Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Rahul Sharma, S/O Sh. Ashwani Sharma on 24 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR1
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No.37/2014
FIR No.478/2014
PS Ranhola
U/s 307/506/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act
State Versus 1. Rahul Sharma, S/o Sh. Ashwani Sharma
R/o H. No.D25, Vikash Nagar, Delhi.
2. Harish Kumar, S/o Sh. Jagdish,
R/o H. No.26, Gali No.2, Vikrant Vihar,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
3. Neeraj, S/o Sh. Ram Gopal,
R/o H. No.C39, Som Bajar,
Vikash Nagar, Delhi.
4. Rohit Sharma, S/o Sh. Ashwani Sharma
R/o H. No.D25, Vikash Nagar, Delhi.
Received on Assignment. : 18.10.2014.
Date of Arguments. : 24.03.2015.
Date of Judgment. : 24.03.2015.
: J U D G M E N T :
1.The above named accused persons were booked by SHO PS Ranhola U/s 307/506/34 IPC and have faced trial for having committed offences punishable U/s 307/506/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act.
2. :FACTUAL MATRIX: The above said case was registered on the complaint of Smt. Ramwati W/o Sh. Ram Lal R/o H. No.C60, Gali No.2, Vikash State Vs. Rahul Sharma & Others (SC No.37/2014) Page No. 1 of pages 7 Nagar, near Shikha Deep Public School, Delhi alleging therein that on 25.06.2014 at about 11.30 PM, she alongwith her son namely Vijender was at her house and at that time accused Neeraj, Rahul Sharma and Rohit Sharma came on white car and started to abuse and threaten the complainant's son namely Vijender. When Vijender went on his roof top, accused Rahul Sharma fired on Vijender to kill him but no bullet hit him. Complainant has further alleged that Neeraj and his above friends searched his son in the night of 2525.06.2014 also and demanded for money. At the night of incident, one missed fire round and one empty cartridge (fired round) were recovered from the place of occurrence.
During course of investigation, complainant and other witnesses were examined. On 27.06.2014 accused Rahul Sharma and Harish Kumar were arrested and Indigo car bearing registration no.DL1RX3942 used in offence was also recovered. The said accused persons have disclosed their involvement in the commission of said offence. Accused Rahul Sharma was taken on one day police custody remand to arrest other accused persons and recovery of weapon of offence. On the pointing out of accused Rahul Sharma, one country made pistol was recovered from his house no.D25, Vikash Nagar, Delhi. Accused Neeraj arrested in this case on 08.09.2014 and accused Rohit Sharma surrendered himself before the Court on 22.09.2014, who with the permission of court interrogated and arrested in this case. Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi for opinion. Then, after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the court of concerned Ld. MM.
3. After committal, arguments on the point of charge heard and then charge U/s 307/506/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons and a separate charge U/s 27 Arms Act is also framed against accused Rahul Sharma, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
State Vs. Rahul Sharma & Others (SC No.37/2014) Page No. 2 of pages 7
4. In this case by now three witnesses namely SI Rambir Singh (the then Duty Officer at PS Ranhola, who proved on record copy of instant FIR, his endorsement made on rukka and certificate U/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively), Smt. Ramwati (complainant) and Vijender (eye witness of the occurrence and the person, who is alleged to have been attacked by the accused persons) have been examined as PW1, PW2 and PW3 respectively and out of them PW1 is the official witness and rest of the two witnesses, who are the star witnesses of the prosecution being complainant and eye witness of the occurrence have not supported the case of prosecution.
PW2 Smt. Ramwati (the complainant) has categorically stated that in the intervening night of 25/26.06.2014 at about 11.30 PM when she was present at her house with her son namely Vijender, she heard the sound of crackers outside her house in gali and accordingly, she alongwith her son came outside the house and found smoke of crackers emitting in the gali and no one was present there. Someone had informed the police and accordingly police reached at the spot and enquired from her, her son and some neighbours. She categorically stated that she knew accused Rahul Sharma, Rohit Sharma and Neeraj (present in court) as they are her neighbours and she had also also seen accused Harish Kumar with Rahul Sharma many time but none of them were present at the spot at that time. None of the accused persons was named by her to the police in this case. She further stated that police officials had obtained her signatures of some blank papers.
She was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State at great length but nothing incriminating material could be extracted from the mouth of said witness. She failed to identify the accused persons being the assailants. The contents of her statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW2/A were put to her but she denied of having made such statement to the police. She categorically denied that her statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by the IO or State Vs. Rahul Sharma & Others (SC No.37/2014) Page No. 3 of pages 7 that she is concocting the false story to save the accused persons from legal punishment as the matter has been compromised between her and accused persons outside the court being her close neighbour.
PW3 Vijender (eye witness of the occurrence and the person, who is alleged to have been attacked by the accused persons) in his statement has deposed on the same lines as stated by PW2. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but he did not change his stand. The contents of her statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C mark PW3/A were put to him but he also denied of having made such statement to the police. He categorically denied that on 25.06.2014 at about 11.30 PM near house no.C60, Gali no.2, Vikas Nagar, Ranhola, Delhi accused Rahul Sharma fired upon him with the pistol which he was carrying at that time but bullet did not hit him or that all the four accused persons namely Rahul Sharma, Harish Kumar, Neeraj and Rohit Sharma (present in the court) threatened him and his mother to kill or that accused persons were demanding HAFTA from him or that they used to ask him to provide money or liquor to them. He further denied that he is concocting the false story to save the accused persons from legal punishment as the matter has been compromised between him and accused persons outside the court being his close neighbour.
5. In this case so far both the star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW2 Smt. Ramwati (complainant) and PW3 Vijender (eye witness of the occurrence and the person, who is alleged to have been attacked by the accused persons) have been examined by the prosecution and they both have failed to identify the accused persons being the assailants and rest of the witnesses to be examined are of formal/official nature and in that circumstances, realizing the futility of the exercise to continue with the trial by calling the remaining witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide the order of even date. Since nothing incriminating State Vs. Rahul Sharma & Others (SC No.37/2014) Page No. 4 of pages 7 against the accused persons has been brought on record, so statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
6. I have heard the respective rival submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused persons and in the instant case where the prosecution has examined both the material witnesses of the occurrence i.e. PW2 Smt. Ramwati (complainant) and PW3 Vijender (eye witness of the occurrence and the person, who is alleged to have been attacked by the accused persons) and they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all particularly on the point of identity of the accused and no incriminating evidence has come on record against them, I have no option but to acquit all the accused persons of the charges. Accused persons stand acquitted accordingly. Existing Personal Bond and Surety Bond of accused Rohit Sharma is extended for an another period of six months in view of provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Accused persons namely Harish Kumar, Rahul Sharma and Neeraj be set at liberty, if not required to be detained in any other case. They are further directed that after their release within seven days, they will furnish their respective personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of like amount in view of provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
7. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR1)
th
Court on 24 March, 2014) Addl. Sessions Judge (West)
Special Judge (NDPS)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Rahul Sharma & Others (SC No.37/2014) Page No. 5 of pages 7
SC No.37/2014
FIR No.478/2014
PS Ranhola
U/s 307/506/34 IPC & 27 A. Act
State Vs. Rahul Sharma & Others
24.03.2015
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Rohit Sharma is present on bail.
Accused Harish Kumar, Rahul Sharma and Neeraj are produced from JC.
Sh. Sunil Ahuja, Ld. Counsel for accused no.1, 3 & 4. Sh. Manish Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for accused no.2. On the last date of hearing notice was issued to IO/ SHO/Director, FSL to file the FSL result but today a request letter has been received from SHO PS Ranhola for providing more time for filing FSL result.
A letter dated 19.03.2015 has also been received from FSL, Rohini mentioning therein that the case is pending as three 7.65 mm cartridges required for test firing have still not provided for which due objection was made on 23.09.2014 to SHO PS Ranhola. It is also reported in the said letter that they have already sent letters to SHO PS Ranhola vide letter nos.3143/ DFSL dated 11.12.2014 & 37980/ DFSL dated 12.02.2015.
At this stage it is submitted by Ld. Counsels for accused persons that IO/SHO has deliberately not taken the steps for procuring the FSL result in this matter. Even otherwise, since both the star witnesses i.e. PW2 Smt. Ramwati (complainant) and PW3 Vijender (eye witness of the occurrence and the person, who is alleged to have been attacked by the accused persons) examined by prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution at all, specially on the point of identification of accused persons and rest of the witnesses left to be examined are official/formal witnesses, so no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the trial by calling the State Vs. Rahul Sharma & Others (SC No.37/2014) Page No. 6 of pages 7 remaining witnesses and it is prayed that the prosecution evidence may be discontinued and accused persons may be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
Prayer is opposed by Ld. Addl. PP on the ground that several witnesses are left to be examined and she is seeking opportunity to produce and examine them.
In the case in hand, where both the star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW2 Smt. Ramwati (complainant) and PW3 Vijender (eye witness of the occurrence and the person, who is alleged to have been attacked by the accused persons) have turned hostile and have not supported the story of prosecution on the point of identities of the accused persons, I have no option but to close the prosecution evidence as no fruitful purpose could have been served by continuing the trial by examining the remaining witnesses as it would be a futile exercise and accordingly the prosecution evidence is closed. Since there is nothing incriminating against the accused has been brought on record, so statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
Vide a separate judgment, all the accused persons are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Existing Personal Bonds and Surety Bonds of accused Rohit Sharma is extended for an another period of six months in view of provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Accused persons namely Harish Kumar, Rahul Sharma and Neeraj be set at liberty, if not required to be detained in any other case. They are further directed that after their release within seven days, they will furnish their respective personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of like amount in view of provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR1) ASJ/Spl. Judge (NDPS) (West) 24.03.2015 State Vs. Rahul Sharma & Others (SC No.37/2014) Page No. 7 of pages 7