the taking of the rukka by PW­4 to the PS and his return with the copy of the FIR, the collection of the blood samples and the seizure of the same through Ex. PW3/B.

92. PW­4 additionally deposed that he had been handed over nine samples and two sample seals for being deposited at FSL Rohini. Further, that these samples had not been tampered while in his possession.

93. The FIR itself was proved by the duty officer (PW­5) who recorded the same and deposed that constable Vikas (PW­4) had carried the rukka sent by the IO Anand.

94. The officials from the crime team included PW­7 and PW­12 (SI Ravi Kant and HC Ashok Kumar respectively).

95. PW­7 deposed that upon receiving information from the control room, he reached the spot alongwith HC Ashok (PW­12) and constable Ashok. Both PW­7 and PW­12 identified the place of incident as house No. 358/3A Mandawali. PW­7 further deposed that when they reached the spot at about 2:45 pm, ASI Deshraj met them. Blood was noticed in the gallery of the house and the injured was learnt to have been removed to the hospital. PW­7 then inspected the spot and advised the lifting of blood smeared concrete/earth and earth control from the spot. He deposed that the samples were collected by ASI Deshraj.

96. PW­7 next stated that the photographer had taken some photographs of the dead body of the deceased at RK Hospital and that a SOC report prepared by him was Ex. PW7/A.

97. PW­12 corroborated PW­7 in deposing that he had taken photographs of the dead body at RL hospital which were Ex. PW2/A1 to Ex. PW2/A14. He also proved the negatives of these photographs as Ex. PW12/B1 to Ex. PW12/B14.

98. PW­9 (ASI Rajesh Kumar) was the then MHCM who had deposited certain parcels in the malkhana, having been produced before him by the IO on 09.09.2016, 10.09.2016 and 12.09.2016. The relevant entries in register No. 19 qua these parcels were proved by him as Ex. PW9/A, Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/C respectively. He also proved the sending of nine sealed parcels to FSL on 22.09.2016 through entry Ex. PW9/D. The copy of the register regarding this entry was proved as Ex. PW9/E and the acknowledgment of case acceptance was proved as Ex. PW9/F. He deposed that the parcels had not been tampered while in his possession.

99. The last witness to be examined was the investigating officer namely Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh (PW­18) who corroborated the version of PW­3 (ASI Deshraj) and PW­4 (Constable Vikas Tyagi) in deposing that on 09.09.2016, he had reached the place of incident i.e. house No. 358/3A, Gali No.1, Hanuman Gali, Mandawali with these two police officials on receipt of DD No. 23A at about 1:25 pm. He had found a crowd at the spot and reached Ram Lal Kundan Hospital, Parparganj, Delhi with PW­4 and obtained the MLC of deceased Mahender Nath Shukla.

100. PW­18 also proved the statement Ex. PW2/A made by PW­2 and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW18/A apart from deposing that he had sent the same to the police station through PW­4 for registration of the FIR. He further proved the site plan Ex. PW18/B apart from confirming that certain earth control and blood in gauze had been sealed and seized vide memo Ex. PW3/D. PW­18 further corroborated PW­1 in deposing that he had seized three sealed parcels from the mortuary officials containing the blood samples of the deceased, clothes of the deceased and pellets of the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased through seizure memo Ex. PW1/A.

101. As noticed by the Court while discussing the deposition of PW­1 regarding the recovery of the weapon of offence from the accused, PW­18 corroborated PW­1 in deposing regarding the circumstances of the arrest of the accused on 12.09.2016 and recovery of the gun as well as danda at his instance.

102. PW­18 lastly identified the gun (Ex. P1), the empty cartridge (Ex. P3) and the danda (Ex. P4).

103. The preceding summary of the deposition of the police witnesses serves only to provide the proof of investigative steps including collection of evidence and filing of the chargesheet. The material findings have already been rendered by the court on the strength of the deposition of PW­2 and the corroborative forensic evidence.

104. It emerges as proved beyond reasonable doubt that :

(i) accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla inflicted an intentional injury on the head of PW2 with a danda.
(ii) accused Ganesh Prasad Shukla caused the death of his son namely Mahender Nath Shukla by intentionally firing at him with a gun.

105. The findings of the court on the offences forming the articles of charge are as under:

Section 308 IPC

106. The difference between sections 299 and 300 IPC, corresponding to sections 304 and 302 IPC as well as the relatable attempts to commit these offences, punishable under sections 308 and 307 IPC, is essentially in the degree of intention and knowledge with which these acts are committed. An act of culpable homicide may amount to murder if it falls within any of the definitional clauses of section 300 IPC. The benefit of an exception to section 300 would also render an accused liable for punishment under section 304 instead of section 302 IPC. Similarly, an attempt to commit homicide would fall under section 308 and not section 307 IPC if, in the determination of the court, the act would qualify as culpable homicide not amounting to murder had death been caused in consequence of such an act. Thus, the intention or knowledge carried by an accused while committing the overt act which constitutes the offence is material to the allegations under section 308 or 307 IPC.

107. In the present facts, the sudden use of the danda by the accused upon the head of PW­2, while an act which could have resulted in her death, does not emerge as being pre mediated. The accused evidently acted in the spur of the moment. The location of the injury i.e. head is not enough to cast the allegations under section 307 IPC. The accused acted in a fit of the moment and used a bamboo stick which may be treated as less dangerous than an iron rod. The injury was also not of a dangerous nature. The victim i.e. PW­2 apparently survived without hospitalization for any length of time. The act of the accused is therefore better classified, in confirmation of the charge, as an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

108. The accused is found guilty under section 308 IPC.

Section 302 IPC

109. The evidence regarding the homicide of the son of the accused is, however, of a degree most pronounced in intention. The accused clearly intended to kill his son when he fired with a gun at his chest from close quarters. A person using a deadly weapon, indeed the deadliest weapon viz a gun against the victim in close proximity and that too on a vital body part is presumed to have no other intention but to kill the victim. The act of the accused therefore falls within the ambit of the first clause of section 300 IPC.

110. Besides, the act of firing a gun at a specific region of another person's body is so imminently dangerous as to be within the knowledge of the assailant to be capable of causing death as the most likely outcome. The act of the accused additionally satisfies the requirements of clause Fourthly of section 300 IPC.

111. The accused is found guilty under section 302 IPC.

Section 27 Arms Act

112. The last article of charge against the accused was under section 27 Arms Act.

113. The version of the prosecution was that the accused had fired from the gun in question (Ex. P1) as the holder of the arms licence recovered from his personal search through personal search memo Ex. PW1/C. As already noticed, the identity of the arms licence was not disputed by the counsel for the accused either during the examination in chief of PW­1. The Court has also recorded the finding that the same licenced gun, as mentioned in the personal search memo, was depicted in the sketch of the gun recovered from the accused. The identification of the gun by PW­2 has similarly been believed.

114. Although it has emerged from the account given by the witnesses that the gun was indeed fired by the accused, the said circumstance does not entail a conviction under section 27 as he carried a valid gun license. Notably, section 27 penalises the use of a firearm only if it is in contravention of section 5 or section 7. The charge against the accused relates to section 27 read with section 5 of The Arms Act. Section 5 also creates a prohibition on the use of a firearm only if a license is not held by the person who uses the same. While the import of section 27 read with section 5 is certainly not a blanket permission to use such weapons, the illegal use of a weapon by the holder of an arms licence is not an offence per se under section 27 Arms Act without contravention of section 5 or section 7.

115. The court would refer here to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh vs The Union Territory Of Chandigarh (dated 26.11.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 2373 of 2010) [2022 (1) KLD 40] wherein it was held as under:

28. Adverting to the conviction of the Appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act, it appears to us that the Trial Court has erred in arriving at his culpability. There is no gainsay that in order to prove a charge under Sec­ tion 27 of the Arms Act, the prosecution must necessarily demonstrate contravention of either Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act.... .....
29. True it is that prior to the amendment of Section 27 of the Arms Act, vide Arms (Amendment) Act 1988, the said provision penalized the use of any arms and ammunitions for any 'unlawful purpose'. However, post its amendment, Section 27 of the Arms Act is strictly confined to viola­ tion of conditions mentioned either under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act and the 'unlawful purpose' of using arms and ammunitions is no longer an inseparable component of the delinquency.
30....... In other words, illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27, without proving the misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act.....

116. The court would also cite the following excerpt from the decision in Piara Singh vs State of Punjab (dated 27.01.2016 in CRA­S­291­SB OF 2004) [LAWS (P & H) - 2016­1­609]:

6. Under the old Provision, possession of weapon to carry on any unlaw­ ful activity was punishable. But the new provision under Section 27 of the Act speaks of punishment only in cases where there is a contravention of the provision under Section 5 of the Act.

117. Thus, notwithstanding the use of the gun by the present accused, the prose­ cution has not even pleaded let alone proved the contravention of the terms of the arms licence or violation of section 5 by the accused. He is consequently entitled to acquittal qua the charge under section 27 of The Arms Act.

118. The accused is convicted under sections 302 and 308 IPC. The accused is ac­ quitted under section 27 of The Arms Act.

Dictated and announced in open Court (VISHAL GOGNE) on 31st January, 2023 ASJ­02/KKD/East/Delhi