Delhi District Court
Sc: 09/08 State vs . Vijay Shukla & Anr. on 22 September, 2009
:1:
In the Court of Ms. Shalinder Kaur
Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 09/08
STATE
versus
1. Vijay Kumar Shukla
S/o Late Dharm Prakash Shukla
R/o 53/B, Sector Gama, GII,
Sharam Vihar, Greater Noida (U.P.)
2. Rajesh Raja
S/o Late Jagdish Chand
R/o C49, Sector39
Noida (U.P.)
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 48/2001
Police Station : Rajender Nagar
Under Section : 302/186/353/34 IPC & 25/27/ 54/59 Arms Act
68/1/14 Excise Act
Judgment Reserved On : 03.09.09
Judgment Pronounced On : 22.09.09
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:2:
JUDGMENT
Case History:
1. Accused Vijay Shukla & Rajesh Raja stand charge sheeted before this Court for offences punishable under Sections 186/353/302/34 IPC, under Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and under Section 68/1/14 Excise Act.
2. The facts as narrated in the charge sheet are that on 04.02.01, SHO Mahipal Singh and driver Hari Kishan of police station Rajinder Nagar were on patrolling duty at Rajinder Park, when SHO received a wireless message regarding gunfire. Immediately he reached Ganga Ram Hospital where Constable Kadam Ganga Dhar had admitted Constable Krishan Kumar in injured condition.
He was declared brought dead by the concerned doctor. On inquiry Constable Kadam Ganga Dhar got recorded his statement to the effect, that on 04.02.01, Constable Krishan Kumar and Constable Kadam Ganga Dhar were on patrolling duty on motor cycle no. DL1S M 0597 from 9 AM to 9PM. At around 7:30 PM, when they reached at Salwan Marg, they found a Maruti Car parked in the corner of block no. 27, in which two persons were consuming liquor at public place. Constable Krishan Kumar SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:3:stopped the motor cycle and parked it in front of the car and started checking the car while he stood at the left side of the car. Constable Krishan Kumar took a quarter bottle of whisky and a glass out of the car and kept these inside dickey of the motor cycle and again started searching the car. He asked from the persons about their address. The person who was sitting on the driver seat told that they were residing behind the same block. Thereafter, Constable Krishan Kumar asked him to show his license on which he said that whether license is to be seen. Then Constable Krishan Kumar took out a black colour bag from their car and told him ''Kadam this matter is something else". In the meanwhile driver of the car fired at Constable Krishan Kumar from inside the car and both the bullets hit Constable Krishan Kumar on his chest and he fell on the road. Immediately thereafter hitting the motor cycle those persons ran away in the car towards the side of Pusa Road. The motor cycle fell on the ground. Constable Kadam Ganga Dhar removed the injured Constable Krishan Kumar to hospital. He flashed wireless message regarding gunfire but could not note the number of the Maruti Car. He has also stated that he could identify both the persons. Their motor cycle and the black bag of the both the persons was kept lying at the spot and he stated about the contents of the bag.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:4:
3. FIR for offences punishable 302/186/353/34 IPC & 25/27/ 54/59 Arms Act and 68/ 1/14 Excise Act was got registered through Constable Munish Kumar. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The spot was got photographed and site plan was prepared. The black bag was checked from which one country made pistol of .315 bore which was loaded with one live bullet, one live bullet of .315 bore and 3 more live bullets of .38 bore were lying inside the bag. All the recovered bullets and country made pistol were seized after preparing their sketches. One paper cutter, one plass, two screw drivers, two caps, one black goggles, two plastic tapes, two old torn vouchers bearing the name and address of Moolchand Sharma Building Material Supplass, Near Vikas Furnitures, Raghunathpur, MPI Road, Sector 22, Noida 301, Ghaziabad, U.P, one polythene on which School Uniform Madras Store was written were also found inside the bag. All these articles along with black bag were seized. From the dickey of the motor cycle, one quarter bottle of liquor, No.1 MC Dowells whisky and broken pieces of glass were seized. One paper plate on which some fresh eaten chowmein pieces were kept was also seized.
4. On the basis of two receipts/ vouchers, recovered from inside the black bag different teams of the police were sent to Noida and other places in search of accused persons. Inspector SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:5:K.P. Kukreti, went to Sec22 Noida at the shop of building material supplier and met Sh. Mool Chand Sharma. He showed him those two vouchers, after seeing which Sh. Mool Chand Sharma confirmed that those vouchers were of his shop. After checking his diary, he told that he had supplied goods of these vouchers at the site of Rachwan Singh builder. The said diary was seized and the statement of Mool Chand Sharma was recorded. Thereafter Inspector K. P. Kukreti reached at Sector 58, Block no. A160, Noida which was the site of Rachwan Singh, who disclosed that the work of the site was being looked after by his brother in law namely Rajesh Raja. He also told that he had two cars, one Maruti Zen and another Maruti car of white colour which was being used by Rajesh Raja. Thereafter Rajesh Raja was called at the site and inquiries were made from him. Rachwan Singh and Rajesh Raja were asked to come to police station Sector 58 Noida on 06.02.01 at 9 AM for further inquiries. However, on 06.02.01 they did not come. Inspector Kukreti thereupon inquired from Rachwan Singh on telephone, who told him that he had made inquiries from his brotherinlaw Rajesh Raja and his sister Navin Raja. His sister had told him that Rajesh Raja had disclosed that he had his hand in this murder so he had got Rajesh Raja surrendered in Sector 20 Noida, police station at 4 AM.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:6:
5. Inspector Kukreti thereafter reached Sector 20, Noida but he came to know that Rajesh Raja had ran away from there. Inquiries were again made from Rachwan Singh and his sister Navin Raja who told that Rajesh Raja had disclosed that on 04.02.01 he was involved in the murder of the Constable. He and his friend Vijay Shukla who was residing in Shram Vihar in Greater Noida had shot Constable in the area of Rajinder Nagar and he used Maruti Car no. DL 2C G 0195 in this murder. They had gone there with an intention for committing robbery. Rachwan Singh produced Maruti car no. DL 2C G 0195 in Sector 20 police station which was seized. Sh. Y.P. Singh, Officer Incharge of police station Sector 20 Noida told Inspector K.P. Kukreti that he had received a message from Sh. Piyush Srivastava, SP City at night that Rajesh Raja brotherinlaw of Rachwan Singh was involved in murder of a Constable in Delhi whom he wanted to surrender and he could also get his associate Vijay Shukla arrested. The officer in charge reached at the house of SP where Rachwan Singh along with one Anil Jain handed over Rajesh Raja to him. On inquiry made by him, Rajesh Raja told him that his associate Vijay Shukla had shot the Constable. Rajesh Raja was handed over to Constable Kali Ram but he escaped from his custody. Constable Kali Ram was suspended due to such negligence.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:7:
6. During investigations, five chance prints from the Maruti car were lifted. On 13.02.01, Inspector K.P. Kukreti arrested accused Vijay Shukla U/s 41.1 Cr.PC who made disclosure statement about this case. On 14.02.01, he was produced in muffled face before the Court as his Test Identification Parade was to be conducted. Accused Vijay Shukla refused to participate in TIP, thereafter his police remand of 9 days was obtained. His second disclosure statement was recorded while the accused was in police custody on police remand. Constable Kadam Ganga Dhar identified him as the person who was sitting on driving seat of the Maruti Car and had shot Constable Krishan Kumar on the exhortation of the other person who was sitting in passenger seat of the car.
7. On 19.02.01, accused Rajesh Raja was arrested from ISBT. On his search a pistol of .32 bore loaded with 4 live bullets was recovered which were seized after preparing their sketches. Accused Rajesh Raja made a disclosure statement and pointed out the place of occurrence. He also refused to participate in test identification parade but was identified by Constable Kadam Ganga Dhar outside the Court as the person who was sitting next to the driver's seat and had told accused Vijay Shukla ''Pakre SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:8:Gaye Maar Goli''. The post mortem reports and other reports from CFSL were collected. On completion of the investigations, charge sheet was laid.
8. After committal to the Sessions, charge for offence punishable U/s 186/34, 353/34, 302/34 IPC and 68 of Punjab Excise Act was framed against both the accused persons. Charge for offence punishable U/s 25 Arms Act was framed against accused Rajesh Raja, and U/s 25/27 Arms Act was also framed against accused Vijay Shukla to which they pleaded not guilty. Evidence:
9. To prove its case prosecution has examined 42 witnesses. PW1 is Constable Mahesh Kumar who had accompanied SHO Mahipal Singh and Constable Hari Kishan after receiving a wireless message to Ganga Ram Hospital. He also got the FIR registered and thereafter reached the spot with copy of the FIR which he had handed over to SHO.
10. PW2 Ram Kishan is the brother of deceased Constable Krishan Kumar who had identified and received the dead body of his brother on 05.02.01 vide receipt Ex.PW 2/A. SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:9:
11. PW3 is Mool Chand Sharma who is the supplier of building material in Noida. He deposed after seeing the receipt Ex.P1 and P2 that he had issued the same for supply of building material on 29.11.09 and 30.11.09. He had sent the material to H 72, Sec.16, Noida. On the same day, he had also sent material to Sec58 and B43, Sector 60. He proved the entries made in his diary Ex.P3 regarding the supply of building material. He also proved the seizure memo of the diary seized by the police as Ex.PW3/A.
12. PW4 is Constable Kadam Ganga Dhar. He was on duty on 04.02.01 on motor cycle TR33 with deceased Constable Krishan Kumar. His testimony in detail shall be adverted to subsequently.
13. PW5 is Constable Krishan Kumar. He was posted as duty officer in police station Rajinder Nagar on 04.02.01. He had received information from Ganga Ram Hospital about Constable Krishan Kumar being admitted there in injured condition by Constable Kadam Ganga Dhar. He had reduced this information into writing as DD No. 21A. He also recorded the FIR Ex.PW 5/B SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:10:on the basis of rukka brought by Constable Mahesh Kumar sent by Inspector Mahipal. He further recorded DD no. 42 B & 53B.
14. PW6, Constable Babu Ram was a special messenger who took the copies of FIR to the concerned MM and senior officers on 04.02.01.
15. PW7, Constable Rajbir is another DD writer who had recorded DD entries 42 and 48 on 04.02.01 which he has proved as Ex.PW7/A and PW5C/D. PW8, Lady Constable Manju Singh had recorded DD no. 23 B which she proved as Ex.PW5/C recorded by her on 04.02.01.
16. PW9 Dr. P.C. Dixit had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Constable Krishan Kumar on 05.02.01. He had opined that the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon firearm injury to the lungs, liver and colon via injuries no. 1 & 2. The injuries were antemortem, recent and were caused by firearm (rifled) ammunition discharged from distant range. Injuries no. 1 & 2 were sufficient to cause death. He proved the postmortem report, prepared by him as Ex.PW9/A and diagram for demonstrating the injuries as Ex.PW9/B. He had also SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:11:recovered two bullets from the body of the deceased which he had handed over to the police officials after sealing the same along with sample seals. He had also handed over the underwear of the deceased in sealed pullanda to the police.
17. PW10, Sh. K. N. Singh is finger print expert. He had lifted five chance prints from Maruti 800 car bearing no. DL2CG 0195. He proved his report as Ex.PW10/A. PW11 Sh. Shiv Raj Singh is also finger print expert who proved his report Ex.PW 11/A.
18. PW12, Sh. Anil Jain deposed that Sh. Piyush Srivastava who was then SP Noida was known to him. About 23 years ago he had received a telephone call from his friend Sunil Chopra as he wanted some help from the police. He had called Sh. Piyush Srivastava and requested him to render whatever possible help he could give to his friend. The witness was got declared hostile by the Learned Addl. PP as he was found to be resiling from the previous statement. The witness denied that he had made a statement mark A to the police on 31.03.01.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:12:
19. PW13, Constable Kamal Singh had accompanied SHO on 06.02.01 to sector 20, Noida, where sardar Rachwan Singh had produced a car DL2CG 0195 which was seized by the SHO vide memo Ex.PW13/A.
20. PW14, HC Harish Kumar was posted as Mohrar Malkhana on 04.02.01. He deposed that Inspector Mahipal Singh had deposited a black leather bag stated to be containing a desi katta and cartridge. He also deposited a sealed parcel stated to be containing 3 live cartridges, a paper cutter, a plass, two screw drivers, two caps, one goggles, two plastic tapes, two torn vouchers and an envelop. The witness further deposed that Inspector Mahipal Singh had also deposited a sealed pulanda stated to be containing a pint and pieces of glass and a paper plate. He deposited a pulanda bearing seal of Ganga Ram Hospital stated to be containing clothes of the deceased and jamatalashi of the deceased alongwith sample seal of Ganga Ram Hospital. He proved the deposit entry at S.No. 651. Witness also deposed that a Maruti car bearing no. DL2CG 0159 was deposited in malkhana. The witness further deposed that various other articles pertaining to the case were deposited by him on SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:13:different dates. He proved all the relevant entries vide which these articles were deposited as Ex.PW14/A1 to A3.
21. PW15, ASI Ravi Shankar deposed that on 13.02.01 accused Vijay Shukla was arrested from near house no. 3, Type I, West Kidwai Nagar in pursuance of a secret information received by Inspector K. P. Kukreti. A Kalandra U/s 41 Cr.PC was prepared. On interrogation accused Vijay Shukla had disclosed about his involvement in this case.
22. PW16, Constable Kali Ram was posted on 05.02.01 at police station Sector 20, Noida as Clerk Constable. SI SP Singh, SO, had handed over accused Rajesh Raja to him at about 5:30 AM. He deposed that on 07.02.01, he was suspended vide suspension order Ex.PW16/A as later on he came to know that the accused had run away from the custody.
23. PW17, SI Janak Singh deposed that on 12.04.01 he was posted as Addl. SHO, Sec36, Chandigarh. SI Joginder Singh had come to him in connection with investigations of this case and he had handed over a copy of seizure memo regarding recovery of revolver no. 153993 of Smith and Wesson make and copy of SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:14:FIR No. 48/01, police station Rajinder Nagar. The witness had handed over to SI Joginder Singh a copy of FIR No. 56/98, U/s 392/411/420 IPC, police station Sec36, Chandigarh alongwith copy of statement of Kawaljit Singh recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. The witness proved the copy of said FIR as Ex.PW17/A.
24. PW18, Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma had proved that the license no. 22/OD/DM/CH/95 was issued in the name of Kawaljit Singh, S/o Chanchal Singh in respect of .32 bore revolver no. H153993.
25. PW19, Sh. Kawajit Singh deposed that he had a revolver of Smith Wesson make which he had kept along with its license in the house of his sister in Chandigarh in the year 1996. About 1 ½ year later, he had received a message from his nephew Jagdip Singh that a theft was committed in the house and his revolver along with other articles was stolen.
26. PW20, Rachwan Singh is the brotherinlaw of accused Rajesh Raja who has admitted that in the year 2001, he was carrying on industrial constructions at sites no. A4, Sector 59, A 5, Sector no. 59, A102 Sector 58 Noida for which he was SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:15:receiving material from various Suppliers and M/s Mool Chand Sharma was also one of his Suppliers. He also admitted his signatures on the Ex.PW13/A but stated he did not know about the contents of the memo as he did not know Hindi. The witness was got declared hostile by APP as he was resiling from his previous statement. He denied having made statements to the police on 06.02.01, Mark P20/3 and Mark P20/4. He denied that he had given the car no. DL2CG 195 to accused Rajesh Raja for use. He volunteered that the said car was always with him.
27. PW21, Constable Jagdish deposed that on 04.02.01 he was posted in police station Paharganj and on the asking of SHO police station Rajinder Nagar, he had gone to Salwan Road, Rajinder Nagar and had taken 14 photographs as per instructions of IO. He proved the photographs as Ex.PW21/1 to 14 and their negatives collectively as Ex.PW21/A.
28. PW22, Sh. AC Varshney is the Scientific Officer who had proved his report as Ex.PW22/A.
29. PW23 , Sh. A. K. Srivastava is the Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL who had proved his reports as ExPW23/A and ExPW23/B. SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:16:
30. PW24, SI Joginder Singh deposed that on 04.02.01 he was posted in police station Rajinder Nagar and was involved in the investigations of this case. On 18.02.01, accused Vijay Shukla was interrogated by Inspector Mahipal Singh in his presence and he had made a disclosure statement. On 19.02.01, SI Subodh Anand of police station Karol Bagh had informed the SHO from Chandigarh on telephone that accused Rajesh Raja who was wanted in this case would be coming from Chandigarh to Delhi on the said day. This information was recorded as DD No. 10A. Thereafter two teams of police officials were formed and they reached ISBT with accused Vijay Shukla. At about 4 PM accused Rajesh Raja alighted from the bus bearing no. HR37A1560 of Haryana Roadways and he started moving towards North on the pavement of Boulevard Road. He was over powered at the pointing out of accused Vijay Shukla. Rajesh Raja was searched and a revolver of .32 bore of Smith and Wesson make containing four cartridges were recovered from his possession. Inspector Mahipal Singh prepared sketch of revolver and cartridges as Ex.PW24/B. Witness also proved the personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW24/C and his arrest memo as Ex.PW24/D. The witness deposed that on 02.03.01, he had brought 3 pullandas from MAM College, Forensic medicine and handed over SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:17:to SHO who seized them vide memo Ex.PW 24/E. He also deposed that on 29.03.01, Rachwan Singh, brotherinlaw of accused Rajesh Raja had brought a Maruti car bearing no. DL2CG0195 and produced it before SHO. It was seized vide memo Ex.PW24/F. He corroborated the testimony of PW17 that on 12.04.01, he had gone to Chandigarh and had brought copy of FIR Ex.PW 17/A u/s 392 IPC and copy of statement of Kawaljit Singh from police station Sector 36, Chandigarh. The revolver recovered from accused Rajesh Raja is Ex.PW22 and the cartridges as Ex.PW23/1-4.
31. PW25 Sh. Sanatan Prasad, Learned MM deposed that on 14.02.01, the application for holding TIP of accused Vijay Shukla Ex.PW 25/A was assigned to him. The accused was produced before him in muffled face and he directed for holding the T.I.P of the accused on 16.02.01 vide orders Ex.PW 25/B. On 16.02.01 in jail no. 3, the accused was brought before him and he presented an application Ex.PW25/C and refused to participate in TIP. He had warned the accused that his refusal may give rise to adverse inference against him at trial but accused remained adamant not to participate in TIP. The witness proved the statement of accused as Ex.PW 25/D and the TIP proceedings as Ex.PW25/E. SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:18:
32. PW26, SI Mahipal is the Draftsman who deposed that he had prepared the site plan of the spot which he proved as Ex.PW 26/A.
33. PW27, Constable Prem Chand has also proved the arrest of accused Vijay Shukla. He further proved disclosure statement of the accused as Ex.PW27/A and the pointing out done by him of the place of occurrence as PW27/B.
34. PW28, HC Onkarmal on 23.04.01 had taken a sealed bottle vide RC No. 3/21 from MHC(M) to Excise Laboratory at Vikas Sadan.
35. PW29, is Inspector K.P. Kukreti who was partly associated in the investigations of this case on the directions of DCP Central. He had deposed that he visited the premises of Mool Chand Sharma at Sec22, Noida in relation to two slips Ex.PW 20/1 and 20/2. After consulting his diary Ex.PX1, Sh. Mool Chand Sharma had told him that the building material was supplied at the site of Sardar Rachwan Singh on 29.11.99 and 30.11.99. He also disclosed that on 05.02.01 Rachwan Singh was working at plot no. 160, Sec58. Thereafter the witness went there and SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:19:interrogated Rachwan Singh who admitted that building material of these two slips was supplied to him at his site H72, where he was working in the month of November 99. Sh. Rachwan Singh was asked to produce accused Rajesh Raja and the vehicle used by him on 06.02.01. However, on 06.02.01, the accused did not turn up to join the investigations. He contacted Rachwan Singh who informed him that on previous night accused has made confession before him and his wife and they had handed him over to the police police station Sector 20, Noida. He recorded the statement of Rachwan Singh. The witness further proved the arrest of accused Vijay Shukla made on 13.02.01. He deposed that at that time HC Ravi Shankar, Prem Chand were with him. Accused had made disclosure statement Ex.PW27/A and pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW 27/B. The witness also deposed that soon after his arrest, accused was kept in muffled face regarding which DD entry was recorded and he was produced in the Court.
36. PW30, Inspector Rajinder Vajpai has deposed that on 13.03.01 the finger print search slip of accused Vijay Shukla was received at Finger Print Bureau for verification. He proved the report Ex.PW30/A according to which the impression on the SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:20:finger print slip were matching with the print impression of Vijay Shukla on his conviction slip dated 30.08.96 U/s 392/397/451/34 IPC.
37. PW31 Sh. Dev Ram Sharma reader to SDM East proved that revolver .32 bore bearing no. H153993 was allotted to Kawaljeet Singh, R/o H.No. 233, Sec21, Chandigarh vide Ex.PW 31/A.
38. PW32, SI Ashok Kumar was posted on 12.03.01 in Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar. According to his report proved as Ex.PW32/A, finger prints of accused Rajesh Raja were not available in the records.
39. PW33, Madhu Shukla is Deputy Chemical Examiner, Excise Laboratory who proved her report as Ex.PW 33/A according to which the contents of one quarter bottle examined by her, gave a positive test of ethyl alcohol of the strength 74.77 and alcohol volume of 42.73.
40. PW34, Sh. Piyush Srivastava deposed that in the year 2001 he was posted as SP City (Noida). In the First week of February 2001 at about 3:30 AM he was sleeping at his residence when his SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:21:telephone operator informed him that one Anil Jain alongwith one Sardar Ji wanted to meet him. Anil Jain at that time told him on telephone that his friend's relative had committed a murder in Delhi and wanted to surrender in Noida. He immediately asked his telephone operator to connect him to that SO Sec20 whom he called at his residence and ordered him to go with those persons and to put the arrest on that man. Witness further deposed that in the morning he was informed by the SO that the person arrested by him on previous night had absconded from custody. He verbally and in writing brought this fact to the notice of SSP. Thereafter, the concerned police official was suspended vide order Ex.PW16/A.
41. PW35, SI Bhopal Singh had also proved the same suspension order Ex.PW16/A.
42. PW36, Satbir Singh was also member of expert team who had examined five chance prints lifted from the Maruti car no. DL2CG0195.
43. PW37, Sh. Maya Ram also proved the license of revolver in the name of Kawaljeet Singh vide Ex.PW37/A. SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:22:
44. PW38, Inspector Mahipal Singh is the Investigating officer of the case who has proved the investigations conducted by him and his testimony shall also be adverted to at a later stage.
45. PW39, Inspector Ramesh Chand deposed that on 04.02.01 he was working as Addl. SHO, police station Rajinder Nagar. He had received a wireless message that Constable Krishan Kumar was shot. He immediately rushed to Ganga Ram Hospital where Inspector Mahipal Singh was already present. He proved investigations conducted by Insp Mahipal Singh in the hospital as well as at the spot. He further proved that on 18.02.01 accused Vijay Shukla during interrogation made a disclosure statement Ex.PW38/D in his presence. He also proved the arrest of accused Rajesh Raja on 19.02.01 and the recovery of the revolver Ex.PW22 as well as cartridges Ex.PW23/A from his possession.
46. PW40, Dr. Sanjay Rohtagi had examined Constable Krishan Kumar on 04.02.01 who was brought by Constable Kadam Ganga Dhar with alleged history of gun shot. He deposed that the patient was brought dead in the hospital. He proved the MLC of the deceased as Ex.PW40/A and deposed that the personal SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:23:belongings of the deceased were sealed in a parcel and with seal were handed over to IO which he seized vide memo Ex.PW 38/H.
47. PW41, is SI Rakesh Kumar who deposed that on 04.02.01 he was posted in police station Rajinder Nagar. At about 8 PM after receiving DD No. 21A he alongwith Constable Jagat, Constable Ajay, Constable Dinesh went to Ganga Ram Hospital. He also proved investigations done in the hospital as well as at the spot.
48. PW42, Sh. Satish Golcha was posted as Addl. DCP Central District on 08.05.01. He had granted sanction for prosecution against both the accused and he also proved the sanction order U/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution of the accused persons as Ex.PW 38/U.
49. This is the entire oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution as noted above. Statement of both accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC. They pleaded innocence. Accused Vijay Shukla stated that he was already convicted in a criminal case. Thereafter, police officials often called him and used to ask for "Kharcha Pani". On 12.02.01, Constable Prem Chand came to his house at Greater Noida and SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:24:told him that SHO, Nabi Karim was calling him. He went to PS Nabi Karim where he was kept confined in one room. He was produced in the Court on 14.02.01. He stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused Rajesh Raja has also claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he was lifted from Chandigarh in February, 2001. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh is related to him and his revolver was stolen in the year 1996. This revolver was recovered from Delhi and thereafter he was falsely implicated in this case. Both the accused chose not to lead any evidence in defence.
Contentions:
50. It was contended on behalf of State by Learned APP that PW4 Constable Kadam Gangadhar is an eye witness who has proved the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. His testimony has also been corroborated by the depositions made by both Investigating Officers. Moreover, the police as well as PW4 did not have any cause to falsely implicate both the accused persons in this case as they did not have any enmity or any motive to do so. It was argued that PW4 is a natural witness. Even though he was a police man but being a human being, he became nervous SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:25:when he saw his associate other police man being shot dead by the accused persons. Therefore, immediately, he could not give their description in his first statement which was recorded by the IO. But on the same day, he made a subsequent statement in which he gave a clear description of accused persons and also submitted about their roles in carrying out the commission of the offence. Both the accused persons had refused to participate in TIP but were later on identified by the said eye witness before he identified them correctly in the Court. Besides the testimony of the eye witness, the other circumstances developed by the prosecution cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution has established its case against both the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt.
51. While assailing the conviction of accused Rajesh Raja, it was contended that no role in commission of murder of Constable Krishan Kumar has been assigned to the accused. But later on with ulterior motives, his name was added in the subsequent statement, recorded of PW4. Though the prosecution has alleged that he was seated in the passenger seat along with accused Vijay Shukla who was seated in the driving seat of the Maruti car.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:26:However, the prosecution still has not been able to prove that the accused Rajesh Raja had formulated any common intention with coaccused Vijay Shukla so as to kill Constable Krishan Kumar. It was contended that the material independent witness PW20 Sardar Rachwan Singh and PW12 Anil Jain have not supported the prosecution case. Besides there are major improvements made by the witnesses over the prosecution story. Thus, the accused Rajesh Raja is entitled to be acquitted.
52. On behalf of accused Vijay Shukla, it is contended that the sole eye witness examined by the prosecution is PW4 who is an interested witness, thus, as a rule of caution, his testimony is to be examined very carefully. The Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out various contradictions appearing in the testimony of this witness regarding the place where he was standing at the time of commission of offence and argued that he is a planted witness. Other improbabilities were also pointed out in the prosecution version and it was contended that these create a glaring doubt on it. It was argued that even the post mortem report does not support the prosecution case. Moreover, the circumstances pointed out by the prosecution also have vital missing links. The arrest of the accused as well as the entire investigation has been SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:27:fabricated. Thus, the conviction of accused Vijay Shukla cannot be based upon the said flimsy evidence adduced by the prosecution. In support of the contentions, raised on behalf of accused persons, reliance has been placed upon the judgments :
Matadin vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1999 Supreme Court 138, Suresh & Anr. vs. State of UP 2001 (2) CC Cases (SC) 1, Badruddin Rukonddim Karpude and Other vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 1223, Gajjan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 2069, Hardeep Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana 2008 (3) JCC 1818 Malkhan Singh and Anr. vs. State of UP AIR 1975 Supreme Court 12, Ajay Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan 1999 SCC (Cri.) 74 and Budh Singh vs. State of M.P. IX (2007) SLT 309.
Findings:
53. Prosecution case rests on the testimony of PW4, Constable Kadam Gangadhar who is the Eye Witness and other circumstantial evidence stated to be supporting the testimony of PW4. The Apex Court has repeatedly observed that on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness, a conviction may be recorded but it has also cautioned that while doing so, the Courts SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:28:must be satisfied that the testimony of the sole eye witness is of such sterling quality that Courts should find it safe to base conviction solely on the testimony of that witness. In the light of above observations, let us examine the evidence on record.
54. A two pronged argument was put forth on behalf of accused Vijay Shukla to show that the eye witness PW4 was not present at the spot. It was argued that PW4 has raised contradictory versions about the place where he was standing at the time of firing of bullets at the deceased Constable Krishan Kumar, that is whether he was standing on the left side of the Maruti car in which the assailants were sitting or near the motorcycle which the deceased had parked in front of the car. Secondly, had he been present there then being a trained police officer, he would have immediately fired on the assailants when they tried to drove away in the car after firing gun shots on the deceased constable. But instead he made no effort to stop the assailants from escaping from the spot. This conduct and contradiction about the position of PW4 at the spot makes the prosecution version unbelievable.
55. PW4 has deposed that on 04.02.01, he was on duty on motor cycle No.TR33 from 9 AM to 9 PM at Old Rajinder Nagar and SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:29:Constable Krishan Kumar was with him. While patrolling, they reached at the corner of block 27, they saw that two persons who are accused persons present in the Court, were sitting in a white Maruti car and were consuming liquor. The witness further deposed that they stopped their motorcycle ahead of the car. PW4 stood at the left side of the Maruti car whereas Constable Krishan Kumar came towards the driver seat.
56. In his crossexamination, he has testified that his departure entry was made by Duty Officer at 8.15 AM for patrolling in the area. At about 4 PM, his arrival entry was made in police station for dak purposes. His departure entry along with Constable Krishan Kumar from police station was again made at 6.55 PM for patrolling in the area of Old Rajinder Nagar.
57. PW8 Lady Constable Manju Singh has deposed that Constable Krishan Kumar and Constable Kadam Gangadhar were on duty on motorcycle bearing no.TR33. According to duty roster Ex.PW38/Y, Constable Kishan Kumar and Constable Kadam Gangadhar were on duty on motorcycle No. TR33 from 9 AM to 9 PM. DD No.53B has been proved as Ex.PW5/E according to which at 6.55 PM, Constable Krishan Kumar and Constable SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:30:Kadam Gangadhar departed from police station on motorcycle no.TR33 DL1S NO.597 for patrolling. Moreover, from the testimony of Investigating Officer PW38 Inspector Mahipal Singh and PW39 Inspector Ramesh Chand, it is evident that the motorcycle No. TR33 DL1S No.597 was found parked at the spot after they reached there from the hospital. Further more, MLC of the deceased proves that PW4 had brought the injured Constable Krishan Kumar in the hospital on 04.02.01.
58. In the crossexamination, PW4 has testified that he was standing near the motorcycle on the left side of the car. He explained his position by deposing that he came near the car on the left side whereas Krishan Kumar had gone on the right side of the driver of the car. The position of PW4 further gets clarified from the site plans prepared at his instance. Ex.PW38/T is the site plan prepared by IO Inspector Mahipal Singh and Ex.PW26/A is the scale site plan, prepared by the draftsman PW26. According to the site plan, the motorcycle is parked in front of the Maruti car at a distance of 305 cms and PW4 is shown as standing at the left side of the car at a distance of 30 cms. This explains that PW4 was not much away from the motorcycle but was standing on the left side of the car. So there is no contradiction in his testimony SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:31:when he has deposed that he was standing near the motorcycle on the left side of the car. Moreover, the witness has admitted the suggestion given on behalf of accused Vijay Shukla that he was standing in front on the left side of the car. Evidently, from the above, it is proved that PW4 was present at the spot at the time of the incident.
59. As far as the conduct of PW4 is concerned that why he did not fire on assailants, PW4 has deposed that he did not take out his revolver as he had become nervous. This proves the natural conduct of the witness. He would not have expected and imagined that the persons sitting inside the car would fire at a Police Constable who was checking them. PW4 would have been taken aback and being a human being would naturally had become nervous when the accused persons fired at Constable Krishan Kumar. Accordingly, natural conduct of the witness has been proved that seeing sudden firing on his associate Constable, he became nervous and was not able to stop them who immediately fled away in the car from the spot.
60. It was argued on behalf of accused persons that PW4 did not record the number of Maruti car in which the assailants were SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:32:sitting which casts a doubt on the prosecution case whether the alleged car was the one in which the assailants were seated. PW4 has admitted the suggestion during his crossexamination that the car in which those two persons were sitting was driven suddenly. It is evident from the testimony of PW4 that he was watching the incident, standing near the car while deceased Constable Krishan Kumar was checking the assailants who were sitting inside the car. PW4 has deposed that Constable Krishan Kumar had asked the driver of the car to show his license. The driver replied that he will do so after seeing the license of Constable Krishan Kumar who then asked them as to where they were living. The accused persons replied that they were living behind block no.28. Then Constable Krishan Kumar had taken out one quarter bottle containing liquor and one glass from inside the car which he kept in the dickey of the motorcycle. Constable Krishan Kumar again went to check the car and he took out a bag from inside the car and told PW4 that 'this matter is something else'. The person who was sitting by the side of the driver said to the driver 'Pakrey Gai Mar Goli' and consequently, the driver, accused Vijay Shukla fired at Constable Krishan Kumar. He had fired two shots which hit on the chest of Constable Krishan Kumar as a result he fell backwards. The accused persons then hit the motorcycle which SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:33:was parked in front of the car and fled away from the spot. It has also come in the testimony of PW4 that he became nervous at that time. Thus, it is quite natural, the way the entire incident had occurred, PW4 did not have the opportunity to note down the number of the car.
61. It is an admitted fact that PW20, Sardar Rachwan Singh is the owner of this Maruti car and accused Rajesh Raja is the husband of the sister of Sardar Rachwan Singh. PW20 has deposed that he was not in any kind of social touch with accused Rajesh Raja because his sister had married him without his consent and outside their religion. He has also testified that during the time of incident, he was not in touch with him. He has denied the suggestion that he had given his Maruti car No.DL2C G 0195 to Rajesh Raja for use but also volunteered that the car was always with him. On the other hand, PW10 Sh. K.N. Singh had lifted five chance prints from inside the car. According to the deposition of PW11 Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, the Finger Print Expert, the chance print Mark Q4 lifted from rear view mirror of car had matched with left thumb impression Mark S1 of accused Rajesh Raja. The testimony of both these witnesses is unchallenged.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:34:
62. From the testimony of PW13 Constable Kamal Singh & PW38 Inspector Mahipal Singh, it is evident that on 06.02.01, PW20 Sardar Rachwan Singh had produced the Maruti car No.DL2C G 0195 in police station Sector 20, Noida which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. PW20 has admitted his signatures on the seizure memo but has deposed that he was not aware about its contents. PW14 has proved that this car was deposited in Malkhana vide entry no.651. The testimony of this witness as well as of PW13 is unchallenged.
63. PW38 has deposed that on 06.02.01, Sardar Rachwan Singh had produced one Maruti 800 car with registration No.DL2C G 0195 saying that he had given this car to accused Rajesh Raja on 04.02.01 and he was using this car. On the said day, this car was parked at police station Sector 20, Noida. It was seized in the afternoon vide memo Ex.PW13/A. The car was got examined by Crime Team on 07.02.01. It was deposited in Malkhana. This part of the testimony of PW38 is also unchallenged. Therefore, even if the number of the Maruti car was not noted by the PW4, is not fatal to the prosecution case because Investigating Agency was able to trace the said car and PW20 was found to be the owner of the same. It has been established that accused Rajesh Raja had SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:35:used the said Maruti car which was owned by his brother inlaw PW20 as his thumb impression has been found on rear view mirror of the car.
64. PW4 has also testified that accused Vijay Shukla was seated on the driver seat while accused Rajesh Raja was sitting on the passenger seat of the car. Thus, it also proves that both the accused persons were present inside the car on the fateful day and the car was being driven by accused Vijay Shukla. It was argued on behalf of accused Vijay Shukla that prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Vijay Shukla knew driving and was driving the car as his driving license has not been seized by the police to prove that he can drive the car. The accused has not taken up the defence that he does not know driving. In the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has not raised the plea that he did not know driving but has merely denied the fact that on 04.02.01, he was found with coaccused sitting in Maruti car No.DL2C G 0195 and after firing two shots in the chest of Constable Krishan Kumar had ran away in the Maruti car. Whereas PW4 has proved that accused Vijay Shukla after firing on Constable Krishan Kumar had fled away in the car and he was sitting on the driver seat of the car. PW4 has deposed in his SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:36:crossexamination that he had seen the accused on driving seat on the day of the incident and he drove the vehicle, therefore, he could say that accused knew driving.
65. The objection raised on behalf of accused that since finger prints of the accused Vijay Shukla did not match with the lifted chance prints from inside the car proves that he was not inside the car, is not sustainable. The report given by an expert witness is only a corroborative piece of evidence. Moreover, the five chance prints which were lifted from inside the car have been lifted from front left side door of Maruti car, on driving side door, on rear view mirror and on back left side door of the car. No finger print was lifted from the steering wheel of the car or from other places inside the car. Whereas the testimony of prime witness PW4 establishes presence of accused Vijay Shukla inside the car at the time of incident. Thus, in view of the evidence of PW4 even though no finger prints of accused Vijay Shukla were not found or lifted from inside the Maruti car does not establish that he was not driving the said car.
66. It was vehemently argued on behalf of accused persons that testimony of PW4 is not reliable because in his first statement, he SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:37:did not give any description of the accused persons. Moreover, both the accused persons were shown to the witness before holding their TIP, therefore, in these circumstances, they had refused to participate in Test Identification Parade. It was contended that their said refusal to participate in TIP cannot be taken as an adverse inference against them.
67. In the judgment Matru @ Girish Chandra vs. The State of UP AIR 1971 SC 1050, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that : Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence : Identification tests are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on right lines.
68. In the judgment Girja Shankar Mishra vs. State of UP with Nathu Singh vs. State of UP AIR 1993 SC 2618, the Apex Court has observed : It is true that test identification parade is a step in investigation, but it is the identification in the SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:38:Court that is an evidence. The test identification parade assumes importance particularly if held within a reasonable time after the commission of the offence. It loses its significance when there is enormous delay in holding it.
In the light of above propositions of law, let us consider the effect of refusal of accused persons to participate in TIP.
69. In the present case, the incident took place on 04.02.01. Accused Vijay Shukla was arrested on 13.02.01 by PW29 Inspector K.P. Kukreti. He has deposed that soon after his arrest, he was kept in muffled face. He was produced before PW25 Learned MM on 14.02.01. PW25 has deposed that accused was produced before him on 14.02.01 in muffled face and he had fixed TIP for 16.02.01. On 16.02.01, the accused refused to participate in TIP on the plea that on 14.02.01 at the time of his production in the Court, he was kept seated with the eye witness for three hours and his beard and mustaches were shaved in presence of the witness. In the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has stated that he was shown to the witnesses in the Court and therefore, he refused for TIP.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:39:
70. Ex.PW25/C is the application moved on 16.02.01 by the accused before PW25 Learned MM, stating that after he was produced before the Learned MM, he was made to sit with the TIP witness for three hours outside the Court and in front of the witness, his beard and mustaches were shaved. It is quite unbelievable that IO would make accused seated for three hours outside the Court Room after taking his judicial remand and would also get his beard and mustaches shaved there. In case, the IO had wanted to show the accused to PW4, he had sufficient opportunity to do so when the accused was kept in the police lock up in police station Nabi Karim after his arrest on 13.02.01 till 14.02.01, when he was produced in the Court. PW4 was posted as constable in police station Rajinder Nagar. Thus, there was sufficient and easy opportunity with the police to show the accused Vijay Shukla in police station Nabi Karim to PW4.
71. During crossexamination, PW4 has deposed that he had no knowledge if on 14.02.01, accused Vijay Shukla was produced in the Court. He had denied the suggestion that accused Vijay Shukla was arrested in his presence and he had full opportunity to see the accused at the time of his arrest. He has also denied that the accused Vijay Shukla was shown to him before or after his SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:40:remand to judicial custody before sending him to judicial custody. He deposed that he had no knowledge that if accused Vijay Shukla was arrested by police of police station Nabi Karim on 13.02.01. He deposed that he did not come to the Court on 14.02.01. He also denied the suggestion that on 14.02.01, accused Vijay Shukla was made to sit with him for three hours and in his presence, the beard and mustaches of accused were removed. On the other hand, PW4 had correctly identified the accused in the Court and deposed that accused Vijay Shukla had fired two shots at the chest of deceased Constable Krishan Kumar.
72. The argument raised on behalf of the accused that PW4 did not give any description of the accused persons in his first statement made to the police is not tenable. PW4 has deposed that he gave description of the accused persons to the police on 04.02.01. However, PW4 has been confronted only with his one statement recorded on 04.02.01 and not with the other statement recorded on the same day. No explanation has been sought from the witness for making a subsequent statement. No intervening reason is assigned that why would PW4 or police will implicate the names of accused persons before their arrest when both the SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:41:statements of the witness were recorded on the same day. During crossexamination, the witness has deposed that his first statement was recorded in the hospital after about half an hour of the incident. He has also deposed that at that time he had a bit of palpitation. He further deposed that his second statement was recorded on the same day at the spot. There was a gap of two and a half hours in recording of this statement and his second statement was recorded before he left the spot. Therefore, as such, there is no contradiction appearing in the testimony recorded of PW4 and his previous statement made to police as there are two statements recorded of the witness on 04.02.01 and not one. Moreover, it can also not be presumed that PW4 did not have sufficient opportunity to see the accused persons while they were seated inside the parked car. He was at a distance of about 30 cms from the car. He has deposed that at the time of incident, there was little darkness and street light was on. From the testimony of PW4, it emerges that he was at a short distance from the car from where he had seen the accused persons and there was sufficient light at the spot for him to have recognized them. Similarly, accused Rajesh Raja had also refused to participate in TIP on the ground that he was shown to the witness. He was arrested on 19.02.01 at the pointing out of accused Vijay Shukla.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:42:PW4 correctly identified him as the person who had exhorted to accused Vijay Shukla 'Pakrey Gai Mar Goli'. Moreover, there was no reason for PW4 to invent a story to implicate the accused persons in an heinous offence against whom he did not have any animosity. Thus, there is no reason to doubt the deposition of PW4 for proving the identity of both the accused persons.
73. It was also contended that there are inherent contradiction in the prosecution story as according to the first disclosure statement recorded of accused Vijay Shukla, it emerges that accused Rajesh Raja was seated in driver's seat and had fired at Constable Krishan Kumar and accused Vijay Shukla merely signalled to him to shoot. Whereas according to his second disclosure statement, he was seated in the driver's seat and fired at deceased while accused Rajesh Raja told him 'Pakrey Gai Mar Goli'. First of all, the disclosure statement recorded by the police of accused person is inadmissible in evidence. Only that part of the disclosure statement is admissible which relates to recovery at the instance of accused persons. In pursuance of both disclosure statements recorded of the accused Vijay Shukla, no recovery has been effected at his instance but only coaccused Rajesh Raja was arrested. Thus, only this part of the disclosure statement SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:43:of accused Vijay Shukla is admissible. Further more, this argument raised on behalf of defence rather strengthens the prosecution case. Whatever the accused Vijay Shukla had disclosed to Investigating Agency, they had recorded it. Had they tried to manipulate the same, they would have seen that both disclosure statements should not be contradictory and would have been consistent. Therefore, it was for the accused Vijay Shukla to explain that why he made contradictory disclosure statements. Above all from the evidence of PW4, it is apparent that accused Vijay Shukla had fired gun shots at Constable Krishan Kumar while sitting on driver's seat and accused Rajesh Raja who was sitting in passenger seat next to him had exhorted 'Pakrey Gai Mar Goli'.
74. To disprove this fact proved by prosecution about presence of accused Vijay Shukla in driver seat, he has not led any evidence in his defence. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has merely denied the fact about his sitting on the driver's seat and firing gun shots.
75. Besides the occular evidence of eye witness PW4, the circumstances adduced by prosecution also corroborate the SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:44:testimony of PW4. It emerges from the testimony of PW3 Sh. Mool Chand Sharma and PW20 Sardar Rachwan Singh that he was doing construction work in Noida during the period when the incident took place and PW3 used to supply building construction material to him. The two receipts Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 which were recovered from the bag of accused persons taken out by deceased Krishan Kumar from inside the Maruti car were issued by PW3 for supply of building material to PW20. After taking lead from these two receipts, PW29 Inspector K.P. Kukreti reached Noida on 04.02.01 with his staff. He interrogated PW20 and accused Rajesh Raja.
76. From the testimony of PW12 Sh. Anil Jain, PW34 Sh. Piyush Srivastava, PW16 Constable Kali Ram, PW29 Inspector K.P. Kukreti and PW38 Inspector Mahipal, it is evident that PW12 was known to PW34. PW12 had telephoned PW34 that his friend wanted some help from police and requested him to render whatever possible help he could give. PW34 had received this telephone at his residence at 3.30 PM. According to deposition of PW34, PW12 had told him that his friend's relative namely Rajesh Raja had committed a murder in Delhi and he wanted to surrender in Noida. Accordingly, he instructed SO, Sector 20, Noida to SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:45:arrest the man. PW16 has further clarified the incident by deposing that on 05.02.01, SI Y.P. Singh, SO had handed over accused Rajesh Raja to him at 5.30 AM in police station Sector 20, Noida where he was posted as Clerk Constable on that day. The witness had correctly identified the accused in the Court. The witness further deposed that his duty was over at 8 AM and he had handed over the accused to the person who assumed duty after him. But the accused had run away from police station and on 07.02.01, he was suspended in this connection.
77. Thus, the testimonies of all these witnesses prove that on 05.02.01 i.e the next day after the incident, accused Rajesh Raja had surrendered himself before police of Noida but escaped from their custody, accordingly PW16 was suspended for negligence on his part as accused had escaped from his custody. It is an admitted fact that at the time, accused Rajesh Raja and his brother inlaw PW20 were residing in Noida, which explains that why he was made to surrender in Noida. Accordingly, it is established that accused Rajesh Raja had surrendered at 5.30 AM on 05.02.01 in police station Sector 20, Noida. If he was not involved in the crime, then where was the need for him to surrender before police in Noida and later on to escape from SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:46:police custody. The recovery of the revolver involved in crime from the possession of accused Rajesh Raja further clinches the prosecution case against the accused persons.
78. From the testimony of PW17, SI Janak Singh, PW18, Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, PW31 Dev Ram Sharma and PW37 Maya Ram, it emerges that the revolver bearing No.H153993, .32 bore make Smith & Wesson belonged to PW19 Sh. Kanwaljit Singh. He was granted license No.22/OD/DN/CH/95 to possess this revolver which was stolen from Chandigarh from the residence of sister of PW19 where he had kept it.
79. From the deposition of PW24 SI Joginder Singh, PW38 Inspector Mahipal Singh and PW39 Inspector Ramesh Chand, it is evident that accused Rajesh Raja was arrested at ISBT, Delhi on 19.02.01 while he was coming from Chandigarh on the pointing out of accused Vijay Shukla. On his checking, the revolver .32 bore of Smith & Wesson make with four live cartridges was recovered from his possession. PW24 SI Joginder Singh had gone to Chandigarh on 12.04.01 regarding investigation of this case and he came to know that the revolver recovered from SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:47:accused Rajesh Raja was involved in a case U/s 392 IPC registered at police station Sector 36, Chandigarh.
80. From the testimony of PW22 Sh. A.C. Vashney and FSL Reports Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B, it emerges that bullets Ex.EB1 & Ex.EB2 recovered from the dead body of deceased Constable Krishan Kumar were fired from revolver Ex.F2 which was recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh Raja. Two cartridges out of the four cartridges, A6 to A9, recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh Raja were test fired through revolver Ex.F2 and were exhibited as Ex.TB1 & TB2. On examination, the fired bullets Ex.TB1 & TB2 and Ex.EB1 & EB2 were found to be identical. Thus, it proves that the bullets which were fired on Constable Krishan Kumar on 04.02.01 were fired from revolver Ex.F2, recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh Raja. Exhibits F2, A1 to A9, EB1 &EB2 have been opined to be fire arms / ammunition as defined under Arms Act, 1959 by PW22.
81. In the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused Rajesh Raja has stated that PW19 Sh. Kanwaljit Singh is related to him and his revolver was stolen in the year 1996 which was recovered SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:48:in Delhi and thereafter he was falsely implicated in this case. Thus, the accused has not been able to explain about the recovery of the stolen revolver from his possession which was used in murder of Constable Krishan Kumar although prosecution has proved that this revolver was recovered from his possession on 19.02.01. No motive can be imputed on police to falsely implicate the accused in this case.
82. Now, we come to next argument raised on behalf of accused Vijay Shukla that the post mortem report does not support the prosecution case. It was contended that according to prosecution version, Constable Krishan Kumar was shot from close range while he was checking the Maruti car from the driver side but post mortem report reveals that bullets on him were fired from distant range. Moreover, if the bullets were shot from close range, then there should have been blackening or charring of the wounds which is not so in this case. To meet with this argument, let us examine the testimony of PW9, Dr. P.C. Dixit, who has deposed that there were two firearm entry wounds found on chest of the deceased. There was no burning, blackening or tattooing present. The injuries were caused by firearm (riffled) ammunition discharged from distant range. However, in crossexamination, SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:49:the witness has testified that he cannot give any approximate range except the distant range. He deposed that when it is outside the range of tattooing, blackening then they call it distant range. The range of blackening and tattooing is approximately 60 cm and depends on a lot of factors including the type of powder, length of barrel, presence and absence of choking.
83. The sketch site plan Ex.PW26/A does not reveal the distance between the place where Constable Krishan Kumar was standing and accused Vijay Shukla was sitting inside the car. It has not been shown whether it was less than 60 cms. Moreover, as deposed by PW9, blackening etc. depends on lot many other factors. Thus, merely because the bullet injury wounds found on the body of deceased Constable Krishan Kumar were not charred or blackened does not create a doubt on the prosecution version that he was not shot dead by the accused persons.
84. It was further contended that PW4 did not inform the doctor who had examined the deceased when he was brought in the hospital that who had caused injury to Constable Krishan Kumar. MLC Ex.PW40/A of deceased Constable Krishan Kumar has been proved by PW40 Dr. Sanjay Rohtagi. The alleged history has SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:50:been shown as of gun shot and that he was brought by PW4 Constable Kadam Gangadhar. In the judgment Sudershan Kumar vs. State 1970 (6) DLT 566, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under : Much has been made of the fact that doctors in the hospital did not record in the case history sheet the name of the person who had thrown acid on Maya Devi. This argument is without substance, because the doctors are normally concerned with the injuries and their treatment and not with the fact as to who had caused the same.
Accordingly, if the name of assailant is not disclosed to the doctor, same is not fatal to the prosecution case.
85. It was argued on behalf of defence that though deceased fell on the ground after receiving bullet injuries but no blood was found on the ground where he fell and he did not receive any injuries on his back which is improbable. It is not disputed that the incident had occurred in the month of February when it is winter season. The deceased was wearing leather jacket, woollen shirt, sweater, vest at the time, he was shot. It explains that as he was SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:51:wearing heavy clothes, therefore, he did not sustain any injury on the back due to fall on the ground and the blood did not spill on the ground. However, from Ex.PW38/L, it is apparent that all his clothes were blood soaked.
86. Another argument was raised on behalf of accused persons to cast doubt on the prosecution version is that why a parallel investigation was conducted by police station Nabi Karim whereas this case came within the jurisdiction of police station Rajinder Nagar. The answer to this question has been provided by the deposition of PW29 Inspector K.P. Kukreti. He deposed that he was posted at police station Nabi Karim. On 04.02.01, on the directions of DCP (Central), he was also associated with investigation of this case, registered at police station Rajinder Nagar. He further clarified it during crossexamination and deposed that on 04.02.01, SHO Mahipal Singh was the Incharge of investigation. He was authorized by DCP (Central) and the Chief Investigating Officer to investigate a particular part of the case. PW38 Inspector Mahipal has deposed that at that time, they were governed by DCP (Central).
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:52:
87. The defence has also questioned the arrest of accused Rajesh Raja at the pointing out of accused Vijay Shukla. It was argued that police was already aware about the involvement of accused Rajesh Raja in the case then where was the need to show his arrest at the instance of accused Vijay Shukla. IO was merely filling lacunas in the investigation to rope in accused persons. Prosecution has proved that on 06.02.01, accused Rajesh Raja had absconded from the custody of Noida police. Thus, the Delhi Police was making search for him and they had obtained police remand of accused Vijay Shukla to arrest accused Rajesh Raja. PW24 has deposed that on 19.02.01, SI Subodh Anand of police station Karol Bagh had informed from Chandigarh that accused Rajesh Raja would be coming from Chandigarh by bus to Delhi. Raiding party was formed and on the pointing out of accused Vijay Shukla, he was arrested from ISBT, Delhi. Therefore, there is nothing unusual about arrest of accused Rajesh Raja on the pointing out of accused Vijay Shukla.
88. It was argued that from the testimony of PW4, it is apparent that public was present at the spot but no public person was joined in investigation. Moreover, it is not believable that the black bag of the accused persons kept lying at the spot for about two SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:53:hours unattended. It was also contended that it was not possible for Constable Krishan Kumar to have picked up the bag from inside the car from the place where he was standing and it is also improbable that he had gone to keep the bottle of whisky and glasses inside the motorcycle dickey giving an opportunity to the accused persons to escape. The foremost lacuna pointed out in the prosecution version is that the accused persons did not see Constable Krishan Kumar checking the black bag then why accused Rajesh Raja exhorted "Pakrey Gai Mar Goli". Also the contents of the bag were not checked before PW4 and how he got those recorded in statement. It was argued that these are the glaring defects which demolish the prosecution case.
89. As far as the contention regarding non joining of public witnesses is concerned, reliance can be placed on a judgment titled as Ishwar Singh vs. State reported in 1985 Crl.LJ 1625, in which it was observed as under : It is common experience that people are greatly reluctant to cooperate with the police in such matters for a variety of reasons and there is as such absolutely no reason to disbelieve the IO that public did not respond to join the investigation.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:54:
90. The other contentions raised on behalf of the accused persons get clarified from the testimony of PW4 who has categorically deposed that after lifting the bag from inside the car, the deceased had told to PW4 that "this matter is something else". Evidently, the deceased had become aware about the contents of the bag that is why he remarked so. The said bag was seized from the spot with the contents as deposed by the witnesses and the investigation was initiated with the help of two receipts Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, found from inside the bag which makes it apparently clear that deceased had taken out the bag from inside the car and before he could seize it, he was shot dead. Moreover, PW4 has not been crossexamined at all about the contents of the black bag. No suggestion has been given to him that Constable Krishan Kumar or he did not check the contents of the bag and no explanation has been sought from the witness about his knowledge of the contents of the bag. For the first time, this point has been raised in the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused persons. However, the fact that Constable Krishan Kumar had remarked to PW4 that "this matter is something else"
after taking out the black bag from inside the car, in itself proves that Constable Krishan Kumar had become aware about the revolver kept inside the bag.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.:55:
91. The other contradictions pointed out in the testimony of witnesses and lapses in investigation do not in any manner make a dent in the prosecution case. These are immaterial after the veracity of evidence of the most natural eye witness PW4, corroborated by other prosecution evidence, has found to be consistent specifically when the accused persons have refused to participate in T.I.P. These minor lapses are bound to occur as it is not reasonable to except that eye witness would be able to give meticulous and precise account of details of shots and scene of crime. It is quite natural for PW4 to have become nervous on seeing his associate Constable Krishan Kumar being shot dead.
92. The last leg of argument raised on behalf of accused persons was that accused Rajesh Raja did not formulate 'common intention' as envisaged U/s 34 of IPC with accused Vijay Shukla to commit murder of Constable Krishan Kumar. The exhortation 'Pakrey Gai Mar Goli' is not sufficient to convict him under Section 302 IPC with aid of Section 34 IPC. It was further argued that being the month of February, the assailants would have been sitting in the car with closed window panes. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the accused Rajesh Raja had exhorted, same would not have been heard by PW4. Moreover, prosecution has SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:56:made improvement in its case by subsequently adding "Pakrey Gaye Mar Goli" in the statement of PW4 so as to falsely involve the accused Rajesh Raja in this case.
93. PW4 has deposed that the window panes of car were closed. He also deposed that right side of the car was opened and liquor bottle and glasses were taken out by Constable Krishan Kumar. The raxine bag was taken by Constable Krishan Kumar from the place where the accused was keeping his feet inside the car. He again testified that he did not remember whether side glass of the left side window of the car was down or not but subsequently testified that left side of the window was closed. The incident had occurred on 04.02.01 and PW4 was examined on 12.05.03 and thereafter on 07.12.05. It could not have been possible for him to remember that whether window panes of the doors of the car were closed or open. However, the fact cannot be ignored that Constable Krishan Kumar had taken out a bottle of quarter whiskey, glass from the dash board of the car which he kept in the dickey of his motorcycle. As deposed by PW4, after 10 seconds, he removed a black bag from inside the car. This clearly brings out that the right hand side window pane of the car door was open when he removed these articles from inside the car.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:57:
94. PW4 has deposed that after coming near the car, Constable Krishan Kumar had demanded driving license from the driver who told him that he will do so after seeing the license of Constable Krishan Kumar. At that time, PW4 was standing on the left side of car. The witness has not been crossexamined on this part of his testimony. Therefore, it is apparent that PW4 was able to hear the conversation between the driver of the car and Constable Krishan Kumar. It, thus, emerges that he would have also heard the exhortation made by accused Rajesh Raja to the driver as he was standing near the left side of the car.
95. It was also submitted on behalf of the accused persons that in the light of various judgments cited, accused Rajesh Raja did not formulate 'common intention' to murder Constable Krishan Kumar.
96. In Satish Kumar vs. State in Crl. A. No.162/07 & Geeta vs. State in Crl. A. No.257/07, both decided on 31.03.2008 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed : Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:58:distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34. if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence , whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it prearranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime.
It has been further observed that under the provisions of Section 34, the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:59:it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone.
The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Chinta Pulla Reddy vs. State of A.P. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 134. Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying Section 34, it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of the accused.
97. The testimony of PW4 is very relevant to consider the aspect of 'common intention'. PW4 has testified that after Constable Krishan Kumar had lifted the black bag from inside the car and remarked to him that "this matter is something else". Immediately accused Rajesh Raja exhorted "Pakrey Gai Mar Goli" and thereupon accused Vijay Shukla shot two fires at Constable Krishan Kumar. Thus, it emerges the moment accused Rajesh Raja thought that they would be apprehended as Constable Krishan Kumar had noticed the contents of the bag, instantly he exhorted to accused Vijay Shukla. He knew that accused Vijay SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:60:Shukla had his revolver and being in the driver seat, he was more proximate to deceased who was standing outside the car. Therefore, accused Rajesh Raja instantly formulated 'common intention' with accused Vijay Shukla to kill the Constable Krishan Kumar.
98. Further it is the case of the prosecution that on the very next day, in the morning, accused Rajesh Raja after surrendering in police station Sector 20, Noida absconded from there and went to Chandigarh. The revolver with which Constable Krishan Kumar was shot dead was recovered from his possession. It was a stolen revolver regarding which FIR No.56/98 U/s 392/411/420 IPC had been registered in police station Chandigarh. Accused Vijay Shukla had shot fires on Constable Krishan Kumar with the said revolver. Thus, it has been proved that accused Rajesh Raja had formulated 'common intention' with accused Vijay Shukla to shoot Constable Krishan Kumar as he apprehended that they would be caught by the two Constables.
99. PW4, the sole eye witness has clearly deposed about the incident in detail. His testimony is believable which is corroborated with by evidence of post mortem report, FSL result and other SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:61:evidence adduced by prosecution. Moreover, both the accused persons had refused to participate in T.I.P. It has already been observed that PW4 has made a consistent statement about the specific role of both accused persons. PW4 has deliberately been confronted only with first part of his statement. Therefore, there is no improvement in the prosecution case.
100. The judgments cited on behalf of accused persons are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the judgment Matadin vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), it was held : However, coaccused not sharing common intention with main accused to cause death of deceased - Though words "maro sale ko" were used by coaccused in abusive way - But from that it could not only be said that he exhoted main accused to kill deceased - Coaccused held guilty for abetment of offence of hurt -
Hence, his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 altered to one under Section 324/110.
101. In the above said case, there was no intention to kill as it was held that words "Maro Sale Ko" could mean "to beat" or even "to SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:62:kill". But in the present case, the words "Mar Goli" clearly show the intention "to kill".
102. In the judgment Suresh & Anr. vs. State of UP (supra), it was held as under : By her mere presence near place of occurrence at or about the time of crime in the absence of other evidence, direct or circumstantial cannot hold her guilty with the aid of Section 34.
103. In Mithu Singh vs. State of Punjab 2001 (2) CC Cases (SC) 12, it was held : No overt act attributed to accused appellant/ Mithu Singh - Nothing on record to show that coaccused had gone to house of deceased with intention to causing her death and such intention was known to appellant much less shared by him - Simply because appellant armed with pistol not necessarily lead to interference that he reached house of deceased or accompanied coaccused with intention to cause death of deceased - Held: Inference regarding accused/ appellant sharing common intention with coaccused of causing death of deceased can't be drawn.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:63:
104. However, in the present case, 'common intention' was formulated at the spot as accused persons apprehended the fear of being arrested. The words are very clear "Pakrey Gai Maar Goli".
105. In the judgment Gajjan Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), it was held as under : The mere fact that B and C came together armed with rifles was not sufficient to indicate that they had come having shared a common intention to commit the murder. On the evidence and the facts found the inference of G's sharing the common intention with B for the murder of A is not possible to be drawn. It may be that he had such common intention. But it is difficult to fill the gap between "may" and "must" and to say that G must have shared the common intention for causing the death of A.
106. In the judgment Malkhan Singh and Anr. vs. State of UP (supra), it is held : The fact that the companion of accused on whose cycle the accused was sitting, continued to pedal the cycle after the accused fired pistol SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:64:and that he too ran away with the accused would not necessarily go to show that the shot had been fired in furtherance of common intention of the two accused. The companion therefore, could not be held vicariously liable.
107. In the case of Ajay Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), it was held : Common intention - Appellant catching hold of the deceased and exhorting the coaccused to strike him - Coaccused taking out a kirpan from under the stockings and giving 23 blows resulting in instantaneous death of deceased - Held, in the circumstances of the case, the instigation was only to strike and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302/34 not sustainable
- Appellant might not have known that the co accused was having a kirpan under his stockings - He is liable to be convicted under Section 324/110 IPC.
108. In this case, the 'common intention' is established because at the exhortation of accused Rajesh Raja, accused Vijay Shukla immediately fired two shots at Constable Krishan Kumar and it was in the knowledge of accused Rajesh Raja that accused Vijay Shukla was carrying revolver. The facts of the case Hardeep SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:65:Singh vs. State of Haryana (supra) are also distinguishable as the coaccused though armed did not attack on the vital parts of the deceased.
109.On the consideration of entire evidence on record, it is revealed that prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused persons. The prosecution has been able to prove that the accused persons had obstructed Constable Krishan Kumar in discharge of his public functions as he was carrying on their checking. The accused persons were found to be drinking liquor in the car at a public place. PW4 has deposed that they had seen the accused drinking from the front glass of the car. But apprehending their arrest, accused Vijay Shukla at the exhortation of accused Rajesh Raja shot gun fires at Constable Krishan Kumar. A separate complaint made U/s 195 Cr.P.C has been proved as Ex.PW38/X by PW38 Inspector Mahipal Singh. It has also been proved both the accused persons were in possession of revolvers and bullets and accused Vijay Shukla had used it.
110. Accordingly, both the accused are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC, 186/34 IPC and SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:66:68 Excise Act. Accused Rajesh Raja is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act and accused Vijay Shukla is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act. As the accused persons have been convicted under Section 302 IPC, thus, they are not separately being convicted under Section 353 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court On 22.09.2009.
(Shalinder Kaur) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:67:SC No. : 09/08 22.09.2009 Present : Sh. Masood Ahmed, Learned APP for State.
Accused Rajesh Raja on bail with Counsel Sh. Rashid Hashmi.
Accused Vijay Shukla from JC.
Vide judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, both the accused are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC, 186/34 IPC and 68 Excise Act. Accused Rajesh Raja is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. Accused Vijay Shukla is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act. As the accused persons have been convicted under Section 302 IPC, thus, they are not separately being convicted under Section 353 IPC. Accused Rajesh Raja be taken into custody.
Put up for Order on Sentence 24.09.09.
(SHALINDER KAUR) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:68:In the Court of Ms. Shalinder Kaur Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 09/08 STATE versus
3. Vijay Kumar Shukla S/o Late Dharm Prakash Shukla R/o 53/B, Sector Gama, GII, Sharam Vihar, Greater Noida (U.P.)
4. Rajesh Raja S/o Late Jagdish Chand R/o C49, Sector39 Noida (U.P.) Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 48/2001 Police Station : Rajender Nagar Under Section : 302/186/353/34 IPC & 25/27/ 54/59 Arms Act 68/1/14 Excise Act ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Heard on the point of sentence.
2. It is stated on behalf of State by Learned APP that the SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.:69:
deceased was a police personnel who was on duty when he was killed by the accused persons. Taking a lenient view against them, will give a wrong message in the society.
3. Per contra on behalf of accused Rajesh Raja, it is submitted that he is not a previous convict. He is barely 37 years of age and has a son and family to look after. On behalf of accused Vijay Shukla, it is stated that the act was not preplanned and the case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare cases. Thus, they have prayed to take a lenient view for them.
4. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case that accused Rajesh Raja is not a previous convict and this case is not one of the rarest of rare cases where extreme penalty of death is to be awarded to the convicts. Thus, both the accused persons are sentenced for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/ each, in default SI for three months for each, under Section 186 IPC to undergo SI for one month and under Section 68 Excise Act to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each, in default SI for two months for each. Accused Rajesh Raja is sentenced for offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act to undergo RI for three years with fine of SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:70:Rs.1000/, in default SI for three months. Accused Vijay Shukla is sentenced for offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.1000/, in default SI for three months. The sentences to run concurrently and benefit of section 428 Cr.PC be given. Copies be given free of cost to both the convicts. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the Open Court On 24.09.09 (Shalinder Kaur) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:71:SC No. : 09/08 24.09.2009 Present : Sh. Masood Ahmed, Learned APP for State.
Both accused from JC.
Sh. Rashid Hashmi - Counsel for accused Rajesh Raja. Sh. M.S. Rohilla - Amicus Curaie for accused Vijay Shukla.
Arguments heard on point of Sentence.
Vide Order on Sentence announced of even date on separate sheets, both the accused persons are sentenced for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/ each, in default SI for three months for each, under Section 186 IPC to undergo SI for one month and under Section 68 Excise Act to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each, in default SI for two months for each. Accused Rajesh Raja is sentenced for offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.1000/, in default SI for three months. Accused Vijay Shukla is sentenced for offence punishable under Section 27 of SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.
:72:Arms Act to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.1000/, in default SI for three months. The sentences to run concurrently and benefit of section 428 Cr.PC be given. Copies be given free of cost to both the convicts. File be consigned to Record Room.
(SHALINDER KAUR) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
SC: 09/08 State vs. Vijay Shukla & Anr.