Delhi District Court
State vs . Hawa Singh @ Monu on 8 July, 2015
FIR No. 652/14 U/s 307/354B IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act ; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D. 08.07.2015 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 262/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0348032014 State Vs. Hawa Singh @ Monu S/o Sh. Ved Prakash R/o H.No. 282, Village Mangol Pur Kalan, Delhi85. FIR No. : 842/14 Police Station : Prashant Vihar Under Sections : 307/354D IPC & Section 27/54/59 Arms Act Date of committal to Sessions Court: 24.11.2014 Date on which judgment was reserved: 08.07.2015 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 08.07.2015 JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that on 20.07.14 at about 8.50 P.M, information with regard to incident in question, was recorded vide DD no. 36A in PS Prashant Vihar. Same was handed over to ASI Ram Rattan for necessary action. Accordingly, ASI Ram Rattan alongwith Ct. Vinay rushed to the place of occurrence i.e. House No. G1/89, Prashant Vihar, Delhi. In the meantime, Inspector Jorawar Singh who was posted in PS Preshant Vihar also reached the spot. Inspector Jorawar Singh met the complainant/victim namely "R" ( identity of the victim is being withheld), wherein she stated that on 20.07.14, she had visited the aforesaid house belonging to her real uncle (Tau). On that day at about 7.30 pm, while she was present inside room situated on first floor of the said house, call bell of the house rang on which she came outside in the State V/s Hawa Singh @ Monu ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 9 FIR No. 652/14 U/s 307/354B IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act ; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D. 08.07.2015 balcony and saw accused Hawa Singh @ Monu who was already known to her, standing in the street. He started abusing her and also extended threat that in case she would not marry him, he would not allow her to be married elsewhere and would also kill her and would abduct her from her house. She further stated that the accused took out pistol from pocket of his wearing pant and fired 23 bullets at her, which struck against wall and window of the room and she went inside the room. Her younger sister was also present inside the house at that time. She informed her father about the incident. Accordingly, her father reached there and made PCR call at 100 number.
2. On the basis of said statement, FIR in question was got registered by Inspector Jorawar Singh for offences punishable U/s 354D/506/509 IPC & Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. Investigation was entrusted to Inspector Jorawar Singh, who prepared site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of father of complainant; got the scene of crime inspected through Mobile Crime Team, lifted the relevant exhibits from the spot. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested by police officials of PS Alipur in case FIR no. 424/14 of PS Alipur and intimation in this regard was given in PS Prashant Vihar on 22.07.14 vide DD no. 19B. Accordingly, the accused was formally arrested in the present case on 28.07.14. Relevant exhibits were got deposited in FSL, Rohini for Expert opinion. Inspector Jorawar Singh also recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.PC of witnesses. After completion of investigation, chargesheet had been filed before the Court.
3. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, this Court was pleased to frame the charge in respect of offences punishable 307/354D/506II IPC State V/s Hawa Singh @ Monu ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 9 FIR No. 652/14 U/s 307/354B IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act ; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D. 08.07.2015 and Section 27 Arms Act against accused namely Hawa Singh to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined six witnesses namely PW1 Ms. Richa Maan, PW2 Sh. Ranvir Singh Maan, PW3 ASI Ram Kumar, PW4 HC Shiv Om, PW5 Ms. Tanya Maan and PW6 Wct Manju during trial.
6. It may be relevant to note that accused made statement during trial on 08.07.15 i.e. today that he was not disputing the contents of FSL result dt. 31.12.14 relied by prosecution in this case and also that he did not want to cross examine the FSL Expert cited as one of the prosecution witnesses in this case. On the basis of said statement made by accused, FSL result dt. 31.12.14 has been exhibited as Ex. PX and the relevant prosecution witness was dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. Considering the fact that none of the star witnesses relied by the prosecution in the present case, had supported the prosecution story on material point i.e. on the aspect of identity of accused to be offender, prosecution evidence has been closed as no useful purpose would have been served in examining remaining prosecution witnesses as none of them was undisputedly present at the time of incident in question. Thus, it would have been an exercise in futility in examining those prosecution witnesses besides wastage of precious time of the Court.
8. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had been dispensed with.
9. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of State and Ld counsel Sh. Joginder Dahiya Adv on behalf of accused. I have also gone through the material available on record.
10. Before dealing with the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, State V/s Hawa Singh @ Monu ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 9 FIR No. 652/14 U/s 307/354B IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act ; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D. 08.07.2015 it would be appropriate to refer in brief to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. The testimonies of those witnesses in brief are as under:
11. PW1 Ms. Richa Maan, PW2 Ranvir Singh & PW5 Ms. Tanya Maan: As already discussed above, these were the star witnesses cited by prosecution for proving the allegations levelled against the accused. However, all the said three public witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution on material point i.e. on the aspect of identity of accused herein to be the assailant involved in the commission of offences charged against him.
Although, all the aforesaid three witnesses supported the case of prosecution to extent that incident in question was committed against PW1, during which the offender had fired 23 bullets but PW1 who is none else but herself the victim as per case of prosecution, testified during trial that it was some unknown person who had fired those bullets and infact, she had heard the noise of said bullets being fired when she had come to the balcony of first floor of the house of his uncle Raj Singh Maan. Not only this, PW1 and PW5 also supported the case of prosecution to the extent that one of the bullets had struck against the wall of the balcony and another bullet had struck against glass of the window of bathroom and also that father of PW1 made PCR call at 100 number on which police had reached at the spot. However, PW1 as also other two public witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW5 deposed that it was unknown person who had committed the aforesaid incident of firing. Not only this, PW1 even went to the extent of testifying that she had not seen accused herein, to be the person who had fired those bullets. She claimed that police officials had obtained her signatures on some blank documents and she had not made any statement to the police. Rather, she had informed the police during enquiry that bullets were fired by unknown person and due to darkness, she was not State V/s Hawa Singh @ Monu ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 9 FIR No. 652/14 U/s 307/354B IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act ; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D. 08.07.2015 able to see the face of the offender.
Likewise, PW5 deposed that she did not visit outside the room and that is why, she had no occasion to see the face of the offender. She also deposed that her cousin sister i.e. PW1 had told her during enquiry that she had also not been able to see the face of the offender due to darkness. It is an undisputed case of prosecution that PW2 was not present at the scene of crime and he had arrived at the spot only after being informed about the incident by his daughter i.e. PW1. Therefore, there was no occasion for said witness to identify the accused during trial.
PW1, PW2 and PW5 were also subjected to cross examination by Ld. Additional PP as they were not supporting the case of prosecution on the aspect of identity of accused to be the offender as well as on the relevant facts concerning offences punishable U/s 354D/506II IPC charged in this case. During said cross examination, Ld Additional PP put suggestions to them on the lines of prosecution story but same were denied by them. During cross examination, Ld Additional PP also put all the relevant suggestions on the lines of supplementary statement U/s 161 Cr.PC of PW1 claimed to have been recorded during investigation but she denied to have made any such statement to the police during investigation of the case.
12. PW3 ASI Ram Kumar: This witness was Incharge of Mobile Crime Team (OD). He alongwith other staff of Mobile Crime Team had visited the place of occurrence on 20.07.14. He deposed that after getting the place of occurrence photographed through photographer HC Shiv Om and after carrying out inspection of the said place, he had prepared report dt. 20.07.14 Ex PW3/A. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestions that he did not State V/s Hawa Singh @ Monu ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 9 FIR No. 652/14 U/s 307/354B IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act ; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D. 08.07.2015 visit the place of occurrence or that he had prepared the report Ex. PW3/A without actually visiting the spot.
13. PW4 HC Shiv Om: This witness was one of the members of Mobile Crime Team(OD). He also deposed on the lines of testimony made by PW3 as discussed hereinabove. He deposed that he had taken 8 photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles and had handed over the same to IO. He proved negatives of the said photographs as Ex PW4/A (colly.) and positive photographs as Ex. PW4/B (colly.).
Nothing material came on record during cross examination of this witness.
14. PW6 W/Ct. Manju: This witness deposed that on 20.07.2014, she was on duty at PCR Control Room from 8.00 P.M to 8.00 A.M. At about 20:34:25, she had received a call from Bahadur Singh through telephone number 9213777156 in Control Room regarding firing at House No. 169, G Block, Sector14, Rohini, Delhi. She filled up the said information in PCR Form Ex PW6/A and transmitted the same to Wireless Operator for necessary action.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
15. Ld defence counsel vehemently argued that all the star witnesses of prosecution i.e PW1, PW2 and PW5 did not support its case on material point of identity of accused and thus, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused herein beyond reasonable doubt.
16. As already discussed above, all the three key witnesses i.e PW1, PW2 and PW5 have failed to support the case of prosecution by not identifying accused herein to be the assailant involved in the commission of offences charged against State V/s Hawa Singh @ Monu ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 9 FIR No. 652/14 U/s 307/354B IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act ; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D. 08.07.2015 him. According to the case of prosecution, out of the aforesaid public witnesses, PW1 alone had witnessed the incident whereas PW5 was present inside the room of the house where incident allegedly took place. Thus, PW1 and PW5 alone could have proved the case of prosecution by deposing on the lines of prosecution story during trial. However, none of them deposed on the lines of prosecution case as mentioned in the chargesheet.
17. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s 307 IPC, it was essential for the prosecution to lead cogent evidence for proving beyond doubt that it was the accused and accused alone who had done any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that if he would have caused a death of person against whom such act was committed by him, he would have been guilty of committing his murder. However, the prosecution failed to bring on record cogent evidence in this regard. The star witness of prosecution for proving the said offence was the victim/complainant herself as the prosecution story as mentioned in the charge sheet claimed that the victim had come outside in the balcony situated on first floor of the house after ringing of call bell and at that point of time, the accused had fired 23 bullets towards her. Unfortunately, the victim/complainant failed to testify on the lines of prosecution story in that regard. Rather, she deposed that after hearing the voice of firing of bullets, she had gone to the balcony but still could not see the offender who had fired the bullets. She nowhere deposed that any bullet was fired at her what to say of firing of those bullets by the accused herein.
18. Similarly, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to meet sufficient evidence during trial, in order to prove beyond shadow of doubt that it was the accused who had followed the victim and contacted her, or attempted to State V/s Hawa Singh @ Monu ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 9 FIR No. 652/14 U/s 307/354B IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act ; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D. 08.07.2015 contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite clear indication of disinterest shown by the victim; or that he monitored the use of internet, email or any other form of electronic communication by the victim as provided in Section 354D IPC.
19. In the present case, it is nowhere the case of prosecution that the accused ever monitored the use of internet or email or any other form of electronic communication used by the victim herein. Although, the prosecution claimed in the charge sheet that the present accused attempted to contact the victim to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite showing disinterest by the victim but no evidence could come on record in this regard. Again, the victim herself was the best witness who could have proved those allegations by deposing before the Court during trial. However, there is nothing in the testimony of the victim examined as PW1 in this regard. The entire testimony of PW1 is totally silent that the accused had followed her or contacted her or made any attempt to contact her in order to foster personal interaction repeatedly. That being so, Court is of the view that sufficient evidence is lacking in this case so as to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s 354D IPC.
20. The prosecution has also miserably failed to prove the charge for the offence punishable U/s 506II IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. None of the public witnesses identified the present accused as assailant involved in the commission of offence. Rather, said witnesses testified during trial that bullets were fired by some unknown person and PW1 could not see the face of offender due to darkness. In other words, the main victim/complainant turned hostile to the case of prosecution and she did not support the prosecution story during trial. Rather, she created doubt in the prosecution case by testifying that she did not make any statement before the State V/s Hawa Singh @ Monu ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 9 FIR No. 652/14 U/s 307/354B IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act ; P.S. Prashant Vihar D.O.D. 08.07.2015 police during the course of investigation and even during oral enquiries made from her, she had told the police that it was some unknown person who had fired the bullets and she could not see the face of offender due to darkness. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses, the entire case of prosecution has fallen down like a pack of cards. Hence, Court is of the view that entire case of prosecution has become doubtful.
21. The other prosecution witnesses and the documents relied by prosecution, could have been of corroborative value if something would have come on the surface in the deposition of said public witnesses, but both of them turned hostile to the case of prosecution and nothing could be elicited in their cross examination on behalf of State connecting the accused with the offences charged against him.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, the accuse namely Hawa Singh @ Monu is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in open Court today
dt. 08.07.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
State V/s Hawa Singh @ Monu ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 9