Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagat Prakash on 21 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 04, (NORTHWEST DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI IN THE MATTER OF : Case No. 52343/2016 S.C. No. : 169/01 FIR No. : 941/2007 U/s : 307 IPC & Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act PS : Saraswati Vihar STATE Vs. Jagat Prakash S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh R/o WE 41 A, Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi. Complainant: SI Rajeev Ranjan I/C PP Rani Bagh, PS Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. Date of receipt of file in Sessions Court : 20.12.2007 Date of arguments : 17.04.2018 Date of judgment : 21.04.2018 J U D G M E N T: 1.
By this judgment, I shall conclude the trial of the case FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 1 of 52 FIR No.941/2007, Police Station Saraswati Vihar registered against the accused person for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. The offences so committed are well within the cognizance of this Court wherein accused is facing the trial.
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 09.09.2007 at about 07:30 PM at House No. 1809, Second Floor, Rani Bagh, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Saraswati Vihar, accused fired on the person of Neeti Arora D/o Gulshan Kumar Arora and Smt. Asha Arora and caused bullet injuries on their person with such intention of knowledge and under such circumstances, if he had caused their death, accused would have been guilty of murder and accused also used the revolver at the time of commission of incident and thereby, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
3. The present case was assigned to this Court after the committal of proceedings by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned to the Sessions Court. Before committal of the proceedings, the compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was made by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate by supplying the complete set of FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 2 of 52 charge sheet to the accused persons.
4. The arguments were heard on the point of charge and charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and under Section 27 Arms Act was framed on 26.02.2008 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove the case of prosecution. The witnesses so examined by the prosecution are categorized in the following categories.
6. Police Witnesses :
The prosecution examined Ct. Shamsher as PW 3 who deposed that on 09.09.2007, he was posted at PP Rani Bagh of PS Saraswati Vihar and was working as DD writer and his duty hours were from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM of 10.09.2007. He further deposed that on that day as about 08:40 PM, he received a message from Control Room regarding firing on a woman in House No. 1809, in front of MTC Showroom Rani Bagh. He further deposed that he reduced it in writing and handed over to I/C PP SI Rajeev Ranjan for necessary action. He proved the DD No. 21 dated 09.09.2007 as Ex.PW3/A. FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 3 of 52
7. PW 5 ASI Ramesh Chandra deposed that on 09.09.2007, he was posted at PS Saraswati Vihar as Duty Officer and on that day at about 11:45 PM, he received rukka through Ct. Nihal sent by SI Rajeev Ranjan. He deposed that after receiving the rukka, he made endorsement Ex.PW5/A and thereafter FIR No. 941/2007 was registered. He further deposed that after the registration of the case, he handed over computerized copy of FIR and rukka in original to Ct. Nihal for further hand over to SI Rajeev Ranjan. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW5/B.
8. PW 7 Ct. Suresh Kumar deposed that on 09.09.2007, he was posted as Ct. at PS Saraswati Vihar and on that day at 08:40 PM on receipt of DD No. 21 PP Rani Bagh he along with SI Rajiv Ranjan and Ct. Nihal went to the spot i.e House No. 1809, Second Floor, Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh, Delhi, where they came to know that bullets have been fired in the said house and when they went to second floor to staircase, they found that blood was lying in the staircase as well as in the room on the second floor. He further deposed that they also came to know that injured had already been removed to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and they went inside the bed room, FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 4 of 52 they found that blood was lying on the floor and the bed sheet was also blood stained and there were bullet marks on the almirah towards the western side as well as on the door near the said almirah. He further deposed that SI Rajiv Ranjan called the Crime Team at the spot and after leaving him at the spot, SI Rajiv Ranjan and Ct. Nihal went to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital.
He further deposed that after about 3040 minutes, SI Rajiv Ranjan and Ct. Nihal came back at the spot and in the meantime Crime Team had also reached the spot and the Crime Team inspected the spot and also took photographs at the spot. He further deposed that Crime Team also lifted the exhibits from the spot and thereafter, SI Rajiv Ranjan prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Nihal to went to PS Saraswati Vihar along with the tehrir for the registration of the case. He further deposed that after getting the FIR registered Ct. Nihal came back at the spot along with original tehrir and copy of the FIR and handed over the same to SI Rajiv Ranjan. He further deposed that thereafter SI Rajiv Ranjan collected the blood stained cloths and bed sheets from the spot and put the same in white colour cloth and prepared a pullanda and sealed FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 5 of 52 the same with the seal of RS Grover and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the blood sample of the blood lying scattered at the spot was collected in the plastic box and the piece of the floor (earth control) were also taken into possession in the form of a pullanda sealed with the seal of RS Grover and the said pullanda was sealed vide memo Ex.PW7/B bearing his signatures at point A. It is further submitted that thereafter the bullet lead pieces lying at the spot were also collected by putting them in a plastic dibbi which were converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of RS and the pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the wooden piece of almirah having bullet lead was also sealed in a pullanda with the seal of RS and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/D. PW 7 further deposed to the effect that after completing the proceedings at the spot, he along with SI Rajiv Ranjan and Ct. Nihal went Maharaja Agrasen Hospital where Gulshan Kumar father of Niti met them and SI Rajiv Ranjan made inquires and went to House No. A41, Krishi Nagar in FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 6 of 52 search of accused but he could not be found. He further deposed that thereafter they came back to PP Rani Bagh and the case property was got deposited at Malkhana PS Saraswati Vihar.
9. PW 8 Ct. Nihal Singh deposed that on 09.09.2007, he was posted at PP Rani Bagh of PS Saraswati Vihar and on that day at about 08:40 PM, SI Rajeev Ranjan received DD No. 21 Ex. PW 3/A dated 09.09.2007 and after receiving the DD, he along with SI Rajeev Ranjan and Ct. Suresh went to the spot i.e House no. 1809, Second Floor, Rani Bagh, Delhi. He further deposed that on reaching there, they found that many persons were present at the ground and from there, they came to know that the injured who received bullet injuries had already been removed to the Hospital by her family members. He further deposed that, thereafter, they went to second floor of House No. 1809, Rani Bagh, Delhi and in the room of the said house, blood stains were found lying on the floor of the room and on the stair case. He further deposed that on the bed, two bed sheets, which were smeared with blood, one blood stained towel, which was found lying in the floor of the room and some other cloths which were also stained with blood were lying on FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 7 of 52 the floor. He further deposed that in the room, in the western side, one wooden almirah was lying and one bullet was found stuck in the said wooden almirah. He further deposed that on the door of balcony, the bullet marks were also present and three leds were also found lying on the floor. He further deposed that at the spot, no eye witness was found present and thereafter, he along with SI Rajeev Ranjan left the spot for the hospital after deputing Ct. Suresh to guard the spot. He further deposed that on reaching the hospital, they found that two injured Asha and her daughter Niti were found admitted there and SI Rajeev Ranjan collected their MLCs Ex.PW6/A of Asha and Ex.PW6/B of Niti and on both the MLCs, doctor mentioned 'Not fit for statement'. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with SI Rajeev Ranjan came back to the spot and on reaching there, SI Rajeev Ranjan prepared rukka on the basis of DD No. 21 and rukka was handed over to him, which he took to the PS for registration of the case.
9 (i) He further deposed that after getting the case registered, he came back to the spot and handed over the computerized FIR and rukka to SI Rajeev Ranjan. He further deposed that the brother of injured Niti, Himanshu met them at FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 8 of 52 the spot but he was not in position to make statement. 9 (ii) PW8 further deposed to the effect that when he came back to the spot, Crime Team was already present there and bullet lead pieces were collected from the spot and were put in a plastic container and the said container was converted into a cloth parcel with the seal of RS and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/C. He further deposed that the blood was also lifted from the spot after breaking the floor of the room and earth control and the same were put in a plastic container and the container was converted into cloth parcel sealed with the seal of RS and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/B. He further deposed to the effect that the portion of wooden almirah where the bullet was found stuck was also cut and the portion of the door of Balcony where the mark of bullet was found was also cut and the said wooden pieces were kept in a plastic bag and the said plastic bag was converted into a sealed pullanda and sealed with the seal of RS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/D. 9 (iii) PW 8 further deposed to the effect that IO, SI Rajeev Ranjan handed over the seal after use and thereafter he along with IO and Ct. Suresh went to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 9 of 52 Punjabi Bagh where Niti Arora and her mother Smt. Harsha Arora were admitted. He further deposed that Doctor handed over the cloths of the injured persons and same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/E. He further deposed that, he along with IO and Ct. Suresh went to the residence of accused Jagat Prakash situated at WZ41, Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh and the accused was not present in his house. He further deposed that then they returned to PS and all the seized exhibits were deposited by IO with the MHC(M).
9 (iv) He further deposed to the effect that he again joined the investigation of this case on 11.09.2007 and he along with IO went to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital in the noon time and there Doctor handed over the blood sample of Smt. Asha Arora in sealed condition bearing the seal of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital which was taken into possession by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D. He further deposed that IO recorded the statement of Himanshu, Ms. Niti and their father Sh. Gulshan Kumar.
He further deposed that on the same day i.e 11.09.2007 at about 09:00 PM, accused Jagat Prakash came to PP Rani Bagh and accused introduced himself before IO SI FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 10 of 52 Rajeev Ranjan and informed that he had fired with the revolver to Niti Arora and her mother Smt. Asha Arora at House No. 1809, Second Floor, Rani Bagh on 09.09.2007 at about 08:30 PM. PW8 identified the accused in the Court. He further deposed that he interrogated accused Jagat Prakash and in the meantime Himanshu came to PP Rani Bagh for knowing about the progress of this case and PW Himanshu identified the accused Jagat Prakash being the same person who had committed the offence. He further deposed that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW13/E andPW13/F. He further deposed that disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW13/G was recorded and then accused led them to the place of incidence and pointed out the place. He further deposed that the pointing out memo Ex.PW2/C was prepared and accused was got medically examined and was sent to lock up. He further deposed that the articles recovered during the personal search of accused were deposited by IO with MHC(M).
9 (v) He further deposed that he again join the investigation of the case on 12.09.2007 and accused Jagat Prakash was in police custody at that time and on that day he FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 11 of 52 along with IO took accused to Ghaziabad as accused has disclosed that he had hidden the revolver, used in the commission of offence and his wearing cloths in the house of one Soni situated in Ghaziabad. He further deposed that accused took them to the house of Soni but nothing was recovered from the house of Soni and they returned to PS. 9 (vi) He further deposed that on 13.09.2007, accused taken out from lock up and brought to PP Rani Bagh and he was again interrogated by IO and gave disclosure statement. He further deposed that during disclosure accused inform that on the date of commission of offence he came to the house of complainant in the motorcycle bearing no. DL8S W 3180 and parked the motorcycle in the street and after commission of offence he left the motorcycle there and went in TSR. he further deposed that he changed the cloths in the TSR and threw his wearing cloths near tree at Zakhira and also threw the revolver near that place. He further deposed that accused took them near a place where a hip of garbage and stated that he had thrown the revolver at that place. He further deposed that they searched the revolver but the same could not be recovered. He further deposed that after crossing some FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 12 of 52 distance the accused pointed out towards the polythene lying near the trees and the polythene was lifted and opened and it was containing one black pant and yellow and black stripe design shirt. He further deposed that there were blood stains on both the cloths and accused disclosed that these cloths were worn up by him at the time of commission of offence. He further deposed that the cloths were again kept in the same polythene and IO prepared a parcel which was sealed with the seal of RS. He further deposed that the cloths were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A and then they returned to the PS and case property was deposited with MHC(M). PW 8 further deposed to the effect that he again joined the investigation of this case on 15.09.2007 and in the meantime Himanshu came to PP Rani Bagh and brought one motorcycle bearing no. DL 8S W 3180 and one black colour bag. He further deposed that the bag was containing three passport size photographs of accused and Niti and one iron rod. He further deposed that Himanshu informed that the motorcycle was found parked in the back street of his house and on this motorcycle accused used to visit their house. He further deposed that regarding bag he informed that it was FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 13 of 52 recovered from under the bed in the room of his house and the words Toshiba were written on the bag. He further deposed that the motorcycle was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/A and the bag was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/B. 9 (vii) He further deposed to the effect that on 10.09.2007, at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Doctor handed over three pullandas along with sample seal of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital stated to be containing cloths of Neeti and Asha and one bullet part which was removed from the body of Niti. He further deposed that the said three pullandas were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B. He further deposed that vide memo Ex.PW13/E, the three pullandas sealed with the seal of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital were seized by the IO and said pullandas were stated to be containing one bullet which was removed from the body of Asha Arora, one bullet which was removed from the body of Niti and some pellets which were removed from the body of Neeti. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A, two printed mattress covers having blood stains, one blood stained towel, two small old cloths having blood stains were seized from the inner most room of FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 14 of 52 the second floor of House No. 1809 and after keeping the same in a polythene and preparing a pullanda with the help of white cloth and sealed the same with the seal of RS. PW 8 further deposed that on 11.09.2007, Doctor handed over blood sample of Asha in a sealed parcel sealed with the seal of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D PW 8 further identify the office bag as Ex.P1, three photographs Ex.P2 (Colly.) and iron grill Ex.P3. PW 8 also proved the wooden pieces as Ex.P4, Bullet led as Ex.P5, two mattress covers as Ex.P6, towel as Ex.P7 and two cloth pieces as Ex.P8. PW 8 further identified the pant as Ex.P9 and shirt Ex.P10.
10. Prosecution also examined HC Satbir who brought the summoned record in respect of the record pertaining to Arm License No. WDPB020091 in the name of Sh. Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh R/o WZ41A, Rishi Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi34 and the said license was granted to Amarjeet Singh on 28.02.1985 to possessed a .32 bore revolver and the revolver bearing no. 003006 was endorsed on the said license. He further deposed that as per the said license Sh. Amarjeet Singh FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 15 of 52 had purchased 20 cartridges of .32 bore make Indian Ordinance Factory on 21.07.1993 from S.N. Kohli & Sons, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and he again purchased 20 cartridges of .32 bore on 18.04.1995 from M/s Kewal Krishan Sharma. He further deposed that the said license was renewed from time to time and lastly the same was renewed upto 09.02.2009 vide order dated 13.10.2006 of DCP.
PW 9 further deposed to the effect that after the present incident a show cause notice was served to Sh. Amarjeet Singh dated 07.11.2007 to which he did not submit any reply and as such the said license was cancelled vide order dated 30.04.2013. He proved the license available on judicial file as Ex.PW9/A, show cause notice as Ex.PW9/B and order of cancellation of said license as Ex.PW9/C. He further deposed that even pursuant to the order dated 30.04.2013, Sh. Amarjeet Singh did not deposit his weapon with any PS or any authorized Arm Dealer.
11. Prosecution also examined IO SI Rajeev Ranjan as PW 13 who deposed that on 9.9.2007, he was posted as In charge PP Rani Bagh, PS Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and on that day at about 8.40 PM, on receiving DD no.21, PP Rani Bagh, FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 16 of 52 he along with Ct. Nihal and Ct. Suresh reached at H. No. 1809, 2nd Floor, Rani Bagh, Delhi. He further deposed that there he came to know that both the injured had already been shifted to Maharaja Agrasen hospital by their family members and he found blood on the floor as well as on the wall of the room and also on the stair case. He further deposed that he left Ct. Suresh at the spot and he along with Ct. Nihal Singh went to Maharaja Agrasen hospital and there he collected the MLCs of one Neeti Arora and her mother Asha Arora. He further deposed that both the patients had suffered gun shot injuries and were unfit for statement and on the MLC of Neeti Arora, the name of assailant was mentioned as Jagat Shokeen. He further deposed that no eye witness was found at the hospital and from the hospital, he along with Ct. Nihal again reached at the spot and there at the spot also no eye witness was found. He further deposed that thereafter, he made his endorsement on DD No.21 Ex.PW3/A and prepared a tehrir Ex.PW13/A and handed over the same to Ct. Nihal who left the spot to go to PS for registration of FIR.
11 (i) He further deposed that Crime team arrived at the spot and inspected the scene of crime. He further deposed that FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 17 of 52 he got the spot photographed from the photographer of Crime Team and in the meanwhile Ct. Nihal again came at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and copy of tehrir to him. 11 (ii) He further deposed that on the floor of the innermost room of the said house, three bullet leads (projectile) were found lying and one bullet lead was found engraved in the wooden almirah which was there in that room. He further deposed that there was a hole in the wooden door leading to the balcony which was connected with that room and the said hole was appearing to be created by passing of the bullet through the said door. He further deposed that three blood stained small towel type clothes were found lying on the floor near the bed and the two bed sheets which were there on the bed were also having blood stains. He further deposed to the effect that he seized the blood stained two bed covers and said three blood stained clothes after keeping them in a black colored polythene vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A and after preparing a pullanda with the help of white cloth and after sealing the same with the seal of RS and Serial no.1 was given to this pullanda. He further deposed that he lifted the said three bullet leads from the said room and same were kept in a small FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 18 of 52 plastic container and a pullanda was prepared with the help of white cloth and sealed with the seal of RS and Serial no.2 was given to this pullanda and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. He further deposed that he lifted the blood lying on the floor of the said room with the help of cotton wool and also took the plaster having blood stains from the walls of said room and kept the same in a small plastic container and a pullanda was prepared with the help of white cloth and sealed the same with seal of RS and Serial no.3 was given to this pullanda.
11 (iii) He further deposed that the earth control i.e broken pieces of plaster of wall as well as of the floor were also taken and were kept in another small plastic container and a pullanda was prepared with the help of white cloth and sealed the same with seal of RS and Serial no.4 was given to the pullanda. He further deposed that both the said pullandas were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. He further deposed to the effect that the piece of the door having hole and the piece of the almirah in which the bullet led was found engraved were taken and were kept in a polythene and a pullanda was prepared with the help of white cloth and sealed the same with seal of RS and Serial FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 19 of 52 no.5 was given to this pullanda. He further deposed that the said pullanda was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/D
12. PW 13 further deposed that, thereafter, he along with Ct. Nihal again reached at Maharaja Agrasen hospital and by that time also, both the patients were unfit for statement. He further deposed that the Doctor of Maharaja Agrasen hospital handed over to him three pullandas sealed with seal of Maharaja Agrasen hospital along with two sample seals, stated to be containing clothes of Neeti, bullet part which was removed from the body of Neeti and clothes of Asha Arora and all the said three pullandas along with two sample seals were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B. He further deposed that from the hospital, he again reached at the spot and from there, he along with both the accompanying constables reached at the PS Saraswati Vihar and deposited the case property in the malkhana. He further deposed that he made efforts to search the accused but in vain and on 10.9.2007 itself, he served a notice under Section 91 Cr.PC to Amarjeet Singh, father of accused to produce his revolver and its license and proved the carbon copy of said notice as Ex.PW13/C. He further deposed that Amarjeet Singh gave his reply to the said notice dated FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 20 of 52 10.9.2007 Ex.PW12/A to him stating that his revolver is not traceable and deposited his arm license No. WDPB020091 Ex.PW9/A. He further deposed that on 11.9.07, he along with Ct. Nihal again reached at Maharaja Agrasen hospital, there Himanshu Arora and G.K. Arora met him and he recorded their statements u/s. 161 CrPC. He further deposed that Doctor of Maharaja Agrasen hospital handed over the blood sample of Asha Arora in sealed condition along with sample seal and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D. He further deposed that injured Neeti was declared fit for statement and he recorded her statement at the hospital. He further deposed that he made efforts for the arrest of the accused but in vain. On 11.09.2007 in the evening hours, accused Jagat Parkash arrived at police post Rani Bagh and he interrogated him. He identified the accused in the Court. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, Himanshu Arora also arrived at PP and on his identification, accused Jagat Parkash was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused Jagat Parkash, Ex.PW13/G.
13. PW 13 further deposed that accused Jagat Prakash FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 21 of 52 led the Police party to House no. 1809, Second Floor, Rani Bagh and pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that on 12.09.2007 itself, accused Jagat Prakash was produced before the Court and he obtained five days Police Custody remand of accused. He further deposed that on sustain interrogation, he recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW7/F and pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused led the Police party to Zakhira Flyover and accused pointed out a place on central verge of the road where some heap of soil was there and stating that this is the place where he thrown the revolver which was used by him in the commission of offence. He further deposed that efforts were made to trace the revolver but the same could not be find and adjacent to the said heap of soil, there were some bushes/plants which were there on the central verge of the road and from the said bushes, accused took out one polythene of red colour having yellow strips and produced the same stating that the cloths which were worn by the accused at the time of commission of the offence were there in the said polythene. He further deposed that on checking the polythene, it was found FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 22 of 52 containing one shirt of white colour having yellow and black stripes and one pant of black colour having blood stains. He further deposed that the pant and shirt were kept in the same polythene and a pullanda was prepared with the help of white cloth and same was sealed with the seal of RS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/H He further deposed that on 15.09.2007, Himanshu arrived at PP Rani Bagh with one motorcycle make Yamaha bearing registration No. DL8S W 3180 and one laptop bag/office bag of black colour and stated that this bag and the said motorcycle belong to accused Jagat Prakash and accused had visited his house on 09.09.2007 on the said motorcycle and left there unattended after the incident. He further deposed that the motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and the said bag on opening was found containing three photographs of accused and victim Niti and one iron rod which was found bifurcated at the one end. He further deposed that the said bag was of make Toshiba and the bag along with its contents were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. He further deposed that statement of Himanshu was recorded and case property as deposited in the Malkhana of PS. FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 23 of 52 He deposed all on the same lines what has been deposed by PW Ct. Nihal Singh and corroborated his testimony
14. PW 14 Ct. Surender Singh deposed that on 01.11.2007, he was posted at Police Post Rani Bagh of PS Saraswati Vihar and on that day on the instructions of IO, he had taken sealed parcels from Malkhana Moharar vide Road Certificate No. 229/21 and had deposited them at Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that on return, he delivered the receipt to the IO and till the time the parcels remained with him, the same were intact.
15. Prosecution also examined HC Narender Kumar as PW 15 who deposed that on 10.09.2007, he was posted at PS Saraswati Vihar as Head Constable and was working as MHC(M). He deposed that on that day SI Rajeev Ranjan deposited five pullandas sealed with the seal of RS and seven pullandas sealed with the seal of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, New Delhi along with the sample seal in the Malkhana vide entry no. 3946 in Register No. 19. He further deposed that on 13.09.2007, SI Rajeev Ranjan again deposited one pullanda sealed with the seal of RS vide entry at Sr. No. 3953 in Register FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 24 of 52 No. 19. He further deposed that on 15.09.2007, SI Rajeev Ranjan again deposited one pullanda sealed with the seal of RS and one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S W 3180 in the Malkhana vide entry no. 3156 in Register No. 19. He proved the copies of the entries in Register No. 19 as Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that on 01.11.2017 as per the instructions of IO SI Rajeev Ranjan, he handed over seven pullandas in sealed condition along with sample seal of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and other documents to Ct. Surender Singh vide RC No. 279/21/07 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini and after depositing the same pullandas Ct. Surender returned one copy of RC along with receipt of FSL to him. He proved the relevant extract of Register No. 21 as Ex.PW15/B. He further volunteered stated that the Road Certificate Ex.PW15/B was prepared by him on 31.10.2007 i.e one day in advance as such it bears the date as 31.10.2007. He further deposed that on 29.11.2007 as per the instructions of IO SI Rajeev Ranjan, he handed over five pullandas in sealed condition along with sample seal of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and other documents to Ct. Sardar FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 25 of 52 Singh vide RC No. 288/21/07 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini and after depositing the pullandas Ct. Sardar Singh returned one copy of RC along with receipt of FSL to him. He further proved the relevant extract of Register no. 21 as Ex.PW15/D and acknowledgement of FSL on the back of Ex.PW15/D as Ex.PW15/E.
16. PW 16 SI Matadin deposed that on 09.09.2007, he was posted as I/C Crime Team, North West District, Delhi and he along with his staff including one photographer and finger print expert went to the spot i.e 1809, Second Floor, Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh, Delhi, where IO met them and he inspected the spot and got it photographed. He proved his report as Ex.PW16/A.
17. PW 17 Ct. Ramesh Chander deposed that on 09.09.2007, he was posted at Mobile Crime, North West District as Ct. Photographer and on that day, on receiving information he along with I/c Crime Team SI Matadin reached at the spit and IO Rajeev Ranjan met them. He further deposed that he clicked 12 photographs of the spot as per the instruction of the IO and I/c Crime Team. He further deposed that after developing the photographs, he handed over the three sets of FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 26 of 52 the photographs i.e total 36 in number to the IO and proved the same as Ex.PW17/A1 to Ex.PW17/A12 and negatives as Ex.PW17/B1 to Ex.PW17/B12.
18. MEDICAL EVIDENCE :
In support of its case, prosecution has also examined PW 6 Dr. Sudhanshu Bansal, who deposed that on 09.09.2007, he medically examined the patient Asha, aged 52 years, female with alleged history of gun shot injury at home and on examination, he found that she had a bullet injury on the left side of her chest near the shoulder. He further deposed that a radio pulse of left hand was absent and so the movement of hand was absent. He further deposed that thereafter she was referred for CTVS emergency surgery and prepared the MLC. He proved the MLC as Ex.PW6/A bearing the signatures at point A. He further deposed that on 09.09.2007, he also medically examined the patient Niti, aged 26 years, female with the alleged history of gun shot injury at home and on examination, he found that she had a bullet injury wound present on her right leg. He further deposed that she had another bullet injury present on right shoulder from the posterial FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 27 of 52 side and she also got admitted for surgery. He further deposed that he prepared the MLC and proved the same as Ex.PW6/B.
19. Prosecution also examined Dr. S.K. Jain, Senior Consultant, CTVS, Maharaj Agrasen Hospital as Ex.PW10, proved the MLC bearing no. 274, Maharaja Agrasen Hospital pertaining to one Ms. Asha, aged about 52 years, female and as per the MLC, the nature of injury was opined by him as grievous on 02.11.2007. He proved his opinion on the MLC as Ex.PW6/A.
20. Prosecution also examined PW 11 Dr. Manoj Garg, Senior Consultant Ortho., Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, who proved the MLC bearing No. 272 of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital pertaining to one Niti, aged about 26 years, female. He further deposed that as per MLC, the nature of injury was opined by him as dangerous. He proved his opinion with signatures on the MLC Ex.PW6/B.
21. FORENSIC EVIDENCE.
From the forensic department PW 18 Sh. V. Shankar Narayan, SSO (Bio) Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi has been examined by the prosecution who deposed on oath, that on 01.11.2007, seven FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 28 of 52 sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini, Delhi in connection with present case and seals on the parcels were intact and were tallying with the specimen seal affixed on forwarding letter. He further deposed that after opening the said seven parcels, exhibits 1a, 1 b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6a, 6b and 7 were taken out and on examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1a, 1 b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, 4a, 4b, 5, 6a, 6b and
7. He proved his biological report as Ex.PW18/A. He further deposed that on serological examination, the blood on the said exhibits were found to be of human origin except exhibit 5 and 7 and the said blood was found to be of 'A' group on exhibit 1d. He proved his serological report as Ex.PW18/B. He further deposed that the remnants of exhibits were sealed with the seal of VSN FSL DELHI and were returned to concerned PS along with his report.
22. Public witnesses :
Prosecution also examined PW 1 Ms. Niti Arora who deposed that she is working as HR Professional in an IT company and she studied in DAV Public School, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi and accused Jagat Prakash was also studying in the aforesaid school and he was his class FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 29 of 52 mate. She identified the accused in the Court. She further deposed that on 09.09.2007, accused came to her house and asked from her mother about her whereabouts and thereafter he went back. He further deposed that in the evening, accused again came at her house at about 07:30 - 07:45 PM and at that time she was present at her house and she and accused had discussions and thereafter accused asked for tea and accordingly, she went to prepare the tea and thereafter, she, accused and her brother Himanshu had tea. She further deposed that her mother was also present at that time and thereafter, her brother left the house as he was called by his friend. She further deposed that accused asked her what was her plan about marriage with him and she straight forwarded declined his proposal for marriage. She further deposed that accused asked her whether it was her final decision and this entire incident took place at their old house bearing No. WZ 1809, IInd Floor, Rani Bagh, Delhi. She further deposed that there was washing machine lying outside the room where she and accused were having discussions. She further deposed that accused had kept a bag near the said washing machine at the time when he came out her house. She further deposed FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 30 of 52 that after her declining his proposal for marriage, accused came out of the room and called his father on telephone and asked him to forgive him and thereafter he opened his bag lying near the washing machine and took out a pistol and fired at her mother and the bullet hit Smt. Asha Arora between her left shoulder and heart. Accused then fired several bullets aiming PW 1 and one hit her right shoulder, another right leg and third narrowly missed her head as she dumped but its pallets hit her head. On being shoot, her mother had raised alarm and became unconscious. She further deposed that the accused then went away and she managed to call her father, relatives and friends through mobile, thereafter, she and her mother were taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital by her family members and neighbours. She further deposed that she was operated on the next day and remained in hospital for 34 days and her mother was also operated upon and was discharged from hospital one day after her. She further deposed that due to the injury sustained by her mother, her arm has become disabled to the extent of 6070%. She further deposed that after she had been shifted to General Ward in the hospital, Police had recorded her statement. The siteplan of place of incident FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 31 of 52 has been prepared by Police at her instance. She identified herself and others in photographs Ex. PW 1/D1 to Ex. PW 1/D5 and the mobile phone of accused as Ex. DX1.
23. Prosecution also examined PW2 Himanshu Arora who deposed that he along with his parents and sisters used to reside at H. No. WZ1809, Second Floor, Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh, Delhi in the year 2007. At about 7:30 pm on 09.09.2007, when he was present at house with his mother Smt. Asha Arora and Sister Niti Arora, accused, who was a schoolmate of his sister came and sat in the bedroom. At his instance, Niti had prepared tea and gave it to him as well as the accused. After sometime of taking tea his friend Gaurav ranged door bell of his house and he came downstare to meet him and remained sitting in the bedroom. He along with his friend went away for getting petrol filled up in their bike and when returned at 8:30 pm, he found Niti and his mother lying in the pool of blood in the bedroom. Niti had stated that accused Jagat Prakash had fired bullets on them with an intention to kill them. Both of them were taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. The Police had come to his house in the night of 09.09.2007 and inspected the spot and lifted the their stains with the help of cotton swab. Police had FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 32 of 52 recorded his statement Ex. PW 2/D at the hospital. The motorcycle of accused Jagat Prakash, which he had left standing in the street near his house, was shown by him to the Police on 15.09.2007, who had seized it vide memo Ex. PW 2/A. The office bag of accused with its articles was seized from his house vide memo Ex. PW 2/B. The accused had pointed out the scene of crime in his presence vide memo Ex. PW 2/C.
24. Prosecution also examined PW 4 Smt. Asha, who deposed that accused Jagat Prakash had come to her house on 09.09.2007 at about 7:307:45 pm, when she and her daughter Niti were present. He had asked whether she was willing to marry her daughter Niti with the accused, to which she had refused. Thereafter, accused had requested for a cup of tea, which Niti prepared in the kitchen and served him. Her son Himanshu, the accused and Niti took tea. One of the friends of Himanshu had rang doorbell of the house, therefore, Himanshu went out of the house. After taking tea, the accused had again asked Niti to marry him but she refused. The accused then went near the door of room, took out a pistol from the bag that he had kept on a washing machine and firstly fired upon her, hitting upper part of her chest and then on Niti. She had raised alarm FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 33 of 52 but none came forward, whereafter, she lost her senses and found herself admitted in hospital, after regaining consciousness. She claimed that the Police had not recorded her statement nor had made inquiries from her. She had identified the accused and her daughter Niti in photographs Ex. PW 4/DA and Ex. PW 4/DB1 to Ex. PW 4/DB12.
25. PW12 Sh. Amarjeet Singh, father of the accused stated that he was having .32 bore revolver on the basis of Arms license issued to him. On receiving notice under Sec. 91 Cr.PC from the IO in this case, he had deposited the arms license with IO on 13.09.2007. He had also given reply Ex. PW 12/A to the IO about missing of his revolver despite keeping it in his safe.
26. In his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, accused claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated in this case. While admitting that he know injured Niti Arora as his classmate and had visited her in the evening of 09.09.2007, had tea with Niti, Himanshu and Gaurav and thereafter left their house. He had intimate relationship with Niti, whose parents and brother wanted to get her married to him but since his parents did not approve, he had refused to marriage proposal. Due to which FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 34 of 52 Niti and her family members bore a grudge against him. Accused claimed that case property has been planted upon him and the medical and other reports have been manipulated. It is alleged that witnesses have deposed against him and the case property has been tempered. Initially, the accused had opted for leading evidence in defence but it appears that on second thoughts, he chose not to avail the option and did not examine any defence witness.
27. Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under :
Sr. No. PW No. Name of the witness Details of witness
1. PW 1 Ms. Niti Arora Public witnessInjured
2. PW 2 Sh. Himanshu Arora Public witness
3. PW 3 Ct. Shamsher Police witnessDD writer
4. PW 4 Smt. Asha Public witnessInjured
5. PW 5 ASI Ramesh Chandra Police witnessDuty Officer
6. PW 6 Dr. Sudhanshu Bansal Casualty Medical Officer
7. PW 7 Ct. Suresh Kumar Police witness
8. PW 8 Ct. Nihal Singh Police witness FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 35 of 52
9. PW 9 HC Satbir Police witness
10. PW 10 Dr. S. K. Jain Sr. ConsultantMaharaja Agrasen Hospital
11. PW 11 Dr. Manoj Garg Sr. Consultant Otho.Maharaja Agrasen Hospital
12. PW 12 Sh. amarjeet Singh Public witnessFather of accused
13. PW 13 Insp. Rajeev Ranjan Police witnessInvestigating Officer
14. PW 14 Ct. Surender Singh Police witness
15. PW 15 HC Narender Kumar Police witnessMHC(M)
16. PW 16 SI Matadin Police witnessIncharge Crime Team
17. PW 17 Ex. Ct. Ramesh Police witness Chander
18. PW 18 Sh. V. Shankar FSL Narayanan List of documents :
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by
1. Mark PW Photograph Ms. Niti Arora 1/D1
2. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D2
3. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D3 FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 36 of 52
4. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D4
5. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D5
6. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D6
7. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D7
8. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D8
9. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D9
10. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D10
11. Mark PW Resume 1/D11
12. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D12
13. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D13
14. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D14
15. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D15
16. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D16 FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 37 of 52
17. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D17
18. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D18
19. Mark PW SMS Message 1/D19
20. Mark PW Statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C 1/DA
21. Ex.PW2/A Seizure memo of motorcycle Sh. Himanshu
22. Ex.PW2/B Seizure memo of bag and articles
23. Ex.PW2/C Pointing out memo of place of occurrence
24. Ex.PW2/D Statement
25. Ex.PW3/A DD No. 21 dated 09.09.2007 Ct. Shamsher
26. Ex.PW5/A Endorsement on the rukka ASI Ramesh Chandra
27. Ex.PW5/B Computerized copy of FIR
28. Ex.PW6/A MLC of Asha Dr. Sudhanshiu Bansal
29. Ex.PW6/B MLC of Niti
30. Ex.PW7/A Seizure memo of blood Ct. Suresh Kumar stained cloths and bed sheets
31. Ex.PW7/B Seizure memo of blood and piece of earth control
32. Ex.PW7/C Seizure memo of Bullet lead FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 38 of 52 pieces
33. Ex.PW7/D Seizure memo of wooden piece of almirah
34. Ex.P1 Office bag Ct. Nihal Singh
35. Ex.P2 Three photographs
36. Ex.P3 Iron grill
37. Ex.P4 Wooden pieces
38. Ex.P5 Bullet led
39. Ex.P6 Two mattress covers
40. Ex.P7 Towel
41. Ex.P8 Two cloth pieces
42. Ex.P9 Pants
43. Ex.P10 Shirt
44. Ex.PW9/A License HC Satbir
45. Ex.PW9/B Show cause notice
46. Ex.PW9/C Cancellation of license
47. Ex.PW12/A Reply to the notice U/c 91 Sh. Amarjeet Singh Cr.P.C
48. Ex.PW12/B Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C
49. Ex.PW13/A Tehrir SI Rajeev Ranjan
50. Ex.PW13/B Seizure memo FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 39 of 52
51. Ex.PW13/C Notice
52. Ex.PW13/D Seizure memo
53. Ex.PW13/E Arrest memo
54. Ex.PW13/F Personal search memo
55. Ex.PW13/G Disclosure statement of accused
56. Ex.PW13/H Seizure memo
57. Ex.PW13/J Site plan
58. Ex.PW15/A Copy of Register No. 19 HC Narender Kumar 59. Ex.PW15/B Copy of Register No. 21
60. Ex.PW15/C Acknowledgement of FSL 61. Ex.PW15/D Copy of Register No. 21
62. Ex.PW15/E Acknowledgment of FSL
63. Ex.PW16/A Report of Crime Team SI Matadin
64. Ex.PW17/A1 Photographs Ct. Ramesh Chander to Ex.PW17/A 12
65. Ex.PW17/B1 Negatives to Ex.PW17/B 12
66. Ex.PW18/A Biological Report Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan
67. Ex.PW18/B Serological Report FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 40 of 52
28. I have heard Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Riyaz Ahmed Bhatt, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through the record. Ld. Defence counsel has also filed the written submissions in support of his arguments.
29. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the prosecution witnesses in their depositions has submitted that accused was having acquaintance with them since long back, particularly from the time of his school times as PW 2 and PW 1 and accused were studying in the same school and are known to each other. It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that the witnesses at the first instance has not disclosed the name of assailant to the Police on the very first day. Even PW 2 and his father chose to make statement to the Police only on 11.09.2007 i.e after two days of occurrence. It is also submitted by Ld. defence counsel that there are major contradictions in the testimonies of PW1, PW 2 and PW 3 regarding the presence of accused as well as the asking of tea by the accused from the mother of PW 1, who herself is a injured in the present case. Ld. Defence counsel has also argued to the FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 41 of 52 effect that the discussion between the PW 1 and the accused had taken place before leaving of the place by PW 2 and as deposed by the witnesses that the accused was carrying a bag with him which was left by him outside the room on the washing machine. It is submitted that as it is clear from the testimony of witnesses that they have not disclosed the name of the accused at the first instance, then this circumstance leads to the inference that the assailant was not known to PW 1 and PW 4. It is also submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that as there are major contradictions and contradictions in the testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4, therefore, these witnesses are not reliable one. The occurrence had not taken place in the manner as stated by the witnesses. It is submitted by Ld. defence counsel that either the assailants were more than one at the time of commission of crime or two weapons has been used in commission of crime. It is submitted that as per the seizure memo vide Ex.PW7/E dated 11.09.2007, three pullandas containing the following were seized by the IO from the doctor at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Casulaty :
i. Bullet from soft tissue left scapula of PW 4. ii. Bullet from axillary region of PW 1.
FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 42 of 52 iii.Pallet from soft tissue of left parietal region of PW 1
30. In his argument, it is also submitted by defence counsel that when both bullet and pallets has been found in the body of two injured ladies, then the same is only possible where two weapons has been used in the incident. On this aspect Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the judgment titled as Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 1 SCC (Cri.) 60 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 38 as under :
"We disagree with the High court.
Admittedly, the deceased died of a bullet injury, whereas Brij Raj Singh, PW 2 received pallet injuries. It is well settled that a cartridge can not contain pallet and bullet shots together. Therefore, the injuries on the deceased and injured PW 2 clearly establish that two shots were fired from two different fire arms.
31. In his arguments, it is also argued by Ld. Defence counsel that there is a interpolation in the MLC where the name of the accused has been added later on. It is submitted that at the time of recording the MLC, there is specifically mentioned FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 43 of 52 by the Dr. in the MLC "alleged history of gun shot at home by someone at about 08:00 PM" which is mentioned in the MLC of injured Asha, the mother of PW 1. While in the MLC of Niti, it is mentioned "alleged history of gun shot by some at home at about 08:00 PM". In the MLC at point A, it is also mentioned that gun shot by Jagat Shokeen as stated by the girl Niti. It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that the name of the accused has been added with a sole motive to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. It is submitted that there is no explanation given by the Doctors or by the prosecution that why the name of accused has been added in the MLC when the injured themselves have submitted to the Doctor regarding alleged history of gun shot by someone. It is submitted that when the accused was known to them since long and they were aware that the injuries has been caused by the accused, then why the name of the accused has not been disclosed at the first instance by the injured before the Doctor. This fact itself cast a shadow on the story of prosecution that assailants were someone else and not the accused. It is also submitted that there is a possibility of using of two weapons in the commission of the crime. In his arguments, it is also submitted by defence FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 44 of 52 counsel that the motive so introduced by the prosecution in their story regarding commission of crime by the accused, to the effect that accused wanted to marry with the PW 1 is baseless. In his arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW 12 being father of the accused has been examined by the prosecution as he was having a license of .32 bore revolver and the incident had taken place on 09.09.2007, where the accused has used his father's licensee revolver in commission of the crime and his father came with a story that his revolver was missing and he handed over the said license to the IO on 13.09.2007 and he also deposed that his revolver was missing and a report to this effect was lodged and in reply to the notice of IO, he also submitted a written reply to IO vide Ex.PW12/A. He also deposed that he had seen his said revolver in the safe in the morning of 10.09.2007. It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW 12 being father of the accused is a interested witness who can not be relied upon and the conduct of the PW 12 is not upto to the mark as he has failed to produce the weapon of offence used by the accused in commission of crime. It is submitted that even PW 12 had resiled from his previous statement given FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 45 of 52 to the IO and he has been duly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Though, the weapon of offence has not been recovered by the prosecution and same could not be produced and proved to be used in commission of the crime. The weapon of offence, if, not recovered by the Police is not fatal in the present case, when the accused has been correctly identified by all the witnesses and he has been specifically pointed out that he had caused the gun shot injuries to the injured PW 1 and PW 4 and bullets and pallets has been recovered from their bodies by the Doctors during treatment. Some of the bullets and used empty cartridges were recovered from the spot. In such circumstances, it does not make any difference whether the weapon of offence is recovered or not and the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution. It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that there are number of emails and SMS as well as photographs are available on record file which has been admitted by the witnesses in their cross examination and some emails and photographs are not admitted by the witnesses specifically just to show that it was the accused who was behind the PW 1 to get married forcibly with her.
FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 46 of 52
32. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State had submitted that the accused wanted to get married with PW 1 against her wishes and he visited the house of injured with cold blooded and with the clear intention that in case, if, the PW 1 refused to the proposal of marriage of the accused then he was prepared to kill them by causing injury by gun shot to the PW 1 and her mother. The presence of accused has been established at the house of PW 1 by all the three witnesses PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4 and PW 4 was the eye witness who noticed the presence as last seen at the place of incident. All the witnesses categorically deposed that it was the accused who caused gun shot injuries to PW 1 and PW 4 and they were removed to the Hospital by the PW 2 and some neighborers. The arguments of Ld. Defence counsel to the effect that the name of accused was not disclosed at the first instance is having no force as per the story of prosecution, accused himself had surrendered before the Police in the presence of PW Ct. Nihal Singh and made his disclosure statement. Though, no recovery has been effected pursuance to the disclosure statement. In their testimonies all the three witnesses have deposed against the accused that he was the accused only who FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 47 of 52 caused gun shot injuries to PW 1 and PW 4. In his arguments, it is also submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that some times when a bullet hit against a hard surface or a bone, it may break into pieces and some times they are called as pallets by the Doctors. The arguments of Ld. Defence counsel, regarding possibility of use of two weapons is also having no force, as when the weapon itself is not recovered then it does not make any difference whether the pallets are found in the body of injured or the bullets are found in the body in injured. Particularly in the present case, accused person has been specifically named by the witnesses and the gun shot injuries has been established by the Doctors by their detailed examination report before this Court and the same was proved vide Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/A showing the blood stain cloths and other material i.e mattress cover, towel, piece of cloth as mentioned in Ex.PW18/B.
33. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon following judgments :
1. Kali Ram Vs. Stte of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 2773
2. Mohd. Faizan @ Kalu Vs. State of Bihar 2013 (1) LRC FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 48 of 52 82 (SC)
3. Sunil Kumar Vs. State 215 (4) LRC 201 (Delhi)
4. Jagir Singh Cs. The State (Delhi) 1975 SCC (Cri) 129
5. Shivaji Dayanu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra 1989 SCC (Cri) 621.
6. Nachhattar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab 1976 SCC (Cri) 182.
7. Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1991 SCC (Cri.) 61.
34. The authorities as relied upon by Ld Defence counsel are distinguishable on facts and can not be straightly applied to the facts of the present case.
Moreover all the witnesses has been duly cross examined at length by the Ld. Defence counsel. Except minor contradictions and confrontations which are not fatal to the case of prosecution, nothing favourable has come on record, which may help the accused in any manner.
35. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding identity of the accused and he has been specifically identified by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4. His presence is also not denied by the accused or no such plea of alibi has been taken by the accused to the effect that he was not present at the spot. Though, there is a FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 49 of 52 history as appeared in the deposition of witnesses that accused was in good relation with the PW 1 being her class mate as it is appearing in the photographs so produced on record vide Ex. PW4/DB1 to Ex. PW4/DB12. The accused was in good friendship with the PW 1 and wanted to get married with her and when she refused to the proposal of the accused, he caused bullet injuries to the PW 1 and her mother. Same has been established by the prosecution on record by documentary as well as medical and forensic evidence that it was the accused only who caused the injuries to the PW 1 and PW 4.
36. Further, the contradictions pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel is inconsequential and deserves no consideration. Law is settled that overmuch importance should not be placed on minor discrepancies.
37. Accused is facing trial for the offence under Section 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. Before coming to the final conclusion, I deem it appropriate to discuss the relevant provisions of law i.e Section 307 IPC which reads as under :
307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 50 of 52 which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.--2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]
38. Section 27 Arms Act reads as under :
"27. Punishment for using arms, etc.--
(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death.]".
39. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the exhibits so produced and proved on record by the FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 51 of 52 prosecution, I am of the considered opinion that the accused has caused the bullet injuries to the injured PW 1 and PW 4 by using a firearm. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the offence for using firearm punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, I hold the accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. Accused Jagat Prakash is convicted for the aforesaid offences. Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open court on April 21, 2018. (Mukesh Kumar) Addl. Sessions Judge04 (NorthWest): Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 941/2007 P.S Saraswati Vihar State Vs. Jagat Prakash Page No. 52 of 52