Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Pran Kishore (On Bail) on 29 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03, (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. : 28390/2016
FIR No. : 01/2010
PS : Kamla Market
U/Sec. : 186/307/353 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
Case ID : DLCT01-000309-2010
State Versus 1. Pran Kishore (on bail)
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
R/o D-55, DTC Colony, Shadipur
West Patel Nagar, Delhi
2. Sanjay (on bail)
S/o Sh. Satpal
R/o P-23, Mohan Garden
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059
Date of Institution : 25.01.2011
Date of Arguments : 24.03.2022
Date of Judgment : 29.06.2022
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.01.2010 at about 05.35 p.m. near Government School, Mata Sundri Road, DDU Marg, New Delhi, the accused persons voluntarily obstructed public servants in discharge of their public functions and used criminal force against a public servant while he was discharging his official duty and the accused, namely, Pran Kishore fired at HC Yaad Ram and the accused, namely, Sanjay attempted to fire at police team and they were found in conscious possession of illegal arms and ammunition which are punishable under Section 186/34, 353/34 and 307/34 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (Hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and 25/27 of 'The Arms Act, 1959'.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 1 of 20 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. On 05.01.2010 at about 05.00 p.m., PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar, Special Staff with PW-3 HC Yaad Ram, PW- 12 Ct. Devender, PW-8 Ct. Naresh and Ct. Bagicha Singh was present in Subzi Market, Minto Road, Delhi, while patrolling within jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market, where a secret informer met him and informed that two young boys, namely, Kishore and Sanjay alongwith their associates committing robberies on motorcycle and at about 05.30 p.m., they would come to meet their associates near Government School, Mata Sundri Road, DDU Marg, New Delhi on a stolen motorcycle and they alongwith their associates would commit robbery. He briefed secret information to his team and constituted a raiding team and he alongwith secret informer reached near Government School, Mata Sundri Road, DDU Marg, New Delhi, via a private vehicle 'TATA Sumo'.
3. On 05.01.2010 at about 05.10 p.m., PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar alongwith raiding team and secret informer reached near Government School, Mata Sundri Road, DDU Marg, New Delhi where he disclosed secret information to 4-5 passers-bye and asked them to join raiding team. However, the said persons proceeded on their way after expressing their genuine excuses without disclosing their names and addresses. Without wasting further time, he deployed raiding team in a radius of 20-25 yards and instructed them to conduct raid at his instance. He alongwith secret informer started waiting for the accused persons.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 2 of 20
4. On 05.01.2010 at about 05.35 p.m., two persons came on a violet colour motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861 from ITO side. PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar alongwith raiding team signaled them to stop. Motorcycle driver turned about motorcycle and tried to escape and in that process, motorcycle slipped on road. He alongwith raiding team moved ahead to apprehend them. On seeing raiding team approaching them, pillion rider of the motorcycle, whose name was revealed as the accused, namely, Pran Kishore, taken out a country made pistol from right dub of his trouser and fired at PW-3 HC Yaad Ram and he taken out a cartridge from pocket of his shirt and attempted to load it in the said pistol. PW-3 HC Yaad Ram & PW-12 HC Devender, without caring their lives, apprehended the accused, namely, Pran Kishore alongwith a country made pistol and a live cartridge. The motorcycle rider, whose name was revealed as the accused, namely, Sanjay taken out a pistol from right dub of his trouser and attempted to fire at raiding team. However, PW-8 Ct. Naresh and Ct. Bagicha Singh apprehended him before he could fire. PW-3 HC Yaad Ram handed over country made pistol alongwith one live cartridge recovered from the accused, namely, Pran Kishore to PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar who opened the said pistol and taken out one empty shell. He prepared sketches of the said pistol and empty shell, and live cartridge, after taking their measurements, and converted them into two separate parcels and sealed them with his seal having impression 'YK'. He filled FSL form.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 3 of 20
5. PW-8 Ct. Naresh handed over pistol recovered from the accused, namely, Sanjay to PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar who opened the said pistol and found three live cartridges in its magazine. He prepared sketch of the said pistol, magazine and three live cartridges, after taking their measurements, and converted them into a sealed parcel and sealed it with his seal having impression 'YK'. He filled FSL form. He seized the sealed parcels. He handed over seal after use to Ct. Bagicha Singh. He interrogated the accused persons regarding motorcycle No. DL 4S AF 8861. However, he could not offer any satisfactory reply. He made enquiry from 100. It revealed that the said motorcycle was stolen from PS Patel Nagar on 05.11.2009. He seized the said motorcycle alongwith key. He made endorsement for registration of case under Section 307/353/186 IPC and 25/27 of 'The Arms Act, 1959' and handed over tehrir to PW-12 Ct. Devender for being taken to PS Kamla Market for registration of case. He made endorsement for assigning further investigation to PW-13 SI Vivekanand, Special Staff.
6. On 05.01.2010 at 08.25 p.m., case FIR was registered. During investigation, PW-13 SI Vivekanand prepared site plan of the place of incident. He arrested the accused persons. He deposited case property in police malkhana. He recorded statements of the witnesses. He sent case exhibits to FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 4 of 20
7. PW-5 Insp. Jarnail Singh conducted further investigation. He released motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861 to its owner, namely, Harvinder Singh. He released motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 3S BF 9540 to the accused, namely, Sanjay. He collected FSL report. He obtained sanction under Section 39 of 'The Arms Act, 1959' and complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
8. On completion of investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted under Section 307/353/186/34 IPC and 25/27 of 'The Arms Act, 1959'.
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS:
9. Vide order dated 22.01.2011, the committal Court committed the case to the Court of Session. CHARGES:
10. On appraisal of material on record, the accused persons were charged for committing offences under Section 186/34, 353/34 and 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of 'The Arms Act, 1959' to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
11. During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, as under:
(a) PW-1 ASI Mohinder Singh, Duty Officer, PS Kamla Market proved the case FIR Ex.PW1/A.
(b) PW-2 ACP Nirmal Singh Ghumman, Operation Cell, Central District, Delhi proved complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/A.
(c) PW-3 HC Yaad Ram is a member of raiding team.
He is a recovery witness. He proved sketch of country made pistol and empty shell Ex.PW3/A and sketch of live cartridge Ex.PW3/B recovered from the accused, namely, Pran Kishore.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 5 of 20 He proved seizure memos of country made pistol and empty shell Ex.PW3/C and live cartridge Ex.PW3/D. He proved arrest memos Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/F and personal search memos Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H respectively of the accused persons, namely, Pran Kishore and Sanjay. He proved seizure memos of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 3S BF 9540 Ex.PW3/I and motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861 Ex.PW3/J. He identified country made pistol Ex.P1, live cartridge Ex.P2 and empty shell Ex.P3 recovered from the accused, namely, Pran Kishore. He identified pistol Ex.P4 and three live cartridges Ex.P5 recovered from the accused, namely, Sanjay. He identified motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861. He identified the accused persons.
(d) PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar is the complainant. He was In-charge of raiding team. He proved sketch of country made pistol and empty shell already Ex.PW3/A and sketch of live cartridge already Ex.PW3/B recovered from the accused, namely, Pran Kishore. He proved seizure memos of country made pistol and empty shell already Ex.PW3/C and live cartridge already Ex.PW3/D. He proved sketch of pistol and three live cartridges Ex.PW4/A recovered from the accused, namely, Sanjay. He proved seizure memo of pistol and three live cartridges Ex.PW4/B. He prepared rukka Ex.PW4/C and handed it over to PW-12 Ct. Devender for registration of FIR. He proved seizure memo of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861 already Ex.PW3/J. He identified country made pistol Ex.P1, live cartridge Ex.P2 and empty shell Ex.P3 recovered from the accused, namely, Pran Kishore. He identified pistol Ex.P4 and three live cartridges Ex.P5 recovered from the accused, namely, Sanjay. He identified the accused persons.
(e) PW-5 Insp. Jarnail Singh is 2 nd Investigating Officer. He collected FSL report. He obtained sanction under Section 39 of 'The Arms Act, 1959'. He filed charge-sheet.
(f) PW-6 Ct. Ombir, DD Writer, Special Staff, Central District, Delhi recorded DD No. 18 Ex.PW6/A.
(g) PW-7 Ct. Nazir Haider deposited three sealed parcels with FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 5/10.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 6 of 20
(h) PW-8 HC Naresh is a member of raiding team. He is a recovery witness. He proved sketch and seizure memos of pistol and three live cartridges already Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively. He proved arrest memos already Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/F and personal search memos already Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H respectively of the accused persons, namely, Pran Kishore and Sanjay. He proved disclosure statements Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively of the accused persons, namely, Pran Kishore and Sanjay. He identified country made pistol Ex.P1, live cartridge Ex.P2 and empty shell Ex.P3 recovered from the accused, namely, Pran Kishore. He identified pistol Ex.P4 and three live cartridges Ex.P5 recovered from the accused, namely, Sanjay. He identified the accused persons.
(i) PW-9 Ms. Meenu Choudhary, Addl. DCP, Central District, Delhi proved sanction under Section 39 of 'The Arms Act, 1959' Ex.PW9/A.
(j) PW-10 R. Suresh, Sr. Scientific Officer (Ballistics), FSL, Rohini proved FSL report Ex.PW10/A.
(k) PW-11 HC Ajay Kumar, MHC(M), PS Kamla Market proved entry at Sl. No. 2241 in Reg. No. 19 Ex.PW11/A pertaining to deposit of three sealed parcels and two sealed parcels. He proved RC No. 5/10 Ex.PW11/B and acknowledgement Ex.PW11/C.
(l) PW-12 HC Devender Singh is a member of raiding team. He is a recovery witness. He proved sketch of country made pistol and empty shell already Ex.PW3/A recovered from the accused, namely, Pran Kishore. He proved seizure memos of country made pistol and empty shell already Ex.PW3/C and live cartridge already Ex.PW3/D. He proved seizure memo of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861 already Ex.PW3/J. He proved arrest memos already Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/F and personal search memos already Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H respectively of the accused persons, namely, Pran Kishore and Sanjay. He proved disclosure statements already Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively of the accused persons, namely, Pran Kishore and Sanjay. He identified country made pistol Ex.P1, live cartridge Ex.P2 and empty shell Ex.P3 recovered from the accused, namely, Pran Kishore. He identified the accused persons.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 7 of 20
(m) PW-13 Insp. Vivekanand is the 1 st Investigating Officer. He proved site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW13/A. He proved arrest memos already Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/F and personal search memos already Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H respectively of the accused persons, namely, Pran Kishore and Sanjay. He proved disclosure statements already Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively of the accused persons, namely, Pran Kishore and Sanjay. He recorded statement of the witnesses. He proved seizure memo of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 3S BF 9540 already Ex.PW3/I. He identified the accused persons.
PLEA OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS:
12. Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were explained to the accused persons, as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied each and every circumstance appearing in evidence against them. The accused, namely, Pran Kishore stated that nothing was recovered from him. He stated that he had not made any disclosure statement. He stated that police had taken his signatures on blank papers. He stated that motorcycle No. DL 3S BF 9540 was wrongly seized by the police. He stated that police witnesses are false and interested witnesses and they identified them and planted case property to implicate them in this case. He pleaded, as under:
"Q. 31: Do you want to say anything in your defence? Ans: I am innocent. I was called by police at ACP Office in connection with proceedings under Section 107, 151 Cr.P.C. by sending notice. I alongwith the accused Sanjay went to ACP Office, Kamla Market on motorcycle No. DL 3S BF 9540 on 05.10.2010. However, my date for appearing before ACP was 06.10.2010. I was wrongly arrested in this case at ACP Office on 05.10.2010. A false case was made by police. Later we got the said motorcycle released on superdari."
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 8 of 20
13. The accused, namely, Sanjay stated that motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861 was planted. He stated that he was wrongly arrested in this case. He stated that he had not made any disclosure statement. He stated that police had taken his signatures on blank papers. He stated that police witnesses are false and interested witnesses and they identified them and planted case property to implicate them in this case. He pleaded, as under:
"Q. 31: Do you want to say anything in your defence? Ans: I am innocent. I was called by police at ACP Office in connection with proceedings under Section 107, 151 Cr.P.C. by sending notice. I alongwith the accused Pran Kishore went to ACP Office, Kamla Market on motorcycle No. DL 3S BF 9540 on 05.10.2010. However, my date for appearing before ACP was 06.10.2010. I was wrongly arrested in this case at ACP Office on 05.10.2010. A false case was made by police. Later we got the said motorcycle released on superdari."
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
14. The accused persons did not examine any witness in defence evidence.
APPEARANCE:
15. I have heard arguments of Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate for both the accused persons.
16. I have also perused written arguments filed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 9 of 20 CONTENTIONS OF THE PROSECUTION:
17. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that the prosecution examined members of raiding team, namely, PW-3 HC Yaad Ram, PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar, PW-8 HC Naresh and PW-12 HC Devender Singh. He contended that they proved that the accused persons on 05.01.2010 at 05.35 p.m. near Government School, Mata Sundri Road, DDU Marg, New Delhi came on a stolen motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861 and fired at PW-3 HC Yaad Ram, and recovery of arms and ammunition from them. He contended that ballistics report Ex.PW10/A proved that country made pistol and pistol alongwith cartridges recovered from the accused persons are arms and ammunition. He contended that PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar made effort to associate public witnesses and no one was willing to join raiding team. He contended that there is no contradiction in depositions of members of raiding team. He contended that the accused persons have not explained possession of a stolen motorcycle. He contended that the accused persons were in conscious possession of illegal arms and ammunition without license under Section 5 of 'The Arms Act, 1959'. He contended that prosecution proved sanction Ex.PW9/A for prosecution of the accused persons under section 39 of 'The Arms Act, 1959'. He contended that prosecution proved charges against the accused persons and therefore, they are liable to be held guilty for committing offences under Section 186/34, 353/34 and 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of 'The Arms Act, 1959'.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 10 of 20 CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENCE:
18. Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Ld. Defence Counsel contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that the accused persons were falsely implicated in this case. He contended that PW-1 ASI Mohinder Singh have not made endorsement on rukka regarding registration of FIR. He contended that complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/A is bearing 'PS Farsh Bazar' and not 'PS Kamla Market'. He contended that the said sanction was ante-dated and fabricated. He contended that PW-3 HC Yaad Ram has not deposed the incident, as recorded in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He contended that motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 3S BF 9540 belonged to the accused, namely, Sanjay and it was released on superdari to him. He contended that there is no handing over memo of seal. He contended that parcels were prepared and sealed in PS Kamla Market. He contended that signatures of PW-3 HC Yaad Ram are not on sketch and seizure memo pertaining to pistol and live cartridges recovered from the accused, namely, Sanjay. He contended that owner of TATA Sumo was not cited as a witness. He contended that PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar did not sign seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. He contended that handwriting on seizure memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW4/B are different. He contended that PW-13 Insp. Vivekanand stated that arrest memos were prepared in PS Kamla Market. He contended that there was no injury on person of the accused persons, though motorcycle, as alleged, slipped on road.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 11 of 20
19. As regards contention that there was no public witness to search and seizure proceedings, it can be stated that police officials are competent witnesses. Their evidence cannot be doubted on the sole premise of non-association of any public witness to search and seizure proceedings.
20. In Ajmer Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"19.....It is normally expected that there should be independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. However, it is not an inviolable rule. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that it would be travesty of justice, if the appellant is acquitted merely because no independent witness has been produced.
20. We cannot forget that it may not be possible to find independent witness at all places, at all times. The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute, if after making efforts which the Court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. The Court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence."
21. In Kashmiri Lal vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 6 SCC 595, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"9. As far as the first submission is concerned, it is evincible from the evidence on record that the police officials had requested the people present in the ''dhaba'' to be witnesses, but they declined to cooperate and, in fact, did not make themselves available. That apart, there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 12 of 20 Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the Department of Police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence....."
22. It is, therefore, evident that evidence of police officials cannot be discarded on the sole premise that they are police officials and they did not associate any public witness. However, the evidence of police officials should be examined with due caution and circumspection.
23. PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar did not reduce secret information into writing. He received secret information at about 05.00 p.m. while he was near his office. He did not intimate the said information to PS Kamla Market or office of Special Staff. In his evidence, he made a material improvement that he conveyed secret information to Insp. Satender Mohan who directed him to take action in accordance with law. He deposed that Insp. Satender Mohan should record secret information in roznamcha register. There is no mention of communication of secret information to Insp. Satender Mohan, in tehrir Ex.PW4/C. There is no explanation as to why PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar neither reduced secret information into writing nor communicated it to office of Special Staff or PS Kamla Market or conveyed it to his senior officers. This is a material lapse in case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 13 of 20
24. PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar alongwith raiding team reached at the place of incident in a private vehicle TATA Sumo. He deposed that secret informer met him 'by chance'. He deposed that he borrowed the said vehicle from his friend, namely, Sanjay. The prosecution has neither cited the said Sanjay nor examined him to prove that he lent his vehicle to PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar for conducting raid at the place of incident. Even registration number of the said vehicle is not mentioned in tehrir Ex.PW4/C. Further, PW-12 HC Devender Singh stated that they all were sitting in police vehicle when PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar got down and met secret informer. The fact that whether any such vehicle was borrowed by PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar and used by the raiding team to reach at the place of incident is shrouded in mystery.
25. DD No. 14 recorded at 04.35 p.m. on 05.01.2010 states that PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar, PW-3 HC Yaad Ram, PW-8 Ct. Naresh, PW-12 Ct. Devender Singh and Bagicha Singh departed for the area of PS Kamla Market for check on crime and criminals alongwith weapons. PW-8 HC Naresh was categorical on this aspect. He deposed that he was not having any weapon with him. However, PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar states that he cannot recollect whether they were carrying any firearm or not. He stated that he did not make any request to his office to send any armed personnel as he believed that they were five persons and they would tackle the situation. It is beyond comprehension that a police team would conduct a raid without carrying arm or wearing bullet proof jackets.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 14 of 20
26. There are material contradictions regarding sequence of events deposed by the prosecution witnesses. The case of the prosecution, as narrated in tehrir Ex.PW4/C, is that when PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar alongwith raiding team signaled the accused persons to stop, they turned about their motorcycle and in that process, motorcycle slipped and when he alongwith raiding team moved ahead to apprehend them, the accused, namely, Pran Kishore fired at PW-3 HC Yaad Ram and the accused, namely, Sanjay attempted to fire at raiding team. On the contrary, PW-3 HC Yaad Ram stated that pillion rider of the motorcycle fired at the raiding team. He did not depose that pillion rider of the motorcycle fired gun-shot at him. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of deposition of PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar. He made material improvements. He deposed that pillion rider of the motorcycle fired at the raiding team and driver of the motorcycle also fired at the raiding team which was never the case of the prosecution that the accused, namely, Sanjay fired any gun-shot at the raiding team. In his cross-examination, he again made a contrary statement that fire was made aimlessly without targeting any police party personnel and it was fired to create a panic in the police party and the fire was made from a distance of 20-25 feet. PW-12 HC Devender Singh stated that pillion rider fired a gun-shot in the air. Therefore, there are material inconsistencies in depositions of members of the raiding team regarding sequence of events pertaining to firing and apprehension of the accused persons at the place of incident.
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 15 of 20
27. Credibility, authenticity and trustworthiness of search and seizure proceedings are not above board. As mentioned in tehrir Ex.PW4/C, PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar handed over seal after use to Ct. Bagicha Singh. He deposed so in his deposition. However, PW-3 HC Yaad Ram stated that PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar handed over seal after use to him. He stated that he returned seal to PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar after about half an hour on the same day. PW-3 HC Yaad Ram, PW-8 HC Naresh and PW-12 HC Devender Singh stated that PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar prepared documents pertaining to arms and ammunition and motorcycle from the accused persons. However, PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar stated that no memos or documents prepared by him in his handwriting. He could not state the name of official who authored memos and documents. He deposed that he signed all memos and documents. In the same breath, he deposed that he had not signed sketch of live cartridge recovered from the accused, namely, Pran Kishore Ex.PW3/B and seizure memo thereof Ex.PW3/D. It is not forthcoming as to who had prepared sketches and seizure memos pertaining to recovery of arms and ammunition from the accused persons. The case of the prosecution is that motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861 recovered from the accused, namely, Sanjay was a vehicle stolen from PS Patel Nagar on 05.11.2009. However, charge-sheet states that FIR No. 21/10 in respect of the said vehicle was registered under Section 379 IPC at PS Ranjeet Nagar on 20.01.2010 i.e. after 15 days from the date of incident FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 16 of 20
28. The incident of shooting at police team had taken place in a most sensitive area in heart of city at a distance of around 1 km. from Police Head Quarter, PS Kamla Market and office of Special Staff. It is beyond comprehension that no police officer from PS Kamla Market or office of Special Staff reached at the place of incident. The incident in question was not an ordinary incident of theft or robbery. Even then, the entire Police Department was unaware of such incident. It is a matter of concern that PW-9 Ms. Meenu Choudhary, Addl. DCP (Central), Delhi and PW-2 ACP Nirmal Singh Ghumman did not examine the matter and accorded sanction in a mechanical manner. This is a dereliction of duty on their part.
29. Appreciation of evidence would mean to determine its creditworthiness and its weight. On assessment of evidence of members of raiding team, this Court is of the considered opinion that their evidence does not inspire confidence. Their evidence is wholly unreliable.
30. The prosecution failed to bring home charges against the accused persons.
31. This is not a case where the Court reached to a finding on considering contradictions or inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution. It is a case of false implication of the accused persons, for the following reasons:
(a) PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar alongwith police team reached at the place of incident in an unidentified vehicle without reducing secret information into writing or communicating the said information to senior officers of police in civil dress without carrying arms and ammunition and wearing bullet proof jackets;
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 17 of 20
(b) The incident of shooting at police team had taken place in one of the most sensitive areas of Delhi within 1 km. from Police Head Quarter and no senior officer from PS Kamla Market, office of Special Staff or any other adjacent police station reached there; and
(c) According to tehrir Ex.PW4/C, motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AF 8861 was found to be stolen from PS Patel Nagar on verification through 100 number. However, FIR No. 21/10 under Section 379 IPC in respect of the said motorcycle was registered on 20.01.2010 at PS Ranjeet Nagar.
32. False implication of any person in any criminal case, more so, in a serious criminal case punishable under Section 307 IPC is a matter of concern. Implication of persons in serious criminal cases in view of their past criminal antecedents to contain them cannot be appreciated.
33. In Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"47.5. We hold, declare and direct that it shall be appropriate exercise of jurisdiction as well as ensuring just and fair investigation and trial that courts return a specific finding in such cases, upon recording of reasons as to deliberate dereliction of duty, designedly defective investigation, intentional act of omission and commission prejudicial to the case of the prosecution, in breach of professional standards and investigative requirements of law, during the course of the investigation by the investigating agency, expert witnesses and even the witnesses cited by the prosecution. Further, the courts would be fully justified in directing the disciplinary authorities to take appropriate disciplinary or other action in accordance with law, whether such officer, expert or employee witness, is in service or has since retired."
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 18 of 20
34. The officers of the State had played with the liberty of the accused persons and, in a way, experimented with it. Law does not countenance such kind of experiments, as that causes trauma and pain. It does not require wisdom of a seer to visualize that an attempt has been made to corrode the procedural safeguard which are meant to sustain sanguinity of liberty. Investigating agency has put its sense on the ventilator. The liberty of the accused persons was curtailed in violation of law. The freedom of an individual has its sanctity. The liberty of a person is sacrosanct under the constitution.
35. Accordingly, this Court direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to take disciplinary action against PW-4 SI Yogender Kumar and members of raiding team, whether they are in service or since retired. In case any one of them is since retired, the action shall be taken with regard to deduction / stoppage of their pension in accordance with service rules. The ground of limitation, if provided in service rules, will not operate as the inquiry is being conducted pursuant to direction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for initiating disciplinary action, as directed. CONCLUSION:
36. The accused persons, namely, Pran Kishore and Sanjay are acquitted from offences under section 186/34, 353/34 and 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of 'The Arms Act, 1959'.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.06.30
15:25:50 +0530
Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II
th
on this 29 June, 2022 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 19 of 20
State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr.
CNR No.: DLCT010003092010
SC No. 28390/2016
FIR No. 01/2010
PS Kamla Market
29.06.2022
Present : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate with the accused persons.
Mr. Anil Kumar Kamboj, Amicus Curiae for both the accused persons (through Video Conferencing).
Vide separate judgment announced in the open Court, the accused persons, namely, Pran Kishore and Sanjay are acquitted from offences under Section 186/34, 353/34 and 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of 'The Arms Act, 1959'. A copy of judgment be given to Ld. Counsel for the accused persons vide acknowledgement on the margin of the ordersheet. The accused persons already furnished bail bonds, as required under Section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.06.30 15:26:09 +0530 Sanjay SharmaII ASJ03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 29.06.2022 FIR No. 01/2010 State vs. Pran Kishore & Anr. Page No. 20 of 20