Delhi District Court
Sessions Case No. 389/2018 (State vs . Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 1 Of 12 on 1 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.R. SETHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 : NORTH WEST:
ROHINI COURTS : NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Sessions Case No. 389/2018
CNR No. : DLNW010066502018
FIR NO. : 162/18
Police Station: Aman Vihar
Under Section: 307/506/34 IPC
& 27 Arms Act
STATE
V/S
1. Ramesh @ Kala
S/o Ram Jeet Singh
R/o H. No. 303,
Village Madan Pur Dabas, Delhi.
2. Mohit @ Mogli
S/o Kulbir Singh
R/o H. No. 23,
Village Madan Pur Dabas, Delhi. [.... Accused persons]
Date of Institution of the case in Sessions Court : 07.06.2018
Date of conclusion of arguments : 01.12.2018
Date of Judgment : 01.12.2018
Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
1. Stated in brief, allegations against accused persons were to the effect that on 28.02.18 at about 3.30 pm near Masjid Bhagya Vihar, they both in furtherance of their common intention along with two other persons who could not be apprehended, had fired upon the complainant and three other persons and had caused injuries to Sunil, Bijender and Shishpal, and had also criminally intimidated the complainant Jasbir Kaur. Gunshots allegedly had been fired by accused Mohit.
2. On basis of aforesaid allegations, charges were framed against both accused persons for having committed offences punishable u/s 307/34 IPC and u/s 506/34 IPC. Separate charge was framed against accused Mohit for having committed offence punishable u/s 27 Arms Act. Both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 ASI Manju who claimed that rukka was produced before her by Ct. Rajender on 28.02.18 at 8.10 pm, and on basis thereof she registered FIR Ex.PW1/1. She proved her endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/2.
During course of crossexamination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness denied the suggestion that FIR was antedated or Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 2 of 12 that no rukka had been produced before her or that FIR was fabricated.
4. The complainant Jasbir Kaur was examined as PW2. While stating about the incident, she claimed that on 27.02.17 she along with her relatives Sunil and Botle had gone to her plot in Mubarak Pur where car of Sunil had been parked in front of the plot. She claimed that 34 boys came in a car and fired gunshots. Witness claimed that she could identify the culprits if she saw them. She specifically claimed that none of the culprits was present in court. She further claimed that IO had obtained her signature on some written papers but had not recorded her statement. Witness claimed that she did not know anything about that document. After seeking permission from the court, witness was cross examined by ld. PP for State and during course of such cross examination, she claimed that she was illiterate but could sign. She admitted that the incident took place on 28.02.18. Witness admitted that plot in question had been purchased by her father about 2025 years back and that she had sold it to Mogli a year back for Rs. 8 lacs and had received the bayana amount of Rs. One lac. She admitted that Mogli got the documents executed in name of Suraj but had not paid the balance amount. She admitted that when Mogli did not give her money despite repeated reminders, she sold the plot to one Jagmohan through Sunil, and Jagmohan Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 3 of 12 affixed his lock on the plot. Witness claimed that she had no knowledge if on 27.02.18 Sunil had any talk with Mogli in respect of the plot or that on 28.02.18 Sunil had called Mogli to the plot. She denied having made any such statement to police. Her attention was drawn to statement mark P2/A portion A1 to A2 where it was so recorded. Witness claimed that as she had no knowledge, she could not say if at about 3.304 pm, Mogli and his friends came to the spot in vehicle no. DL8CM7505 and DL3CBA 1534 or that Mogli, his friend Kale and others got down from the car. She denied having so stated in her statement to police. Her attention was drawn to statement mark P2/A portion A5 to A6 where it was so recorded. She denied the suggestion that after getting down, Mogli pushed her or gave foul names to Sunil and his friends and fired upon them. She claimed that she had not so stated to police. Her attention was drawn to statement mark P2/A portion A7 to A8 where it was so recorded. She denied the suggestion that Mogli, Kale (pointed out by ld. PP) and their friends fired upon Sunil and his friends or had threatened to kill her or that they left thereafter. She claimed that she had not so stated to police. Her attention was drawn to statement mark P2/A portion A9 to A10 where it was so recorded. She further claimed that as she had no knowledge in this regard, she could not say if Sunil, Bijender and one more person received bullet wounds on their legs. She denied having so stated to police. Her attention was Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 4 of 12 drawn to statement mark P2/A portion A11 to A12 where it was so recorded. She claimed that as she had left the spot, she could not say if anyone had called no. 100 or if PCR had reached the spot and removed injured to hospital. She denied having so stated to police. Her attention was drawn to statement mark P2/A portion A13 to A14 where it was so recorded. She denied having mentioned to police that Mogli wanted to take possession of her plot or that he and his friends had fired upon Sunil and others. Her attention was drawn to statement mark P2/A portion A15 to A16 where it was so recorded. While she identified her signature on the site plan mark P2/D, she claimed that she did not know anything regarding the said document. She denied the suggestion that any empty shell had been recovered from the spot in her presence. She identified her signatures at point mark X on the seizure memo mark P2/C. She admitted that photocopies of document of plot had been handed over by her to police. She denied the suggestion that the two accused and their accomplices had fired gunshots upon them on 28.02.18 or that she was intentionally not identifying the accused persons under threat. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
5. PW3 HC Anuradha proved copies of DD no. 25, 26, 27 & 28 dtd. 28.02.18 PP Prem Nagar as Ex.PW3/1, 2, 3 & 4. During course of crossexamination, she denied the Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 5 of 12 suggestion that the DD entries were antetimed or manipulated at instance of IO. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
6. PW4 Ct. Rishi Pal deposed about arrest of accused Ramesh on 05.03.18 at instance of secret informer. He identified his signature on arrest documents Ex.PW4/1, 2 & 3 and claimed that accused had pointed out spot of incident vide memo Ex.PW4/4. Accused Ramesh was also claimed to have got recovered a Honda City car bearing no. 1523 and the same was claimed to have been seized vide memo Ex.PW4/5. He claimed that the accused was got medically examined and then put in lockup.
During course of crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that Ramesh was not apprehended in the manner as claimed by him. He further denied the suggestion that Ramesh had not made any disclosure statement or that his signature were obtained on blank papers which were then converted into fabricated documents. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined investigation of the case or had merely signed documents in the PS at instance of the IO. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. Injured Sunil was examined as PW5. While deposing about the incident, he claimed that they had parked their car outside plot Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 6 of 12 of Jasbir Kaur when after some time a Scorpio car came there and its occupants were drunk. He claimed that those boys started uttering foul names and when confronted, gave beatings to them and also fired gunshots. Witness claimed that one of the gunshots hit him and the other hit Bijender and a gunshot also hit a passerby. Witness specifically claimed that he could not say who the culprits were, but could identify them. He specifically claimed that none of the culprits was present in court.
After seeking permission from the court, witness was cross examined by ld. PP for State and during course of such cross examination, he denied the suggestion of having called Mogli to the plot for some talk. He denied the suggestion that at about 4 pm Mogli and his friends came in two vehicles and that Mogli and Kala got down from the car with their accomplices. He denied having so stated to police. His attention was drawn to statement mark P5/A portion X1 to X2 where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that Mogli gave beatings to him or took out a pistol and fired gun shots. He denied having so stated to police. His attention was drawn to statement mark P5/A portion X3 to X4 where it was so recorded. Witness claimed that he did not recognize Mogli. He specifically denied the suggestion that it was accused Mogli who fired the gunshots. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons out of fear or had compromised with them.
Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 7 of 12
8. The other injured Bijender was examined as PW6. While stating about the incident, witness claimed that occupants of the Scorpio who were uttering foul names started firing upon them. He claimed that Sunil, himself and a passerby received bullet wounds and the culprits fled away from the spot. He claimed having given call at no. 100 and claimed that he could identify occupants of Scorpio but none of them was present in court.
After seeking permission from the court, witness was cross examined by ld. PP for State and during course of such cross examination when statement mark P6/A portion X to X1 was read over to the witness, he denied having made any such statement to police. He specifically claimed that he did not know any of the accused present in court and could not say if they were Mogli and Ramesh. Witness denied having seen them in the Scorpio. He further denied the suggestion of having seen accused Mogli firing the gunshots on the day of incident or regarding Mogli and Ramesh having quarreled with them. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely out of fear of accused persons or had compromised with them.
9. PW7 Nijamuddin Saifi claimed having purchased plot no.
54 Bhagya Vihar from accused Mogli. He claimed that photocopies of documents in respect of the said plot had been recovered from him by police and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 8 of 12
10. PW8 Ct. Rajender claimed having reached the spot along with SI Dinesh and Ct. Rishi Pal. He claimed that statement of Jasbir Kaur was recorded at the spot and five empty cartridges and blood sample recovered from there. He further claimed that he along with IO went to the hospital where injured Sunil, Shishpal and Bijender were found admitted. Some sealed parcels were claimed to have been recovered there and seized vide memos Ex.PW8/1 & 2.
During course of crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that he had never joined investigation of the case or had neither gone to the spot nor to SGM hospital. He denied the suggestion that statement of Jasbir Kaur was not recorded in his presence or that nothing was recovered or seized in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had merely signed documents in the PS at instance of the IO or was deposing falsely.
11. Summons issued to the other injured Shish Pal were received back unserved with report that he was not traceable. Even otherwise, as per his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC he had claimed that he had not seen the culprits who fired the gunshots.
12. As neither the complainant nor any of the injured had identified any of the accused as being the culprit and as the third injured Shish Pal had specifically claimed during course of Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 9 of 12 investigation that he had not seen any of the culprits, and as informed by ld. PP there was no other eye witness to the alleged incident, no useful purpose was likely to be served by examining the remaining formal witnesses who even otherwise had nothing to say about the actual incident. Recording of their testimonies would have been an exercise in futility and was accordingly dispensed with. Prosecution evidence was accordingly closed by order of court.
13. Statements of accused persons were recorded wherein they claimed that they had been falsely implicated in this case despite being innocent. None of the accused chose to lead defence evidence.
14. During course of his submissions, it was submitted by ld.
PP for State that apparently PW2, 5 & 6 had intentionally not identified the accused persons as being the culprits out of fear or having compromised with them. It was submitted that it should not be lost sight of that three persons had received gunshot wounds in this case and one of the injured was a mere passerby who had no connection whatsoever with the plot in question or with the complainant side or with accused persons. ld. PP further submitted that the accused persons should not go unpunished.
15. Ld. Counsel for accused persons on the other hand had Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 10 of 12 submitted that none of the witnesses of incident examined by prosecution had supported its case qua culpability of the accused persons. It was prayed that in absence of anything incriminating against any of the accused, they were entitled to an order of acquittal.
16. This court has given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced and has also perused the records. It is apparent on perusal of records that neither the complainant nor any of the injured, during course of testimony in court, has identified any of the accused as being the culprit in this case and the third injured Shish Pal had specifically claimed that he had not seen any of the culprits who fired the gunshot. None has pointed out Mogli as being the person who had fired the gunshots nor anyone has identified Ramesh @ Kala as being his accomplice.
17. In that view of matter, due to want of even an iota of incriminating evidence on record against any of the accused, this court has no option but to order their acquittal in this case.
18. Both the accused persons are accordingly ordered to be acquitted.
Announced in open court of 1st day of December, 2018.
Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 11 of 12 (M.R. SETHI) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE 03 NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Sessions case no. 389/2018 (State Vs. Ramesh @Kala &Anr.) Page No. 12 of 12