Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Inderpreet Singh on 17 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
Session Case No. 63/2012
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0166312012
State Vs. (1) Inderpreet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Trilochan Singh
R/o B2, Model TownII,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Yashwant Singh
S/o Late Sh. Munsi Lal
R/o Village Saniya Pur,
PS Dera Pur,
Distt. Rama Bai Nagar,
Kanpur Dehat (UP)
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 63/2012
Police Station: Keshav Puram
Under Sections: 302 IPC & 25 Arms Act
Date of committal to session court: 1.8.2012
Date on which orders were reserved: 26.3.2013
Date on which judgment announced: 6.4.2013
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations in the intervening night of 1415.3.2012 at about 12:10 AM at House House No. 2079/14, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 1 accused Inderpreet Singh committed the murder of Harvinder Singh by firing upon him through a revolver which was in his possession without any license or permit and used the same while committing the murder of Harvinder Singh. In so far as the accused Yashwant Singh is concerned it has been alleged that he had handed over his loaded licensee revolver to coaccused Inderpreet Singh who was not having any permit or license for the same.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BREIF FACTS:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 1415.3.2012 at about 12:40 AM DD No.3 was received at Police Post Shanti Nagar from Kalra Hospital that an injured having gun shot injury had been admitted in the hospital. Pursuant to the same SI Mukesh Kumar Incharge Police Post Shanti Nagar along with his staff reached Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar where they found the injured Harvinder Singh @ Happy admitted there with a history of having gun shot injuries. Initially on the basis of DD No.3 PP a case under Section 307 IPC was got registered. SI Mukesh Kumar met accused Inderpreet Singh & Yashwant Singh in the hospital along with one Gurpinder Singh. The accused Inderpreet Singh informed SI Mukesh Kumar that Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh was his friend and they had a drinking session at the house of Amolak. Inderpreet Singh further informed SI Mukesh Kumar that Yashwant Singh was his body guard and Gurpinder was his Driver. He St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 2 also told the police that while he along with Amolak and Havinder @ Happy were taking drinks, he started fiddling with the revolver which he had taken from his PSO Yashwant Singh during which the revolver went off and the bullet his Harvinder @ Happy after which they took the injured to Kalra Hospital and got him admitted there. The accused Yashwant Singh produced his licensed revolver along with the holster and cartridges to the Investigating Officer who seized the same. Thereafter the police along with Inderpreet Singh, Yashwant Singh and Gurpinder Singh reached the house of Amolak at House No. 2079/164 Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar where Amolak Singh met. From the house of Amolak a blood stained bed sheet was seized by the police. In the meantime at about 2:30 AM the injured Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh was declared dead by doctors of Kalra Hospital after which provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code were added. Thereafter the investigations were handed over to Inspector Vijay Kumar, SHO Police Station Keshav Puram who recorded the statement of Ajit Singh the father of Harvinder who informed the police that his son Happy Singh had told him that Inderpreet Singh had to return some money to him (Happy Singh) which he was not returning on which there was a verbal altercation between them. Both the accused Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh were thereafter arrested. The statement of the witnesses Amolak Singh and Gurpinder Singh were got recorded through the Ld. MM under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against both the accused. St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 3
CHARGE:
(3) Charges under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of Arms Act were settled against the accused Inderpreet Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, charge under Section 30 of Arms Act was settled against the accused Yashwant Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(4) 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:
Prosecution witnesses:
Sr. No. PW No. Name of the witness Details 1. PW 1 SI Manohar Lal Draftsman 2. PW 2 ASI Mohd. Akhlak Khan Duty Officer 3. PW 3 SI Sanjeev Verma Crime Team Incharge 4. PW 4 Ct. Sanjay DD Writer 5. PW 5 Ct. Suneet Police witness 6. PW 6 Ct. Manjit Police witness 7. PW 7 Ct. Subhash Crime Team Photographer 8. PW 8 HC Naresh MHCM 9. PW 9 Ct. Gajraj Police witness 10. PW 10 Ct. Anuj Police witness 11. PW11 Dr. R.S. Gandhi Witness from Kalra Hospital 12. PW12 Dr. Bhim Singh Autopsy Surgeon 13. PW 13 Ajit Singh Father of the deceased St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 4 14. PW 14 Sarabjeet Singh Brother in law / Jija of the deceased 15. PW 15 SI Prem Singh PCR Official 16. PW 16 Sh. S. Saravanan Police witness/ DCP 17. PW 17 Dr. N. P. Waghmare Forensic expert 18. PW 18 Sh. Puneet Puri Forensic expert 19. PW 19 Ms. Manisha Upadhya Forensic expert 20. PW 20 Sh. Amit Rawat Forensic expert 21. PW 21 Sh. Tariq Ahmad Arms Clerk 22. PW 22 Amolak Singh Eye witness/ friend of the deceased 23. PW 23 Gurpinder Singh Driver of accused Inderpreet Singh 24. PW 24 Ct. Vinod Police witness 25. PW 25 HC Ramesh Chand Police witness 26. PW 26 SI Mukesh Initial Investigating Officer 27. PW 27 Insp. Vijay Kumar Investigating Officer List of documents: Sr. No. Exhibit No. Details of documents Proved by 1. PW1/1 Affidavit SI Manohar Lal Do 2. PW1/A Site plan 3. PW2/1 Affidavit ASI Mohd. Akhlak 4. PW 2/A FIR 5. PW 2/B Endorsement on Rukka 6. PW 2/C Certificate U/s 65B 7. PW 3/1 Affidavit SI Sanjeev Verma St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 5 8. PW3/A Crime Team Report 9. PW4/1 Affidavit Ct. Sanjauy 10. PW4/A DD NO. 3PP 11. PW4/B DD NO. 7PP 12. PW5/1 Affidavit Ct. Suneet 13. PW5/A Seizure memo 14. PW6/1 Affidavit Ct. Manjit Singh 15. PW6/A Seizure memo of ex. Of Deceased 16. PW7/1 Affidavit Ct. Subhash 17. PW7/A1 to 8 Photographs 18. PW7/B Negatives 19. PW8/1 Affidavit HC Naresh Kumar 20. PW8/A Copy of Reg No. 2683 S no. 2863 21. PW8/B RC NO. 20/21/12 22. PW8/C FSL Receipt 23. PW8/D RC NO. 22/21/12 24. PW8/E RC NO. 25/21/12 25. PW8/F FSL Receipt 26. PW8/G FSL Receipt 27. PW8/H RC No. 21/21/12 28. PW8/I FSL Receipt 29. PW8/J RC 42/21/12 30. PW8/K FSL Receipt 31. PW9/1 Affidavit Ct. Gajraj 32. PW10/1 Affidavit Ct.Anuj St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 6 33. PW11/A MLC Dr. R S Gandhi Do 34. PW11/B Copy of Treatment Record 35. PW11/C Copy of Treatment record 36. PW12/A Postmortem Record Dr. Bhim Singh 37. PW12/B Request letter 38. PW12/C1 Endorsement on Postmortem 39. PW12/C2 Brief fact 40. PW12/C3 Form 25:35 41. PW12/C4 FIR 42. PW12/C5 Statement of Saravjit 43. PW12/C6 Statement of Ajit 44. PW12/C7 Death Summary 45. PW13/A Dead body handing over memo Ajit Singh 46. PW13/B Seizure memo 47. PW13/D1 Confronted statement 48. PW13/D2 Confronted statement 49. PW13/D3 Confronted statement 50. PW14/D1 Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Sarbjeet Singh 51. PW14/D2 Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. 52. PW15/A PCR Form SI Prem Singh 53. PW15/B PCR Form 54. PW16/A Sanction U/s 39 A Act Sh. S. Saravanan 55. PW17/A Report on SIM and Phone Dr. N P Waghmare 56. PW17/B Opinion on SIM 57. PW17/C CDR 58. PW18/A Ballistics report Puneet Puri 59. PW18/B Detailed Report St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 7 60. PW19/A Report/ Proceeding Regarding Ms. Manisha Preserving the blood stains Upadhyaya 61. PW19/B Biological Report 62. PW19/ C Serological Report 63. PW20/A FSL Report Chemistry Amit Rawat 64. PW21/A Weapon and License Record Tariq Ahmad copy 65. PW 21/B Arms License 66. PW2/A Seizure memo of bed Sheet Amolak Singh 67. PW22/B Statement of 164 CrPC 68. PW24/A Seizure memo of Blood sample Ct. Vinod and hand swab of the accused Inderpreet 69. PW25/A Seizure memo of mobile phone HC Ramesh Chand and one silver color Kara 70. PW25/B Seizure memo of jeans pant with seal of Hospital 71. PW25/C Sketch of revolver and live cartridges 72. PW25/D Seizure memo of cartridges 73. PW25/E Seizure memo of Revolver 74. PW25/F Seizure memo of Car 75. PW25/G Arrest memo of Inderpreet 76. PW25/H Personal search memo 77. PW25/I Disclosure statement 78. PW25/J Seizure memo of T Shirt and Jeans pant 79. PW25/K Arrest memo Yashwant 80. PW25/L Personal search memo St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 8 81. PW25/M Disclosure statement 82. PW25/N Pointed out memo 83. PW26/A DD No. 3PP SI Mukesh 84. PW26/B Endorsement on DD NO. 3PP 85. PW26/C Site plan 86. PW27/A Subsequent opinion Insp. Vijay Kumar 87. PW27/B Verification report EVIDENCE: (5) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty Six witnesses as under: Eye witnesses / Public witnesses: (6) PW13 Sh. Ajit Singh is the father of the deceased Harvinder
Singh who has deposed that on 15.03.2012 he identified the dead body of his son in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital vide Ex.PW12/C6 and after the postmortem the dead body of his son was received by them vide Ex.PW13/A. (7) Witness has further deposed that on 14.03.2012 friend of his son Harvinder Singh @ Happy (since deceased) namely Amolak called him at his house in the evening at about 7.30PM and later on at about 10.30 PM he had talks with his son on his mobile phone No. 9211385234 from his mobile phone No. 9211385202. According to him during talks he had asked his son whether he was coming back to home and whether he had St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 9 taken his meals on which his son replied that he would be taking the meal there as the food was being cooked and that he would stay overnight at the house of Amolak as the parents of Amolak had gone to their native village in Punjab. He has testified that after about 11:00 PM Inderpreet Singh came to the house of Amolak. The witness has further deposed that he came to know about the serious condition of his son by the police at about
2.30AM on 15.03.2012 and police took him and his wife to the house of Amolak and when they reached at the house of Amolak he was found sleeping. According to him, police asked Amolak as to where the bed sheet had gone but Amolak had already washed the bed sheet. He has clarified that Amolak had destroyed the evidence as blood had apread over the bed sheet due to injury. The witness has testified that when he saw the dead body of his son Harvinder @ Happy he noticed that there was a bullet injury on his right hand with an exit wound on the other side and also noticed three bullet injuries on the right side of abdomen. According to him thereafter they returned to the police chowki where they came to know that his son Harvinder was in the house of Amolak and his son in laws Sarvjit Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Rohit Mishra were also with him. Witness has further deposed that only his son in law Sahil was not with them at that time and police also informed them that while his son was in the house of Amolak, Inderpreet Singh had came there with his guard Yashwant Singh and while Inderpreet Singh was examining the gun of Yashwant Singh, the gun went off and hit his son Harvinder. According to St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 10 the witness he was also informed by the police that as soon as his son received injury, it was Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh who took his son to the hospital alongwith their driver but Amolak did not come to the hospital. He has also deposed that these people did not inform him or his family or to the police about the incident and in fact it was the hospital authorities i.e. Kalra Hospital who gave information to the police. He has further deposed that after twothree days when he went to Police Chowki, Amolak was sitting there and he confronted him about the incident on which he told him that while he and Harvinder were sitting in his house on the ground floor at about 11.0011.30PM Inderpreet came to his house and sat there with him. According to this witness, Amolak also told him that it was Harvinder who had telephoned Inderpreet and called him and when Inderpreet came inside the house, he brought a loaded pistol belonging to his PSO Yashwant Singh and when he was fiddling with the gun, suddenly it went off and his son received bullet injuries on which his son became unconscious and it was Inderpreet and Yashwant alongwith their driver who brought his son to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. He has testified that he and his family members had suspicion on accused Inderpreet and they felt that he had intentionally shot his son. According to the witness, his son was under great tension and pressure since he had to take some money from Inderpreet details of which he was not aware but his apprehension was that Inderpreet had intentionally and deliberately killed his son. The witness has also deposed that it was in the month of St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 11 February when he asked his son as to why he was in tension, his son told him that he was disturbed as Inderpreet had to return some money to him but he (Inderpreet) was not returning the same.
(8) The witness Ajit Singh has further deposed that his son was maintaining two mobile phone and one of Nokia and other was of TATA. He has stated that his own mobile bearing no. 9211385234 was of TATA and he had purchased the mobile of NOKIA recently but he does not remember the said number. According to him, his son had taken both the mobile phone with him and he had made a call to his son Happy at night on the TATA phone. He has also deposed that on the intervening night of 14/15.03.2012 when he went to the house of Amolak with police he found the NOKIA phone on the bed of Amolak which Amolak handed over to the police. He has proved that the mobile phone NOKIA was seized by police vide Ex.PWI3/B. He has correctly identified the accused Inderpreet Singh but did not identify the accused Yashwant Singh. (9) Leading questions were put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein the witness has deposed that he does not recollect if his son was using the number 7838872630 on his NOKIA Mobile and has voluntarily explained that the police in his presence had retrieved this number from his mobile themselves.
(10) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsels, the witness has admitted that prior to this incident he did not know Inderpreet Singh or the name of his father or the place where he is residing. On a St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 12 specific Court Question the witness has deposed that he had heard the name of Inderpreet Singh from the mouth of his son Happy and it was he who told him that he had to take money from one person Inderpreet Singh who resides in Model Town. The witness has admitted that Inderpreet Singh had never come to his house nor he had ever spoken to him on telephone or seen him prior to this incident. He has also admitted that for the first time it is the police who informed him as to who Inderpreet Singh was who had brought his son to the hospital. Witness has further deposed that his son was into sales of the products of the DELL company and his son always used to tell him that he had to take money from Inderpreet but he never told him for what reason and on what account.
(11) He has testified that for the first time police recorded his statement on 15.03.2012 was in the morning. Witness has admitted that he had taken the name of Inderpreet Singh only on the basis of his personal perception and suspicion and has voluntarily explained that his son had no enemies and he felt that it is not possible that the gun / pistol would suddenly go off like this and hence in his view there was something more to the incident and that his son had been murdered. He has also admitted that Inderpreet Singh, Yashwant Singh and driver were present in the hospital when he reached there. According to the witness he had also spoken to Inderpreet Singh in the hospital after the police told him that it was Inderpreet who was holding the gun when it accidentally went off and has voluntarily explained that he questioned him St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 13 as to how the gun could go off accidentally and as to who was the owner of the gun on which Inderpreet told him that the gun was belonging to his guard Yashwant and while he was examining it, it went off accidentally. He has further admitted that neither Inderpreet nor Yashwant tried to run away from the hospital and also cooperated in the police proceedings. He does not recollect if he had mentioned to the police on 15.03.2012 that his son had to take money from Inderpreet and has voluntarily explained that he was extremely disturbed on account of death of his son. However, when confronted with statement Ex.PW13/DX1 the allegation against Inderpreet regarding money transactions were not found mentioned. According to the witness, he had stated to the police that Amolak had called his son after making a telephone call at about 7.30PM on the day of incident and has voluntarily explained that he is not aware whether police recorded this fact or not. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW13/DX2 the said fact was not found mentioned. He has also deposed that he had stated to the police in his statement dated 16.03.2012 that he had spoken to his son on phone at 10.30PM on the day of incident; that on the day of incident after about 11.30PM Inderpreet came to the house of Amolak; that police had taken him to the house of Amolak after informing him about the incident; that when he alongwith police went to the house of Amolak on the night of incident, Amolak was found sleeping at his home; that police had asked Amolak as to where the bed sheet had gone on which Amolak stated that he had already washed St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 14 the bed sheet and had destroyed the evidence as blood came on the bed sheet due to injury; that Inderpreet had come to the house of Amolak alongwith his PSO Yashwant.; that after 23 days of the incident when he went to the police chowki, he found Amolak sitting there in the chowki and he told him that Harvinder had called Inderpreet at the house of Amolak by making telephonic call to him (Inderpreet); that in the month of February he had asked his son as to why he was in tension on which his son informed him that he (Inderpreet) was not returning money; that phone of NOKIA had recently purchased by his son; that Amolak had told him that on the day of incident Harvinder and Amolak were present at the house of Amolak and it was Harvinder who called Inderpreet at the house of Amolak when Inderpreet was passing through the said area. However, when the witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW13/DX2 the said facts were not found mentioned. He does not recollect if he had given the mobile number of his son i.e. 9211385234 to the police and has voluntarily explained that he had given the said number to the police as the same was being used by their family. Witness has admitted that after the incident he was regularly in touch with the police. He has denied the suggestion that his son had never mentioned the name of Inderpreet Singh to him and it is for this reason that he had never disclosed the police about the same in his first statement. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he has incorporated the story of previous money deal only to falsely implicate the accused Inderpreet being aggrieved by the death of his son. St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 15 (12) PW14 Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, has deposed that he was residing at R/o H1/5657, Sector 16, Rohini, along with his family comprising of his mother, brother, wife and two children and Harwinder Singh @ Happy Singh was his brother in law / Sala being the real brother of his wife. According to him on the intervening night of 14/15.03.2012 he received a telephone call from his father in law Sh. Ajeet Singh who informed him that Harwinder @ Happy had been shot (goli lagi hai) on which he immediately reached the house of his father in law at Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar from where they went to Kalra Hospital, Moti Nagar where they came to know that Happy had already expired. Witness has further deposed that on examining the body in the hospital, he found that there was a bullet injury on his hand and three bullet injuries on the abdomen at the side after which they went to the police chowki. According to him there they were informed by the police that Amolak who was the childhood friend of Happy had informed them that he had called Harwinder to his house and they were supposed to has dinner together and Inderpreet also reached there at about 1111:15 PM and had brought a gun of his PSO which he was showing to them. Witness has further deposed that Amolak had also informed the police that initially Inderpreet had his photographs taken with the gun but suddenly while he was fiddling with the same, it went off and Harwinder received the gun shots after which Inderpreet, his PSO Yashwant and his driver immediately shifted Harwinder to Kalra hospital where Harwinder declared dead. St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 16 (13) The witness has proved that on 15.03.2012 he identified the dead body of his brother in law Harwinder vide Ex.PW12/C5 after which the postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased. He has further deposed that the deceased Harwinder Singh @ Happy was having two mobile phones whose number he does not recollect at present but one of the mobile number was starting from 78. According to him deceased used to speak to him from both the mobile phones and his father in law had come to his house a few days before the death of Harwinder @ Happy and told him that Harwinder Singh had to take some money from Inderpreet Singh and there was also kahasuni between them. (14) During leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State witness has deposed that he does not recollect if the complete number of Harwinder was 7838872630 but has admitted that he had given this number to the police and has voluntarily explained that he recollect the other number of Harwinder which is fed in his mobile which is 9211385234. It has been observed by this Court that witness has given this number after refreshing his memory by checking the contacts of his mobile phone. He has correctly identified the accused Inderpreet Singh in the Court having seen him in the police chowki.
(15) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that he was married eleven years ago and Harwinder Singh who was into sale of electronics of DELL company was close to him being the youngest brother of his wife. Witness has admitted that he did not St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 17 know either Amolak or Inderpreet Singh and has voluntarily explained that he did not made much inquiries from Harwinder about his friends neither he (deceased) told him about them. He has also admitted that Harwinder @ Happy had never told him personally that Inderpreet owed some money to him. He has further admitted that he did not tell the police that he was told by his father in law that Harwinder had informed him that Inderpreet owed his some money. According to the witness, he did not see Inderpreet in the hospital and has voluntarily explained that he had reached the hospital late, whereas his in laws had already reached there. He has also admitted that they were told that it was Inderpreet, his PSO and the driver who had brought Harwinder to the hospital and has voluntarily explained that Amolak who was the childhood friend of Harwinder was sleeping in his house when they went to his house at night with the police. He has stated that one mobile phone of Harwinder was also with Amolak who did not even bother to inform the family or the police about the incident. Witness has further admitted that Inderpreet was present in the police chowki along with the PSO and did not try to run away. Witness has also admitted that Amolak did not make any statement before them and whatever was told to them was by the police. He has denied the suggestion that they were never told by the police about any statement made by Amolak and it is for this reason that in his statements to the police which are Ex.PW14/DX1 and Ex.PW14/DX2 these facts have not been recorded and has voluntarily explained that he had himself given these details to the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 18 police in writing duly signed by him but he is not aware why the police has not placed that statement on record. He has denied the suggestion that he had made improvements at the instance of his in laws being aggrieved by the death of his brother in law.
(16) PW22 Amolak Singh is an eye witness to the incident who has deposed that he is running a wooden furniture shop in Jhandewalan alongwith his brother and father and he has been residing with his elder brother namely Gurpreet Singh and his parents. According to him on 14.03.2012 at about 6.00AM his parents and his elder brother Gurpreet had gone to Golden Temple, Amritsar, Punjab and he was alone at his house. The witness has testified that Harvinder @ Happy was his friend and used to frequently visit his house and on 13.03.2012 Harvinder @ Happy was present at his house and was aware his parents and brother were going to Amritsar on which Harvinder @ Happy told that he would stay at their house alongwith him in the absence of his parents and brother. According to the witness, on 14.03.2012 he went to their shop at about 10.00AM and at about 4.00 PM he received a telephone call from Harvinder @ Happy who told him that he would reach his house at about 8.00PM and they would make further program for drinking and eating. The witness has testified that at bout 8.30 PM Harvinder @ Happy reached his house and cooked a dry chicken for their dinner. Witness has further deposed that at about 9.009.15 PM when they were taking dinner, Harvinder @ Happy received a mobile call from his friend who asked about his (Harwinder's) St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 19 whereabouts on which Harvinder @ Happy replied that he was present at his (witness's) house. According to him, after 510 minutes three friends of Harvinder @ Happy reached at his house and Harvinder opened the door and he also reached near the door and they were talking to each other. He has testified that meanwhile Harvinder @ Happy received a mobile call from his mother who asked about his whereabouts on which he replied to his mother that he was present at his house and thereafter mother of Harivinder also talked to him (witness) and he told to the mother of Harvinder that they had taken dinner and Harvinder @ Happy would sleep at his house. The witness has further deposed that after keeping the utensils in the kitchen he returned back at the door and found that Inderpreet was crossing from the front of the door of his house and Harvinder @ Happy wished to Inderpreet and asked him whether he recognized him or not on which Inderpreet told that he recognized him very well after which Interpreet hugged Harvinder @ Happy. Witness has further deposed that Harvinder @ Happy asked Inderpreet to come inside the house to take dinner as they had cooked chicken and the three friends of Harvinder who came earlier had gone away from there. He has also deposed that Inderpreet came inside his house on which he (witness) he served cooked chicken to Inderpreet who asked for liquor when Harvinder @ Happy replied that liquor was already finished. Thereafter Inderpreet went outside of the house for liquor and they also came out of the house. The witness has testified that Inderpreet took out one quarter bottle of St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 20 liquor from his car and prepared two pegs for himself and for Harvinder @ Happy after which they again reached inside their house. He has also deposed that they were talking to each other and Harinder @ Happy and Inderpreet were consuming liquor when in the meanwhile Inderpreet took out his revolver and told that the cost of the revolver was about 1.52 lacs. Witness has further deposed that Inderpreet took out the cartridges from the revolver and simultaneously he was cleaning the revolver and Harvinder also asked Inderpreet to see the revolver. Witness has further deposed that Harvinder also kept the same on his hand and told him that revolver was a heavy one and Harvinder asked him (witness) to take his photograph with the revolver for pasting the same on the Facebook. According to the witness, thereafter he took one or two photographs of Harvinder with revolver by the mobile phone of Harvinder and thereafter on the asking of Harvinder he kept the revolver on his hand and Harvinder @ Happy took his photographs with the revolver and thereafter he handed over the revolver to Inderpreet. He has testified that thereafter Inderpreet loaded the cartridges in the revolver and was keeping the revolver under his pant and thereafter he took out the same and said the revolver should be locked. The witness has further deposed that Inderpreet was in the process of locking the revolver but suddenly a loud noise came out from the revolver (thayen ke awaaz hui) and Harvinder exclaimed that he had been hit "lag gai yaar". According to the witness meanwhile Inderpreet started checking the body of Harvinder on his clothes parts and St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 21 thereafter ran out from his house. Witness has further deposed that he asked Harvinder @ Happy as to where he received the bullet injury and after twothree steps Harvinder fell on the ground and meanwhile Inderpreet again came inside the room with an old age person and thereafter they all took Harvinder @ Happy to the car whereas he (witness) told Inderpreet that he was also coming after closing the door of his house but Inderpreet went away with that old aged person and injured Harvinder @ Happy in his car from there. Witness has also deposed that thereafter he informed all the facts to his neighbour namely Pammi Aunty and asked her to make call to Inderpreet @ Mannu but there was no response from the side of Inderpreet @ Mannu and hence he returned back to his house. Witness has also deposed that after one and half hour Pammi Aunty informed him that Harvinder @ Happy was admitted in the hospital and he was O.K. According to him, after one and half hour he received a phone call from his father and informed him of all the facts. The witness has further deposed that after one and half hour police came at his house and asked him about the bullet firing on which he told all the facts to them and had also showed them the place of incident. He has proved that the police seized one blood stained bed sheet on the spot on which they were sitting and kept the same in a polythene and sealed the same in a pullanda and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/A. According to the witness, police took him to the police post Shanti Nagar and recorded his statement. Witness has further deposed that on 23.03.2012 he came at St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 22 Rohini Courts, Delhi along with police where his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Ld. MM vide Ex.PW22/B (two pages). (17) Witness has correctly identified both the accused Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. the revolver used by accused Inderpreet for causing injuries to Harvinder @ Happy which revolver is Ex.P2; one mobile phone make NOKIA make N79 bearing IMEI No. 356387/02/184239/9 as the mobile phone belonging to Harvinder @ Happy by which he and Harvinder took the photographs on the day of incident which mobile phone is Ex.P16 and one bed sheet as the same as seized by the police which is Ex.P17. (18) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that at the time when they saw Inderpreet crossing his house going away in the street, at that time the door of his house was lying opened and Inderpreet had already crossed his house when Harvinder called him from behind by calling his name. Witness has admitted that Inderpreet was going to somewhere else and had crossed his house when he was called by Harvinder who invited him to his house for having chicken. He is not aware whether three persons who visited his house in order to meet Harvinder were his friends, relatives or adversaries. Witness has admitted that initially they did not realize that Harvinder had been hit by bullet and has voluntarily explained that it was only when he remarked "lag gayee yaar" then they realized that he had been shot. St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 23 Witness has further deposed that after they heard this, Inderpreet checked Harvinder as to where he had been shot i.e. on his stomach and body but could not find any wound on the stomach. He has admitted that he did not go to the hospital and has voluntarily explained that after putting Harvinder in the car he had rushed back to his house to lock the same and soon when he went back where the car had been parked, Inderpreet had already left by that time. According to the witness, he had given the description of the three person, to police who had come to meet Harvinder at his house and those three person were not seen by him in the company of the Harvinder. He has testified that on that day those three persons did not disclose their names and they remained with Happy for about five seven minutes and he did not listen as to what talks were going on between Harvinder and those three persons or as to what they said to Happy at the time of leaving his house. He is also not aware in which direction those three persons left his house as he had not seen them while leaving his house and has voluntarily explained that they were talking with Inderpreet at that time so he had no attention towards those three persons. Witness has further deposed that the first door of the room in which they were sitting open in the street and there was no window in the house. According to him above the space of door towards the street there was only railing window above the door which was not been covered by anything and it remained open for ventilation. He has admitted that public persons passed through the gali in front of their door and has explained that at the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 24 time of hearing of voice of fire, he did not have his attention towards Harvinder because he was not looking towards him and has voluntarily explained that his attention was drawn towards him when Harvinder had exclaimed that he had been hit. The witness has also deposed that all of them were under control at the time. He has testified that before Inderpreet had come to their house they i.e. himself and Harvinder were already having a drinking session and had taken about three pegs each. (19) Witness has further deposed that while they all three were sitting inside the room and having drink, the door of the room was closed but not bolted or latched and has voluntarily explained that it was slightly closed (Bhera hua tha). According to him police had met him in connection with this case on five or six occasions and first time he met the police on the day of incident and he was taken to the police station where he was detained for about threefour days during which period he was interrogated. Witness has further deposed that first time his statement was recorded in the morning of 15.03.2012 i.e. on the next day. Witness has admitted that he was taken to the court from the police station itself by the SHO and other officials for recording his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. According to him on that day the Ld. MM was on leave so he was again called by the police in the police station on 23.03.2012 and again from there he was taken by the police official in the gypsy for recording his statement in the court. Witness has admitted that police had shown him his earlier statement recorded by them when he was going to the court. He St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 25 has denied the suggestion that the police told him that he supposed to tell the Ld. MM whatever he had stated earlier or that he was a suspect of the police at the initial stage but later he in connivance with the police had concocted a false story to implicate Inderpreet Singh and became a police witness in order to save himself. The witness has testified that he did not make a call to 100 number nor did he give any information to the family of Harvinder Singh. He has however admitted that the phone of Harvinder Singh was lying in his house and has voluntarily explained that he was not aware of this fact. According to the witness, he did not make any call to Inderpreet to find out the status of the injured and has voluntarily explained that he had received a call from the Mami of Inderpreet Singh informing him that Harvinder Singh was alright and therefore he did not call him up. The witness has also deposed that he also made no call to Inderpreet Singh to ask him if his help was required by him and has voluntarily explained that he was not aware of his telephone number nor he was aware of the hospital in which the injured had been taken. (20) PW23 Gurpinder Singh is the Driver of the accused Inderpreet Singh and has deposed that he was employed as a driver to Inderpreet Singh resident of B2, Model Town II, Delhi for about 1½ years prior to the incident. According to the witness, Indepreet Singh used to maintain security guards and was residing alone on the first floor along with his servant whereas the chachi of Inderpreet Singh resides on the second floor. Witness has further deposed that on 14.03.2012 Yashwant St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 26 Singh had been appointed as his security guard in the evening at around 6 PM and on that day at around 7 PM Inderpreet Singh told him that he wanted to visit his mama at Tri Nagar on which he took him to Tri Nagar in Ford Fiasta bearing No.1539. He has also deposed that first they went to Ashok Vihar where they had chicken and while they were having chicken while sitting in the car itself, Inderpreet Singh asked Yashwant body guard to show him his revolver and thereafter taking the revolver from Yashwant he put it in the dub of his pant. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they went to Tri Nagar to visit the mamaji of Inderpreet Singh and at around 99:30 PM while they were coming out from the house of Mamaji of Inderpreet Singh they suddenly heard the voice of Happy Singh who was in the house of Amolak which is one house away from the house of the mama of Inderpreet Singh. According to the witness he kept sitting in the car along with Yashwant Singh which was parked in the gali opposite the shop of pakore wala while he saw Inderpreet Singh entering the house of Amolak. The witness has testified that he was to go home early on that day and hence he had informed Inderpreet Singh about the same when he was still at his mama's house. According to him at around 9:30 PM three persons i.e. Inderpreet Singh, Amolak and Happy Singh came near the car and picked up the whiskey bottle kept in the vehicle and went back in the house of Amolak while he and Yashwant remained in the car. Witness has further deposed that at around 11 PM Inderpreet Singh came running to the car and handed over the revolver to Yashwant Singh telling him St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 27 "mujhse goli chal gaye hai". He has also deposed that when Inderpreet Singh went back to the house of Amolak after handing over the fire arm to Yashwant Singh, when he saw Yashwant Singh following Inderpreet Singh to the house of Amolak and soon thereafter he saw Amolak, Yashwant Singh and Inderpreet Singh carrying Happy Singh to the vehicle while Amolak went back to his house, Inderpreet Singh told him to rush Happy Singh to the hospital as he was still breathing at that time. He has testified that he tried to make inquiries from the persons on the road if there was any doctor or dispensary nearby but there was no help and he told Inderpreet Singh that he knew where Kheterpal hospital was and hence they i.e. he, Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh immediately rushed Happy Singh to Kheterpal Hospital. The witness has also deposed that at Kheterpal Hospital, the doctor on duty informed them that Happy Singh required immediate specialized attention and that they were not having Oxygen at that time and hence they should rush him to nearby Kalra Hospital and they requested the doctors to arrange for an ambulance but they were told that since that would take time, hence they should immediately rush him in their own car and therefore they then put Happy Singh in the car and rushed him to Kalra Hospital. Witness has further deposed that at that time Happy Singh was still breathing when Inderpreet Singh got him admitted and the doctors rushed him to ICU and admitted him there whereas he himself remained outside in the hospital and is not aware the proceedings being done. According to him, police had also St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 28 come to the hospital and in the morning at 6 AM they i.e. he, Inderpreet Singh, Yashwant Singh and police went to the house of Amolak where he was also interrogated and his statement was recorded and his statement was also recorded by the Ld. MM on the next day. The witness has correctly identified both the accused persons i.e. Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh in the Court.
(21) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has deposed that he is not aware as to how Inderpreet got employed Yashwant Singh as his bodyguard and states that previously Inderpreet was having two bodyguards. Witness has admitted that it was on the insistence of Inderpreet that Yashwant had given the revolver to Inderpreet Singh at Ashok Vihar when they were having chicken. Witness has denied the suggestion that Inderpreet got down from the car at Tri Nagar for going to the house of his Mama. According to him, Yashwant had asked him for returning the revolver but he ignored his request. He has admitted that when injured Happy Singh was put in the car at Tri Nagar he was conscious and has voluntarily explained that he was crying in pain (dard se karaha raha tha) and Yashwant was holding him. He has also deposed that he had asked Yashwant if he was alright and Yashwant told him that he was still conscious and they should rush him to the hospital. Witness has admitted that Yashwant was with him in the car through out the time when Inderpreet had gone to the house of Amolak. He has further admitted that Yashwant was interrogated by the police in his St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 29 presence and he had told the police that Inderpreet had compelled him to hand over the revolver to Inderpreet. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police in his presence that Yashwant had asked to return for the revolver when Inderpreet went to his mama's house at Tri Nagar. He has admitted that he has not witnessed the incident and that Inderpreet had remained with the deceased Happy Singh through out till the time of his death in Kalra hospital. The witness has also admitted that Happy Singh was conscious while they were taking him to hospital and he did not within his hearing blame any person for the incident and has voluntarily explained that he was only crying in pain. Witness has further admitted that Inderpreet was constantly telling him to drive the injured to any nearest hospital as early as possible so that the injured could be saved.
Medical witnesses:
(22) PW11 Dr. R. S. Gandhi has deposed that on 15.03.2012 he was posted in Kalra hospital and was working as Consultant Surgeon.
According to him, on that day at 12.10 midnight was one person namely Happy Singh S/o Unknown, 23 years male, resident of Kanhayya Nagar was brought by his friend Inderpreet Singh with the alleged history of gun shot injury. He has proved that the patient Happy Singh was examined by Dr. Pankaj, Casualty Medical Officer and the patient was unconscious, gasping respiration, no pulse rate, no BP, pupil B/L not reactive to light, no St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 30 cornea reflects. According to him on examination he observed following injury:
1. Three CLW over right inguinal region.
2. One CLW over right little finger.
3. Contusion over left flank (Renal angle) (23) Witness has further deposed that the patient was immediately incubated and put on ventilator with cardiac massage. He has proved the MLC of the injured which is Ex.PW11/A. The witness has also deposed that the patient was directed to be shifted to ICU for further management and at 2.30AM on 15.03.2012 the patient was declared dead as per the treatment record copy of which is Ex.PW11/B and the continuing sheet is Ex.PW11/C. The said has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(24) PW12 Dr. Bhim Singh has deposed that on 15.03.2012 he conducted postmortem examination on the body of Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh S/o Ajit Singh vide PM No. 228/12 which is Ex.PW12/A. According to him the body was brought by SHO/Inspector Vijay Kumar of Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi with the alleged history of sustained fire arm injury on 14/15.03.2012 and on examination he found following injuries:
1. Fire arm entry wound, 0.8 cm X 0.8 cm, exit wound 1 cm X 0.7 cm present over outer aspect of base of little finger and St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 31 inner aspect of base of little finger, margin of outer aspect inverted with surrounding abrasion collar, no blackening and tattooing present, inner wound shows everted margins -
underlying tissues source through and through tear with fracture of underlying bones into multiple pieces.
2. Fire arm entry wound 1cm X 0.8 cm, present over right upper front part of thigh with surrounding abrasion collar.
3. Fire arm exit wound 0.8cm x 0.8 cm situated 2 cms above and medial to injury no.2, margin everted.
4. Entry wound 0.9 cm X 0.8 cm X cavity deep just below middle of inguinal ligament enters into abdominal cavity margins inverted with surrounding abrasion collar obliquely placed 3 cm above and medial to injury no. 4
5. Bluish swelling 13 cm X 8 cm over left renal area.
(25) According to him on internal examination in head neck and chest, organs were pale.
(26) Abdomen and pelvis - full of blood about 2 litres, all organs were pale. Track of the blood after entering abdominal cavity by cutting the upper part of the urinal bladder, iliac vessels and descending colon, blood lodged in subcutaneious tissues in the abdomen, 4 cm below left kidney on posterior aspect. Direction of the wound slightly upwards medially towards left side of the body. Size of blood was approximately 1.5 cm X 0.7 cm.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 32 (27) Track of the wound after entering outer aspect of base of right little finger, blood exits from inner aspect, base of little finger through and through, after that the bullet enters into thigh via injury no.2 and exits from injury no.3 after exiting wound injury no.3 enters into abdominal cavity via injury no.4 as already described as internal injuries in pelvic and abdominal area and lodged in subcutaneous tissues on left side of the abdomen, 4 cm below left kidney on posterior aspect. (28) Stomach - Stomach having about 200ml digested food with strong alcoholic smell.
(29) The witness has proved having opined that death was due to shock consequent upon excessive blood loss due to fire arm injury, all the injuries were ante mortem, fresh in duration and caused by bullet fired from distant range, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, range is about more than 2 to 3 feet. He has further proved that the time since death was about 12 to 13 hours and after postmortem examination he handed over the dead body of deceased alongwith clothes, blood and viscera in salt solution and bullet, blood and blood gauze piece, sealed with sample seal of the department to the police. (30) Witness has further deposed that on 05.06.2012 Inspector Vijay Kumar moved an application with request for furnishing subsequent opinion regarding the postmortem report no. 228/12 dated 15.03.2012 which request letter of the Investigating Officer is marked PW12/X regarding the query no.1 as mentioned in the application of the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 33 Investigating Officer, on which he gave the opinion that the injuries mentioned in the PM report No. 228/12 dated 15.03.2012 is possible by bullet recovered from the body of the deceased. He has proved that regarding query no.2 of the Investigating Officer, he opined that the approximate distance of firing was about 2 to 3 feet as already mentioned in the PM report and his endorsement in this regard is Ex.PW12/B. (31) Witness has testified that nine inquest papers i.e. request to perform Autopsy Ex.PW12/C1; brief facts Ex.PW12/C2; form 2535 (1)(B) Ex.PW12/C3; copy of FIR Ex.PW12/C4; MLC of Kalra Hospital Ex.PW11/A; copy of DD no.7 PP Shanti Nagar Ex.PW4/B; statement of Saravjitt Singh Ex.PW12/C5; dead body identification statement of Ajit Singh Ex.PW12/C6 and death summary Ex.PW12/C7 bear his signatures at point X respectively. The witness has correctly identified the bullet retrieved from the body of deceased which is Ex.P1. (32) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels witness has deposed that in his opinion after going through the injuries and track of the wound and bullet, the posture of the deceased could has been in sitting position at the time of receiving the gun shot injury and as per his opinion the weapon from which the bullet fired, could have been below the height of injury on the thigh or at the most at the same level but not above the level / height of the injury on the thigh.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 34 FSL Experts:
(33) PW17 Dr. N P. Waghmare has deposed that on 02.04.2012 he was posted at Computer Forensic Unit of the FSL, Rohini Delhi and on that day one sealed cloth parcel was received at FSL Rohini and the same was marked to him and he tallied the seal with the specimen seal and found the seal intact and correct. According to him on opening the parcel he found one mobile phone make Nokia model No. N791 bearing IMEI No. 356387/02/184239/9 containing one vodafone SIM card which was marked by him as Ex.SC1 and one NOKIA micro SD 4 GB memory card which was marked by him as Ex.MC1 and the whole mobile phone was marked by him as Ex.MP1. He has proved that after examining the SIM card and the memory card he gave his detailed examination report which is Ex.PW17/A. Witness has further deposed that he gave his opinion about the SIM card Ex.SC1 in the annexure A hard copies which are Ex.PW17/B (17 pages) and he also analyzed the memory card Ex.MC1 and the relevant retrieve data was given in the CDR which is Ex.PW17/C. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (34) PW18 Sh. Puneet Puri has deposed that on 27.03.2012 three sealed parcels, parcel No. 1 and 2 were sealed with the seal of OPS and parcel no.3 was sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM HOSPITAL DELHI were received in FSL which were marked to him for examination and the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 35 seals on the parcels were intact and as per the specimen seals provided with the FSL form. According to him on opening the first parcel one revolver of .32 inch caliber bearing No. P 8310, four .32inch cartridges and one .32 inch cartridge case, one holster and one sling were taken out which were marked as Ex.F1, A1 to A4, EC1, HS1 and SL1 respectively by him. He has further deposed that on opening the second parcel eight .32 inch cartridges were taken out and marked as Ex.A5 to Ex.A12 respectively by him and on opening the third parcel one deformed bullet was taken out and marked as Ex.EB1 by him. He has proved that on examination he found that the revolver marked Ex.F1 was in working order and test fire was conducted successfully by using the cartridges marked Ex.A1, A2 and the the test fired cartridge cases were marked as TC1 and TC2 and two recovered test fired bullets were marked as TB1 and TB2 respectively. He has also proved that the cartridge case marked Ex.EC1 was a fired empty cartridge and had been fired through the revolver marked Ex.F1 as the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on Ex.EC1 and on test fired cartridge cases marked TC1 and TC2 were found identical when examined under the comparison microscope. He has further proved that the deformed bullet marked Ex.EB1 was corresponding to the bullet of .
32 inch cartridge and no further opinion can be given on evidence bullet marked EB1whether it had been discharged through the revolver marked St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 36 Ex.F1 or not as the individual characteristics of rifling marks are insufficient for comparison. According to the witness, the revolver marked Ex.F1 was a firearm, the cartridges marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A12, cartridge case marked Ex.EC1 and the deformed bullet marked Ex.EB1 were ammunition as defined in Arms Act 1959. He has testified that the exhibits were then resealed with the seal of PP FSL DELHI and his detailed report dated 13.09.2012 in this regard is Ex.PW18/A (three pages).
(35) The witness has further deposed that on 30.03.2012 three sealed parcels of this present case FIR were received in FSL, parcel no. 2 and 3 were sent to Biology Division for examination and returned with the seal of MU FSL DELHI. The seals on the parcels were intact and as per the specimen seal. According to him, on opening the parcel no.1 which was sealed with the seal of MS BJRM J. PURI DELHI three swabs were taken out, Swab1 marked as Ex.S1 said to be taken from left hand, Swab2 marked as Ex.S2 said to be taken from right hand and Swab3 marked as CS1 said to be taken as control swab. He has also deposed that on opening the second parcel which was sealed with the seal of MU FSL DELHI, one blue coloured jeans pant was taken out marked as C1 having a hole mark H1 on the right upper portion of front side and on opening the third parcel which was sealed with the seal of MU FSL, DELHI one blue coloured underwear, one half sleeve red T Shirt which was in torn St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 37 condition and one baniyan in torn condition were taken out and marked as Ex.C2, C3 and C4 respectively and the underwear marked Ex.C2 was having a hole marked H2 on the right portion of front side. He has proved that on examination the swabs marked S1, S2 and CS1 were analyzed for gun shot residue particles and no opinion could be given due to insufficient data. The witness has also proved having opined that the holes marked H1 on the jeans pant marked Ex.C1 and the hole marked H2 on the underwear marked Ex.C2 has been caused by lead bullet discharged through a firearm. He has proved his detailed report dated 05.12.2012 in this regard which is Ex.PW18/B. (36) The witness has correctly identified one deformed bullet (EB1) which is Ex.P1; one revolver (F1) which is Ex.P2; holster which is Ex.P3; cartridge cases [A1(TC1), A2 (TC2)] which are Ex.P4 and Ex.P5; test fired bullets (TB1 and TB2) which are Ex.P6 and Ex.P7; cartridge case (EC1) which is Ex.P8; two live cartridges which are Ex.P9 and Ex.P10; eight live cartridges (A5 to A12) which are collectively Ex.P11; one blue coloured underwear and one half sleeve red colour T Shirt and one banian (C2, C3 & C4) which are Ex.P12, Ex.P13 & Ex.P14 respectively and one jeans pant of blue colour (C1) which is Ex.P15. He has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsels and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 38 (37) PW19 Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya has deposed that on 16.3.2012 on the request of the SHO Police Station Keshav Puram the car make Ford bearing no. DL 3C AN 1539 which was brought to the FSL premises Rohini was examined by her and she had lifted three exhibits i.e. blood stains from the said car, two from the left side front and back door and one from the back side of the driver seat. According to her, after lifting the said blood stains with the help of a gauze, she handed over the same to the police officer for preserving the same for examination and her report in respect of the said proceedings is Ex.PW19/A. (38) Witness has further deposed that on 30.3.2012 they received six parcels in the FSL Rohini pertaining to this case duly sealed with seal of OPS, VK and FMT BJRM Hospital, Delhi and the seals was intact. According to her on examination blood was detected on Ex. 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5 and 6. She has testified that on 11.6.2012 she received two parcels from Ballistic Division, FSL, Rohini, duly sealed with the seal of Kalra Hospital and FMT BJRM Hospital Delhi which are sent back after examining the same. According to the witness, on examination blood was detected on exhibits 2, 3a, 3b and 3c. She has proved her detailed report which is Ex.PW19/B and on serological examination of the above exhibits, there was AB Group on Ex. 1, 2a, 2b, 4, 5, 6, 2, 3a, 3b and 3c. According to her, on Ex.3 there is no reaction which serological report is Ex.PW19/C. Witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 39 opportunity given and her testimony has gone uncontroverted. (39) PW20 Sh. Amit Rawat has deposed that on 1.5.2012 they received two parcels in the FSL Rohini pertaining to this case duly sealed with seal of FMT BJRM Hospital, Delhi and MS BJRM J. PURI Delhi which seals were intact. According to him on opening parcel No. 1 i.e. sealed wooden box, four exhibits mark as 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D were found. According to the witness on opening parcel No.2 i.e. one sealed cloth parcel, exhibit mark 2 was found. He has testified that on chemical, microscopic and GCHS examination Ex.1A (stomach and intestine), 1B (liver, spleen and kidney), 1C (blood sample) and 1D (blood sample preserved in Sodium fluoride) were found to contain ethyl alcohol; Ex. 1D was found to contain ethyl alcohol 86.5 mg / 100 ML of blood and ethyl and methyl alcohol could not be detected in Ex.2. He has testified that the remnants samples were sealed with the seal of AR FSL Delhi and his detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW20/A. (40) On a specific Court Question the witness has clarified that the fatal dose as per literature is normally 400 mg and above per 100 ML of blood and at around 80 mg per 100 ML of blood, one is still under control even if the person is an occasional drinker. The witness has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 40 Police/ official witnesses:
(41) PW1 SI Manohar Lal is a formal witness being the draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1wherein he has proved having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW1/A. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels but nothing much has come out of the same.
(42) PW2 ASI Mohd. Akhlak Khan is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 wherein eh has proved having registered the FIR No.63/12 copy of which is Ex.PW2/A, his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/B and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW2/C. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels but nothing much has come out of the same.
(43) PW3 SI Sanjeev Verma is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 wherein he has proved the crime team report which is Ex.PW3/A. He has not been not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given.
(44) PW 4Ct.Sanjay is a formal witness being the DD Writer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 wherein he has proved DD No.3 PP dated 15.03.2012 copy of which is Ex.PW4/A and DD no. 7PP copy of which is Ex.PW4/B. He has not been cross examined by St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 41 Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given. (45) PW5 Ct. Suneet is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 wherein he has proved that on 16.3.2012 he took the car no. DL3CAN1539 to FSL Rohini where after examination of the vehicle the FSL expert handed over to him three exhibits from the car which he in turn handed over to Inspector Vijay Kumar who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given.
(46) PW6 Ct. Manjit Singh is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which Ex.PW6/1 wherein he has proved that on 15.3.2012 on receipt of DD No. 3 PP Shanti Nagar he along with SI Mukesh Kumar, HC Ramesh and Ct. Vinod Kumar reached Kalra Hospital Kirti Nagar where SI Mukesh Kumar handed over him a Rukka which he took to Police Station and got the FIR registered. He has proved that on 15.3.2012 he took the dead body of deceased Happy Singh to BJRM Hospital Mortuary where the postmortem examination was got conducted after which the doctor handed over to him for sealed parcels which he in turn handed over to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW6/A. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels but nothing much has come out of the same.
(47) PW7 Ct. Subhash Chand is a formal witness being the Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 42 Ex.PW7/1 wherein he has proved the photographs which are Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A8 and the negatives of the same which are collectively Ex.PW7/B. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given.
(48) PW8 HC Naresh Kumar is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW8/1 wherein he has proved the entry in register no. 19 vide S.No. 2683 copy of which is Ex.PW8/A; entry in register no. 21 vide RC 20/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW8/B; receipt issued by FSL which is Ex.PW8/C; entry in register no. 21 vide RC 22/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW8/D; RC No. 25/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW8/E; acknowledgment / receipt issued by FSL which is Ex.PW8/F & Ex.PW8/G; RC No. 26/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW8/H; receipt /acknowledgment copy of which is Ex.PW8/I; RC No. 42/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW8/J and receipt issued by FSL which is Ex.PW8/K. He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels but nothing much has come out of the same.
(49) PW9 Ct. Gajraj is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW9/1 wherein he has proved having taken the various exhibits to the FSL. Witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given.
(50) PW10 Ct. Anuj is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW10/1 wherein he has proved having St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 43 taken the exhibits to FSL. Witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given.
(51) PW15 SI Prem Singh In Charge Record Room, PCR has brought the summoned record regarding the PCR form bearing no. 15Mar121060006 regarding the information received from Kalra Hospital, recorded by W/ Ct. Sonu, attested copy of the same is Ex.PW15/A. He has also proved the attested copy of PCR Form bearing no. 15Mar121130141 regarding death of Happy which was recorded by Ct. Inderjeet copy of which PCR form is Ex.PW15/B. Witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given. (52) PW16 Sh. S. Saravanan has deposed that on 03.11.2012 he was posted as Addl. DCP (North West) and on that day the Investigating Officer of this case had placed before him the report Under Section 173 Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., seizure memos and the ballistic examination report dated 13.09.2013 which he has duly perused and after due application of mind and having been satisfied, pursuant to the power delegated to him vide order dated 09.11.2000, he accorded the Sanction Under Section 39 Arms Act to prosecute the accused Inderpreet Singh S/o Late Sh. Trilochan Singh under Section 25 Arms Act 1959, which Sanction U/s 39 of Arms Act is Ex.PW16/A. He has not been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity given.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 44 (53) PW21 Sh. Tariq Ahmad Sheikh Arms clerk from office of the District Magistrate, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir has brought the official record i.e. register "License for the Acquisition Possession and Carrying of Arms of Ammunition / for sport / protection / display"
pertaining to Arms License bearing No. S/1088B/Arms/DMS/09 dated 7.10.2009 of S/DBBL 12 Bore Gun along with 50 /100 cartridges in favour of Sh. Yashwant Singh S/o late Sh. Munshi Lal R/o Village Sanihapur, Distt. Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, at present 13 FD SUB. GP C/o 56 APO. According to the witness license issuing authority is the District Magistrate, Srinagar, J&K and the license so issued on 7.10.2009 was valid upto 7.10.2012 which license had been issued on keep and carry basis.
(54) On a Court question the witness has clarified that keep and carry basis means that the license has been issued normally to police, army or paramilitary officials and they can keep the weapon with them and carry the same along with their unit wherever it goes. (55) He has testified that additional permission was granted to the aforesaid applicant to purchase second weapon i.e. NP Bore Revolver / Pistol along with 50 /100 cartridges, by ADM Sh. M. A. Ganai on 2.12.2010 vide Ex.PW21/B. He has further deposed that this license was for Srinagar jurisdiction and as per their record there is no entry with regard to purchase of the weapon and its details. He has proved that copy St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 45 of the relevant entry which is Ex.PW21/A. The witness has identified the seized original license of accused placed in the judicial file as the same which has been issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar, J& K which is Ex.PW21/B. (56) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has admitted that the license Ex.PW21/B can be issued to any person who applies for the same and fulfills the requisite criteria and has voluntarily explained that in respect of the above license two weapons has been shown to have been purchased and entered i.e. a double barrel gun of 12 bore bearing no. 16822 and NP Bore revolver .032 bore bearing no. P8310.
Witness has admitted that the license is valid for district Srinagar and the person keep and carry the weapon to home State in all India Unit. Witness has denied the suggestion that the license is valid for all India level and the person can carry arms all over India.
(57) PW24 Ct. Vinod has deposed that on 14.03.2012 he was posted at police station Keshavpuram and was on duty at police post Shanti Nagar. According to him in the intervening night of 1415.03.2012 at about 12:40 AM (midnight) after receiving a call he along with SI Mukesh Kumar, HC Ramesh, Ct. Manjeet reached at Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar where they found Harvinder @ Happy Singh in an injured condition by an gun shot injury but no eye witness was found there. Witness has further deposed that Happy @ Harvinder was not fit for statement and SI Mukesh prepared a rukka on the DD No. 3 PP and handed over the same to Ct. St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 46 Manjeet for registration of the FIR. He has also deposed that Inderpreet @ Manu and Yashwant Singh @ Fauzi and one driver of the car, namely Gurpinder met them in the hospital after some time. Witness has further deposed that SI Mukesh made inquiries from them, meanwhile Ct. Manjeet came at the hospital after registration of the FIR and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to SI Mukesh for further investigations and thereafter they reached at the place of incident i.e. house No. 2079/164, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar. Witness has testified that SI Mukesh conducted his proceedings there and thereafter on the directions of SI Mukesh he took Inderpreet Singh @ Manu to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination and came back and handed over copy of MLC to the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that doctor also handed over two pullandas in sealed condition with the seal of hospital containing blood sample and hand swab of the accused Inderpreet Singh @ Manu with sample seal to him and he handed over the same to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/A. He has correctly identified the accused Inderpreet Singh in the Court. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity in this regard.
(58) PW25 HC Ramesh Chand has deposed that on 14.03.2012 he was posted at police station Keshavpuram and he was on duty at Police Post Shanti Nagar and on the intervening night of 14/15.03.2012 at about 12:40 was (midnight) a DD No. 3 PP was recorded after which he along St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 47 with SI Mukesh, Ct. Vinod and Ct. Manjeet reached at Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar, Delhi where they found one injured person Happy Singh having gun shot injuries and no eye witness was found there and he was unfit for statement. Witness has further deposed that SI Mukesh made endorsement on the DD No. 3 PP and handed over the same to Ct. Manjeet for registration of the FIR and doctor handed over one mobile phone of injured Happy Singh and one silver color kara to SI Mukesh Kumar who kept the same in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of OPS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/A. According to him doctor also handed over one pullanda containing the jeans pant of injured in sealed condition with the seal of hospital with sample seal and SI Mukesh Kumar seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/B. Witness has further deposed that in the meanwhile Yashwant Singh, Inderpreet Singh and Gurpinder Singh met them in the hospital and Yashwat Singh informed about the incident of firing and produced his revolver with holster and 12 live cartridges and one empty fired cartridge case to SI Mukesh and also informed that by the same revolver gun shot was fired by Inderpreet Singh and caused injuries to Harvinder @ Happy. Witness has also deposed that SI Mukesh prepared the sketch of revolver and live cartridges and empty fired cartridge case vide Ex.PW25/C. According to him, SI Mukesh took the measurements of all the cartridges and the revolver and mention all the measurements and descriptions in the sketch Ex.PW25/C. He has also deposed that four live cartridges and one empty St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 48 fired cartridge case were found in the chamber of the revolver and eight live cartridges found in the holster. According to the witness the Investigating Officer kept the revolver with holster and the four live cartridges and one cartridge case found in the chamber of the revolver in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of OPS and the remaining eight live cartridges found from the holster were kept in a separate cloth pullanda by the Investigating Officer and sealed the same with the seal of OPS and Investigating Officer seized these articles vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/D. The witness has testified that Yashwant also produced his arm licence in respect of the said revolver which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/E which license is EX PW 21/B. Witness has further deposed that meanwhile Ct. Manjeet reached the hospital and handed over copy of the FIR and original rukka to SI Mukesh for further investigations. Witness has further deposed that thereafter at the instance of Inderpreet, Yashwant and Gurpinder they reached at the place of incident i.e. house No. 2089/164, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi where Amolak Singh met them there who told about the incident to the Investigating Officer and shown the place of incident to the Investigating Officer. According to him at the instance of Amolak one blood stained bed sheet was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/A. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan of the place of incident and recorded the statement of Amolak and Gurpinder Singh. The witness has testified that St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 49 meanwhile they received information that injured Harwinder @ Happy was declared dead by the doctors and meanwhile Insp. Vijay Kumar reached at the place of the incident being the Investigating Officer of the case who took over all the prepared documents from SI Mukesh. The witness has proved that the Investigating Officer seized the car of Inderpreet bearing No. DL3CAN1539 make Fort Fista outside of the house of Amolak from the gali vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/F after which they along with the above said persons Inderpreet, Yashwant and Gurpinder came at the house of Amolak from the hospital by the above said car. He has also deposed that thereafter Insp. Vijay Kumar and Ct. Manjeet went towards the hospital and they all remaining persons went to police post Shanti Nagar. He has testified that Ct. Vinod took Inderpreet to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination on the directions of SI Mukesh. Witness has further deposed that thereafter Insp. Vijay came at the police post and Ct. Vinod returned back with Inderpreet and handed over two pullandas in sealed condition with sample seal to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW24/A. According to him, both Yashwant and Inderpreet were interrogated by Insp. Vijay and they confessed about their involvement in the case causing injuries to the deceased Harwinder @ Happy by fire arm after which Inderpreet was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide arrest memo Ex.PW25/G; his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW25/H and the disclosure statement of accused Inderpreet Singh was recorded vide St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 50 Ex.PW25/I. According to him, blood stained wearing clothes of accused Inderpreet i.e. T shirt and jeans pant were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide Ex.PW25/J. He has proved that the accused Yashwant was also arrested by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW25/K; his personal search was also conducted vide Ex.PW25/L and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW25/M. The witness has also deposed that accused Inderpreet Singh also pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW25/N. (59) Witness has further deposed that on 17.03.2012 he again joined the investigations with Insp. Vijay Kumar and on that day Ajeet Singh, father of the deceased Harwinder produced one mobile phone make NOKIA model No. N79 to Insp. Vijay Kumar who sealed the same in a cloth pullanda with the seal of VK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B. He has correctly correctly identified both the accused persons Inderpreet and Yashwant in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. Revolver which is Ex.P2, Holster which is Ex.P3 and cartridges cases which are Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P8, Ex.P9 & Ex.P10; eight live cartridges which are Ex.P11, one mobile phone make NOKIA N79 which is Ex.P16; one bed sheet which is Ex.P17; mobile phone make Version which is Ex.P 18; Silver color Kara which is Ex.P 19; one Tshirt and one jeans pant seized from the accused Inderpreet which Tshirt is Ex.P20 and jeans pant which is Ex.P21.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 51 (60) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, the witness has deposed that they reached Kalra Hospital at about 1.15AM (midnight of 14/15.03.2012) and Investigating Officer made inquiry from the doctor who had treated the injured. He is not aware to whom the seal of OPS belongs and has voluntarily explained that SI Mukesh Kumar had sealed the pullanda with the seal of OPS. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer had not reduced into writing the contents of inquiries made from accused Yashwant Singh about the incident in the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that no such inquiries as deposed by him in his examination in chief was made from Yashwant Singh about the incident in the hospital. Witness has further deposed that they remained in the Kalra Hospital for about 4 - 4½ hours and rukka was sent to the Police Station for registration of the FIR at about 4.10AM. He has testified that SHO visited the hospital once and remained there for half an hour during the period they remained there. He has denied the suggestion that the sketch of revolver and seizure memos Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW25/A to Ex.PW25/E were prepared in the police station later on or that he had signed these memos later on at the instance of the Investigating Officer. According to him, they reached at H.No. 2089/164 Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi at about 6.00AM. Witness has denied the suggestion that Amolak was sleeping when they reached at his house. According to him they remained at the house of Amolak Singh for about 1 1 ½ hours and as far as he remember nobody had signed the site plan as attesting witness. Witness St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 52 has further deposed that in his presence Investigating Officer SI Mukesh did not make any inquiry from the persons residing in the neighbourhood. He has admitted that none of the persons residing in the neighbourhood were joined in the investigation at the house of Amolak Singh and that the spot of which the site plan was prepared was inspected by the Investigating Officer prior to preparation of site plan. Witness has further deposed that Vehicle / car was seized in his presence and he did not see any photographs of the vehicle being taken. According to him in his presence police did not seize any thing from the vehicle. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not associated with the investigation or that he signed the various documents in the police station on the direction of the senior officers.
(61) PW26 SI Mukesh Kumar has corroborated the testimony of HC Ramesh Chand (PW25) in toto. He has deposed that on 14.03.2012 he was posted as Incharge of police post Shanti Nagar, police station Keshavpuram and on the intervening night of 1415.03.2012 at about 12:40 AM (midnight) a DD No. 3 PP Ex.PW26/A was recorded on which he along with HC Ramesh, Ct. Vinod and Ct. Manjeet reached at Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar, Delhi where they found one injured person Happy Singh having gun shot injuries. According to him no eye witness was found there and the injured was unfit for statement. He has proved having made his endorsement on the DD No. 3 PP vide EX PW26/B and handed over the same to Ct. Manjeet for registration of the FIR. According to the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 53 witness doctor handed over one mobile phone make Version of injured Happy Singh and one silver color kara to him on which he kept the same in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of OPS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/A. Witness has further deposed that doctor also handed over one pullanda containing the jeans pant of injured in sealed condition with the seal of hospital with sample seal and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/B. According to the witness. meanwhile Yashwant Singh, Inderpreet Singh and Gurpinder Singh met them in the hospital and Yashwat Singh informed him about the incident of firing and produced his revolver with holster and 12 live cartridges and one empty fired cartridge case to him and also informed that by the same revolver gun shot was fired by Inderpreet Singh and caused injuries to Harvinder @ Happy. The witness has testified that he prepared the sketch of revolver and live cartridges and empty fired cartridge case vide Ex.PW25/C and he took the measurements of all the cartridges and the revolver which he mentioned in the sketch. Witness has further deposed that the four live cartridges and one empty fired cartridge case were found in the chamber of the revolver and eight live cartridges found in the holster and he kept the revolver with holster and the four live cartridges and one cartridge case found in the chamber of the revolver in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of OPS and the remaining eight live cartridges found from the holster were kept in a separate cloth pullanda by him and sealed the same with the seal of OPS and seized both pullandas St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 54 vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/D. He has testified that Yashwant produced his arm license about the above said revolver which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/E which license is Ex.PW21/B. Witness has also deposed that meanwhile Ct. Manjeet reached at the hospital and handed over copy of the FIR and original rukka to him for further investigations after which at the instance of Inderpreet, Yashwant and Gurpinder they reached at the place of incident i.e. house No. 2089/164, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi where Amolak Singh met them there who told about the incident to him and showed them the place of incident to him. He has proved that at the instance of Amolak one blood stained bed sheet was seized by him and kept the same in a polythene and prepared the pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of OPS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/A. Witness has further deposed that he also prepared the site plan of the place of incident which is Ex.PW26/C and recorded the statement of Amolak and Gurpinder Singh. He has testified that meanwhile they received information that injured Harwinder @ Happy was declared dead by the doctors vide DD No. 7 PP at about 7:35 AM and thereafter he added the Section 302 IPC. Witness has further deposed that meanwhile Insp. Vijay Kumar reached at the place of the incident being the Investigating Officer of the case and he took over all the prepared documents from him. He has proved that the Investigating Officer Insp. Vijay Kumar seized the car of Inderpreet bearing No. DL3CAN1539 make Fort Fiesta outside of the house of Amolak from the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 55 gali vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/F. Witness has further deposed that they along with the above said persons Inderpreet, Yashwant and Gurpinder came at the house of Amolak from the hospital by the above said car and thereafter Insp. Vijay Kumar and Ct. Manjeet went towards the hospital and they all remaining persons went to police post Shanti Nagar. Witness has further deposed that Ct. Vinod took Inderpreet to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination on his directions and thereafter Insp. Vijay came at the police post. The witness has also deposed that Ct. Vinod returned back with Inderpreet and handed over two pullandas in sealed condition with sample seal to the Investigating Officer who also prepared the seizure memo in this respect vide Ex.PW24/A. Witness has further deposed that both Yashwant and Inderpreet were interrogated by Insp. Vijay and they confessed about their involvement in the case causing injuries to the deceased Harwinder @ Happy by fire arm. According to him Inderpreet was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide arrest memo Ex.PW25/G; his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW25/H and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW25/I running into four pages. Witness has further deposed that blood stained wearing clothes of accused Inderpreet i.e. T shirt and jeans pant were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and sealed the same in a cloth pullanda with the seal of VK and seized the same vide Ex.PW25/J. He has further proved that the accused Yashwant was also arrested by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW25/K; his personal search was taken vide St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 56 Ex.PW25/L and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW25/M running into three pages after which the accused Inderpreet Singh pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW25/N and his statement was recorded by the Insp. Vijay Kumar.
(62) Witness has correctly identified both the accused persons Inderpreet and Yashwant in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. Revolver which is Ex.P2, Holster which is Ex.P3 and cartridges cases which are Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P8, Ex.P9 & Ex.P10; eight live cartridges which are Ex.P11, one mobile phone make NOKIA N79 which is Ex.P16; one bed sheet which is Ex.P17; mobile phone make Version which is Ex.P 18; Silver color Kara which is Ex.P 19; one Tshirt and one jeans pant seized from the accused Inderpreet which Tshirt is Ex.P20 and jeans pant which is Ex.P21.
(63) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that in the hospital when he prepared the documents in respect of seizure of the revolver he did not join any hospital staff, doctors or any public person. He has admitted that both the accused had voluntarily surrendered to himself and did not offer any resistance. He has denied the suggestion that when they reached the house of Amolak he was in a state of intoxication and sleeping on the bed and has voluntarily explained that he met them outside in the gali. Witness has further deposed that he did not recover any mobile from the bed of Amolak and has voluntarily St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 57 explained that the mobile of the deceased was handed over to him by the doctor. Witness has admitted that he was the one who informed the family of the deceased and has voluntarily explained that when he asked Amolak and the accused Inderpreet if they had informed the family of deceased, they told him that they could not contact them. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused Indepreet and Yaswant did not make any disclosure statement. He has admitted that Yaswant was the bodyguard of accused Inderpreet and that when he interrogated accused Yaswant, he kept on insisting that his firearm had been taken from him by the boys about two to two and a half hours prior to the incident despite his protest and at the time of the incident he was outside the house when the incident took place inside. The witness has also admitted that Yaswant also told him that when he saw the condition of Harvinder @ Happy, he and Inderpreet immediately tried to rush him to the nearest hospital but Amolak was reluctant in accompany them. He has denied the suggestion that he was repeatedly informed by the accused Inderpreet and Yaswant and also by Amolak that the deceased had himself taken the fire arm from Yaswant in order to see the same and for taking his photograph when it accidentally went off his hand. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in connivance of the family of the deceased.
(64) PW27 Inspector Vijay Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 15.03.2012 he was posted as St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 58 SHO Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day investigation of this case was handed over to him from SI Mukesh. According to the witness he reached the spot i.e. H.No. 1089/164, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi where SI Mukesh Kumar alongwith staff met him and SI Mukesh Kumar handed over all the documents to him after which he alongwith Ct. Manjeet Singh reached at Kalra Hospital. Witness has further deposed that dead body of Happy Singh was found in the Kalra Hospital and the same was sent to Mortuary of BJRM Hospital through Ct. Manjeet. He has testified that he received the death summary of Happy Singh from Kalra Hospital which is Ex.PW12/C7 after which he reached BJRM Hospital where he prepared the inquest form Ex.PW12/C3; brief facts which are Ex.PW12/C2; recorded the statement of Ajeet Singh vide Ex.PW12/C6 and of Sarabjeet Singh vide Ex.PW12/C6 about the identification of dead body and made request for the postmortem vide Ex.PW12/C1. Witness has further deposed that after the postmortem he handed over the dead body of deceased to his father vide Ex.PW13/A. According to him, after postmortem Autopsy Surgeon handed over one pullanda bearing blood sample in gauze piece of the deceased and another pullanda containing clothes of the deceased and one small bottle containing the bullets found in the dead body of the deceased and one wooden box containing the viscera of the deceased in sealed condition with the seal of the hospital alongwith sample seal to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. He has further deposed that he deposited these articles in the Malkhana St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 59 and again reached at the place of incident where SI Mukesh and HC Ramesh were already present and on the main road at a distance of about 3035 yards from the house of Amolak the friend of the deceased, they found one vehicle make Ford Fiesta bearing no. DL 3C A N 1539 of white colour which was seized by him alongwith the key of the vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/F. He has also deposed that thereafter the vehicle was taken to the police station Keshav Puram and the same was deposited in the Malkhana after which he reached Police Post Shanti Nagar and Ct. Vinod handed over MLC of the accused Interpreet Singh to him along with one pullanda containing handwash of accused Inderpreet and another pullanda containing the blood sample of the accused Inderpreet in sealed condition with the seal of BJRM Hospital with sample seal to him which he seized vide memo Ex.PW24/A. According to the witness he interrogated the accused Inderpreet Singh who confessed about his involvement in this case and thereafter he arrested the accused Inderpreet vide memo Ex.PW25/G; his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW25/H and he recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW25/I. Witness has further deposed that he found the blood on the wearing clothes of the accused Inderpreet and he took possession of his blue coloured jeans pant and green coloured T Shirt and sealed the same in a cloth pullanda with the seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW25/J. He has also deposed that accused Inderpreet pointed out the place of incident vide Ex.PW25/N and thereafter he interrogated accused St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 60 Yashwant who also confessed about his involvement in this case after which the accused Yashwant was arrested vide Ex.PW25/K; his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW25/L and he recorded his statement vide Ex.PW25/M. He has testified that he deposited all the seized articles in the malkhana and recorded statement of witnesses. (65) According to the witness on 16.03.2012 the seized vehicle was sent to the FSL, Rohini through Ct Suneet for examination by the FSL Officials and after examination Ct. Suneet came back with the vehicle and deposited the same in the Malkhana. He has also deposed that Ct. Suneet handed over one envelop containing one gauze cloth piece with blood stains lifted from the outside front door and one envelop containing blood stains gauze piece gauze piece lifted from the backside of the driver seat and one more envelop containing blood stained gauze piece lifted from the inside of the left rear seat, after which he put his seal of VK on all three envelops and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Witness has further deposed that he deposited the seized articles in the Malkhana. According to him, both the accused persons were produced before the court and one day Police Custody Remand of both accused was obtained. He has testified that he moved application for recording of the statement of Gurpinder U/s 164 Cr. P. C. vide Ex.PX6 pursuant to which his statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C. was recorded and he moved an application for supply of copy vide Ex.PX8 and received the copy of statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C. According to the witness, during Police Custody Remand nothing was St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 61 recovered from the accused persons and he recorded statement of witnesses.
(66) He has further deposed that on 17.03.2012 father of deceased handed over one mobile phone make NOKIA N79 with SIM card bearing No. 7838872263 to him at police station and told him that he found the mobile phone at the spot when he reached at the spot after receiving the information about the incident and he told him that mobile phone belonging to his son Harvinder Singh @ Happy on which he seized the mobile phone in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of VK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B. According to him, on 22.03.2012 he collected the photographs from the crime team officials and on 23.03.2012 he moved an application for recording of statement U/s. 164 Cr.P.C. of Amolak Singh vide Ex.PX2 on which his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he moved an application for the copy of statement vide Ex.PX4 after which he received the copy of the statement. (67) Witness has further deposed that during his investigation on 30.03.2012 exhibits of this case were sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi through Ct. Gajraj and also exhibits of this case were also sent to FSL Delhi through Ct. Anuj and himself. He has proved that he got prepared the scaled site plan through SI Manohar Lal and collected the same and during his investigation. He has also proved having collected the PCR form and postmortem report and having moved his application to Autopsy Surgeon for subsequent opinion vide Ex.PW27/A and he received the subsequent St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 62 opinion Ex.PW12/B. The witness has testified that he got verified the Arms' Licence of Yashwant Singh which was issued from Sri Nagar(J&K) and received the verification report which is Ex.PW27/B. He has proved that he recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against both the accused Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh whom he has correctly identified in the court. He has testified that he collected the ballistic report and FSL reports and also obtained the sanction U/s 39 of Arms Act after which he submitted the supplementary charge sheet against the accused persons. (68) He has correctly identified the case property i.e. one T Shirt and one jeans pant as the same as recovered from the accused Inderpreet. Which T Shirt is Ex.P20 & Jeans pant is Ex.P21; one mobile phone make NOKIA N79 with SIM as the same which was handed over to him by the father of the deceased which phone is Ex.P16 and Ford Fiesta bearing no. DL 3C AN 1539 of white colour which is Ex.P22. (69) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he had inspected the dead body at Kalra Hospital and did not make any inquiries from the doctor who had attended the injured at Kalra Hospital. He has admitted that he had prepared the arresting documents and disclosure statement of accused Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant at PP Shanti Nagar. He has denied the suggestion that he has not investigated the case fairly and properly or that accused Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant has been falsely implicated in the present case. St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 63 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED / DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(70) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of both the accused persons were recorded under Section 131 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied.
The accused Inderpreet Singh has admitted having gone to the house of Amolak on the asking of Harvinder @ Happy and also admitted the incident. He has however stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police at the instance of the family members of the deceased.
(71) The accused Yashwant Singh has stated that he was not inside the house and was in the car which was parked outside the gali and he had helped in removing the injured to the hospital. According to the accused, he was reluctant to handover his revolver to coaccused Inderpreet but he insisted and forced him to handover the same to him. He has further stated that he has no role to play in the alleged incident in any manner as he was not present at the time of alleged incident. According to him, his signatures were obtained on various blank papers and forms by the police officials when he was kept in the police station and the same were manipulated later on.
(72) Both the accused have preferred not to examine any witness in their defence.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 64 FINDINGS:
(73) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record.
Identity of the accused:
(74) In so far as the identity of the accused Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh is concerned both of them have been named in the FIR.
The accused Inderpreet Singh is the friend of the deceased Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh and the accused Yashwant Singh was the Body Guard of accused Inderpreet Singh. They have both been identified in the court by the various witnesses. Even otherwise, they have not disputed their identity. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the identity of both the accused have been established.
Medical Evidence:
(75) The case of the prosecution is that after being hit with the bullet the injured Harvinder @ Happy Singh was immediately rushed to Kheterpal Hospital where the Oxygen Machine was not working and hence was thereafter rushed to Kalra Hospital. Dr. R. S. Gandhi (PW11) has proved that on 15.03.2012 at about 12.10 AM (midnight) the injured Happy Singh was brought to the hospital by his friend Inderpreet Singh St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 65 with the alleged history of gun shot injury. According to him, the patient was examined by Dr. Pankaj, Casualty Medical Officer and the patient was found unconscious with gasping respiration and there was no pulse rate, no BP, pupil B/L not reactive to light and no cornea reflects. He has proved that there were following injuries on the body of the patient:
1. Three CLW over right inguinal region.
2. One CLW over right little finger.
3. Contusion over left flank (Renal angle) (76) He has also proved the MLC of the injured which is Ex.PW11/A and that at 2.30AM the patient was declared dead.
(77) Dr. Bhim Singh (PW12) has proved the postmortem report of the deceased Harvinder @ Happy Singh which is Ex.PW12/A, according to which there were following injuries:
1. Fire arm entry wound, 0.8 cm X 0.8 cm, exit wound 1 cm X 0.7 cm present over outer aspect of base of little finger and inner aspect of base of little finger, margin of outer aspect inverted with surrounding abrasion collar, no blackening and tattooing present, inner wound shows everted margins -
underlying tissues source through and through tear with fracture of underlying bones into multiple pieces.
2. Fire arm entry wound 1cm X 0.8 cm, present over right upper front part of thigh with surrounding abrasion collar. St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 66
3. Fire arm exit wound 0.8cm x 0.8 cm situated 2 cms above and medial to injury no.2, margin everted.
4. Entry wound 0.9 cm X 0.8 cm X cavity deep just below middle of inguinal ligament enters into abdominal cavity margins inverted with surrounding abrasion collar obliquely placed 3 cm above and medial to injury no. 4
5. Bluish swelling 13 cm X 8 cm over left renal area.
(78) He has further proved that after entering outer aspect of base of right little finger, blood exits from inner aspect, base of little finger through and through, after that the bullet entered into thigh via injury no.2 and exited from injury no.3 after exiting wound injury no.3 entered into abdominal cavity via injury no.4 and lodged in subcutaneous tissues on left side of the abdomen, 4 cm below left kidney on posterior aspect. He has also proved having opined that death was due to shock consequent upon excessive blood loss due to fire arm injury, all the injuries were ante mortem, fresh in duration and caused by bullet fired from distant range of about two to three feet and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Dr. Bhim Singh has explained that in his opinion the posture of the deceased could has been in sitting position at the time of receiving the gun shot injury and the weapon from which the bullet fired, could have been below the height of injury on the thigh or at the most at the same level but not above the level / height of the injury on the thigh.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 67 (79) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution that the deceased Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh had received a gun shot injury and his death was due to shock consequent upon excessive blood loss due to fire arm injury which injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Forensic Evidence:
(80) Dr. N P. Waghmare (PW17) has proved having examined mobile phone make Nokia model No. N791 bearing IMEI No. 356387/02/184239/9 containing one vodafone SIM card and one NOKIA micro SD 4 GB memory card and after examination he prepared his report which is Ex.PW17/A, his opinion about the SIM card and hard copies of the data are Ex.PW17/B (17 pages) and the relevant retrieved data from the memory card was given in the CDR which is Ex.PW17/C. (81) Sh. Puneet Puri (PW18)the Ballistic Expert has proved his report which is Ex.PW18/A according to which revolver marked (Ex.F1) was in working order and test fire was conducted successfully by using the cartridges and the cartridge case (Ex.EC1) was a fired empty cartridge and had been fired through the revolver marked Ex.F1 as the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on Ex.EC1 and on test fired cartridge cases marked TC1 and TC2 were found identical when examined under the comparison microscope. He has St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 68 further proved that the deformed bullet (Ex.EB1) was corresponding to the bullet of .32 inch cartridge but no opinion could be given on bullet (EB1) whether it had been discharged through the revolver (Ex.F1) or not as the individual characteristics of rifling marks were insufficient for comparison. The witness has also proved having opined that the revolver (Ex.F1) was a firearm, the cartridges marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A12, cartridge case marked Ex.EC1 and the deformed bullet marked Ex.EB1 were ammunition as defined in Arms Act 1959. He has testified that the exhibits were then resealed with the seal of PP FSL DELHI and his detailed report dated 13.09.2012 in this regard is Ex.PW18/A (three pages).
(82) Sh. Puneet Puri (PW18) has further proved having examined the swabs (handwash) of the accused and the blue coloured jeans pant, blue coloured underwear, one half sleeve red T Shirt and one baniyan in torn condition which jeans pant and underwear were having holes. He has proved having examined / analyzed the swabs for gun shot residue particles but no opinion could be given due to insufficient data. However, the holes on the jeans pant and the hole marked on the underwear have been caused by lead bullet discharged through a firearm. He has proved his detailed report in this regard which is Ex.PW18/B. (83) Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya (PW19) has proved that on 16.3.2012 she had examined a car make Ford bearing no. DL 3C AN 1539 St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 69 and he had lifted three exhibits i.e. blood stains from the said car, two from the left side front and back door and one from the back side of the driver seat. She has proved her report in this regard which is Ex.PW19/A. She has further proved the biological report which is Ex.PW19/B according to which blood was detected on Ex.1 (Bed Sheet); 2a (TShirt); 2b (Jeans Pants); 3 (Gauze Cloth Piece); 4 (Gauze Cloth Piece); 5 (Gauze Cloth Piece); 6 (blood stained gauze cloth piece); 2 (Jeans pants); 3a (Baniyan);
3b ((Tshirt) and 3c (underwear) vide her detailed report which is Ex.PW19/B and on serological examination of the above exhibits, blood of AB Group was detected on Ex.1, 2a, 2b, 4, 5, 6, 2, 3a, 3b and 3c vide serological report which is Ex.PW19/C. (84) Sh. Amit Rawat (PW20) has proved that on chemical, microscopic and GCHS examination Ex.1A (stomach and intestine), 1B (liver, spleen and kidney), 1C (blood sample) and 1D (blood sample preserved in Sodium fluoride) were found to contain ethyl alcohol; Ex. 1D was found to contain ethyl alcohol 86.5 mg / 100 ML of blood and ethyl and methyl alcohol could not be detected in Ex.2. He has proved his report in this regard which is Ex.PW20/A. This witness has clarified that the fatal dose as per literature is normally 400 mg and above per 100 ML of blood and at around 80 mg per 100 ML of blood, one is still under control even if the person is an occasional drinker.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 70 (85) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the forensic evidence is compatible to the prosecution case that before the incident the deceased Harvinder Singh had consumed alcohol but was still under control and after being hit with the bullet he was rushed to the hospital in the car bearing No. DL 3C AN 1539 from where the exhibits were lifted. The forensic evidence is also compatible to the postmortem report with regard to the entry and exit points of the bullet (as reflected from the clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time of the incident). Ocular Evidence / Allegations against the accused:
(86) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 1415.3.2012 at about 12:40 AM DD No.3 was received at Police Post Shanti Nagar from Kalra Hospital that an injured having gun shot injury had been admitted in the hospital on which SI Mukesh Kumar Incharge Police Post Shanti Nagar along with his staff reached Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar where they found the injured Harvinder Singh @ Happy admitted there with a history of having gun shot injuries but no eye witness was found. They then collected the MLC of the injured on which it was mentioned that the injured was admitted in the hospital with gun shot injury and the patient was declared unfit for statement. Thereafter SI Mukesh Kumar met Inderjeet Singh and Yashwant Singh in the hospital itself on which the police was informed by the accused that Yashwant St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 71 Singh had handed over his licensed revolver to Inderpreet Singh and that the said weapon had accidentally gone off and the bullet hit Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh causing injuries to him on which he was rushed to the hospital. The Investigating Officer then made inquires from both Gurpinder Singh and Yashwant Singh but there was no clarity with regard to the incident which had taken place in the house of Amolak the childhood friend of the deceased, on which SI Mukesh Kumar along with Gurpinder Singh, Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh reached the house of Amolak who was the only eye witness to the incident and had disclosed that while Inderpreet Singh was fiddling with the revolver when it went off and the bullet hit Harvinder Singh. Initially a case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was registered as Harvinder Singh @ Happy was still alive but after the death of Harvinder Singh it was converted into 302 Indian Penal Code.
(87) The entire case revolves around the statement of Amolak the sole eye witness to the incident. I may observe that Amolak (PW22) is the childhood friend of the deceased and on the date of the incident the deceased Harvinder Singh @ Happy decided to spent a night at the house of Amolak because the family of Amolak has gone to religious place at Amritsar and there was nobody in the house of Amolak. The deceased Harvinder @ Happy was earlier known to Inderpreet Singh who had come to the same area where Amolak resides and while Inderpreet Singh was returning and had just crossed the house of Amolak, Harvinder Singh @ St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 72 Happy saw him and called out to him after which Inderpreet Singh also joined them. During this period Inderpreet Singh was fascinated with the gun / revolver which his Security Guard Yashwant Singh was carrying and took the said revolver from Yashwant Singh and showed the same to his friends. Inderpreet Singh first removed the cartridges and thereafter they all friends i.e. Amolak, Harvinder Singh @ Happy and Inderpreet Singh got themselves photographed with the said revolver. Thereafter, Inderpreet Singh again reloaded the revolver and during this process of loading the revolver with the cartridges he wanted to lock the same and while he was trying to do so it went off thereby hitting Harvinder @ Happy. On noticing this Inderpreet Singh immediately rushed for help and called Yashwant Singh inside and rushed Harvinder Singh @ Happy to the hospital but unfortunately could not save him. The relevant portion of the testimony of Amolak Singh (PW22) is as under:
"....... I used to run a wooden furniture shop in Jhandewalan alongwith my brother and father. I have been residing with my elder brother namely Gurpreet Singh and my parents. On 14.03.2012 at about 6.00AM my parents and my elder brother Gurpreet had gone to Golden Temple, Amritsar, Punjab and I was alone at my house. I knew Harvinder @ Happy being my friend and he used to visit my house. On 13.03.2012 Harvinder @ Happy was present at my house, so he knew that my parents and brother were going to Amritsar and Harvinder @ Happy said that he would stay at our house alongwith me in the absence of my parents and brother.
On 14.03.2012 I went to our shop at about St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 73 10.00AM. At about 4.00 PM I received a telephone call from Harvinder @ Happy and he told me that he would reach at my house at about 8.00PM and then we would make further program for drinking and eating. At bout 8.30PM Harvinder @ Happy reached at my house. We cooked a dry chicken for our dinner. At about 9.009.15PM when we were taking dinner, Harvinder @ Happy received a mobile call from his friend and his friend asked about his whereabouts then Harvinder @ Happy replied that he was present at my house. After 510 minutes three friends of Harvinder @ Happy reached at my house and Harvinder opened the door. I also reached near the door and we were talking to each other. Meanwhile Harvinder @ Happy received a mobile call from his mother and his mother also asked about his whereabouts and he replied to his mother that he was present at my house and thereafter mother of Harivinder also talked to me. I told to the mother of Harvinder that we had taken dinner and Harvinder @ Happy would sleep at my house. After keeping the utensils in the kitchen I returned back at the door and found that Inderpreet was crossing in front of door of my house. Harvinder @ Happy wished to Inderpreet and asked him whether he recognized him or not and then Inderpreet told that he recognized him very well his vehicle was parked nearby and Inderpreet hugged Harvinder @ Happy. Harvinder @ Happy asked Inderpreet to come inside the house to take dinner as we had cooked chicken. The three friends of Harvinder who came earlier had gone away from there. Inderpreet came inside of my house. I served cooked chicken to Inderpreet who asked about the liquor then Harvinder @ Happy replied that liquor was already finished. Thereafter St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 74 Inderpreet went outside the house for liquor and we also came out of the house and he took out one quarter bottle of liquor from his car and prepared two pegs for himself and for Harvinder @ Happy. Thereafter we again reached inside of our house and we were talking to each other. Harinder @ Happy and Inderpreet were consuming liquor. Inderpreet took out his revolver and told that the cost of the revolver was about 21.5 lacs. He took out the cartridges from the revolver and simultaneously he was cleaning the revolver. Harvinder also asked Inderpreet to see the revolver. Harvinder also kept the same on his hand and told him that revolver was a heavy one. Harvinder asked me take his photograph with the revolver for pasting the same on the facebook and thereafter I took one or two photographs of Harvinder with revolver by the mobile phone of Harvinder. Thereafter on the asking of Harvinder I kept the revolver on my hand and Harvinder @ Happy took my photographs with the revolver. Thereafter I handed over the revolver to Inderpreet. Thereafter Inderpreet loaded the cartridges in the revolver and he was keeping the revolver under his pant. Thereafter he took out the same and was saying that let the revolver be locked and he was in the process of locking the revolver but suddenly a loud noise came out from the revolver. (thayen ke awaaz hui).
Harvinder told that "use lag gai yaar" Meanwhile Inderpreet started checking the body of Harvinder on his clothes parts and thereafter ran away from my house. I asked Harvinder @ Happy as to where he received the bullet injury and after twothree steps he was falling on the ground. Meanwhile Inderpreet again St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 75 came inside the room with an old age person and thereafter we all took Harvinder @ Happy to the car and I asked Inderpreet that I was coming after closing the door of my house but Inderpreet went away with that old age person and injured Harvinder @ Happy with his car from there. Thereafter I informed all the facts to my neighbour namely Pammi Aunty and asked her to make call to Inderpreet @ Mannu but there was no response from the side of Inderpreet @ Mannu and thereafter I returned back to my house. After one and half hour Pammi Aunty informed me that Harvinder @ Happy was admitted in the hospital and he was O.K. After one and half hour I received a phone call from my father and I told all the facts to him. After one and half hour police came at my house and they asked me about the bullet firing. I told all the facts to them. I had also shown them the place of incident. Police also seized one blood stained bed sheet on the spot on which we were sitting and police kept the same in a polythene and sealed the same in a pullanda and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/A bearing my signatures at point A. Police took me to the police post Shanti Nagar and recorded my statement.
On 23.03.2012 I came at Rohini Courts, Delhi alongwith police and Ld. MM recorded my statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C. vide Ex.PW22/B(two pages) bearing my signatures at point A on both pages. Inderpreet and the old age person who took injured Harvinder in the car are present in the court today......."
(88) Amolak has been subjected to sustained crossexamination wherein he has admitted that on the date of incident the accused Inderpreet St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 76 Singh was going away in the street and had in fact crossed his house when the deceased Harvinder @ Happy called out him from behind his name. He has also admitted that Inderpreet Singh was going somewhere when Harvinder @ Happy invited him. When asked about the actual incident of firing he has stated that initially they did not realize that Harvinder @ Happy had been hit by bullet and has explained that it was only when he remarked "lag gayee yaar" then they realized that he had been shot on which Inderpreet Singh immediately checked Harvinder as to where he had been shot but could not find any wound. He has further stated that before Inderpreet had come to his house they i.e. himself and Harvinder already had a drinking session and had taken about three pegs each. (89) The accused Yashwant Singh is the Security Guard of the accused Inderpreet Singh and had accompanied him to the place of incident but was standing outside along with the driver Gurpinder Singh in the car when the incident took place. Gurpinder Singh (PW23) had been employed as Driver to Inderpreet Singh about one and a half years prior to the incident and on the date of the incident was with him. He has corroborated the testimony of Amolak and his testimony is also compatible to the prosecution case that while Inderpreet Singh went inside the house he (Gurpinder) along with Yashwant Singh remained outside in the car. The relevant portion of the testimony of Gurpinder Singh (PW23) is as under:
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 77
"......... I was employed as a driver to Inderpreet Singh resident of B2, Model Town II, Delhi for about 1 ½ years prior to the incident. Indepreet Singh used to reside alone on the first floor along with his servant and the chachi of Inderpreet Singh resides on the second floor. Inderpeet Singh also maintained security guards with him. On 14.03.2012 Yashwant Singh had been appointed as his security guard in the evening at around 6 PM. On that day at around 7 PM Inderpreet Singh told me that he wanted to visit his mama at Tri Nagar and I took him to Tri Nagar in Fort Fiesta bearing No. 1539. First we went to Ashok Vihar where we had chicken. When we were having chicken while sitting in the car itself, Inderpreet Singh asked Yashwant body guard to show his revolver and thereafter taking the revolver from Yashwant he put his in the dub of his pant. Thereafter we went to Tri Nagar to visit the mamaji of Inderpreet Singh. At around 99:30 PM while we were coming out from the house of Mamaji of Inderpreet Singh when suddenly we heard the voice of Happy Singh who was in the house of Amolak which is one house away from the house of the mama of Inderpreet Singh. I kept sitting in the car along with Yashwant Singh which was parked in the gali opposite the shop of pakore wala while I saw Inderpreet Singh entering the house of Amolak. I was to go home early on that day and hence I had informed Inderpreet Singh about the same when he was still at his mama's house. At around 9:30 PM three persons i.e. Inderpreet Singh, Amolak and Happy Singh came near the car and picked up the whiskey bottle kept in the vehicle and went back in the house of Amolak while I and Yashwant remained in the car. At around 11 PM Inderpreet Singh came running to the car and handed over the revolver to Yashwant Singh telling him "mujhse goli chal gaye St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 78 hai". When Inderpreet Singh went back to the house of Amolak after handing over the fire arm to Yashwant Singh, I saw Yashwant Singh following Inderpreet Singh to the house of Amolak. Soon thereafter I saw Amolak, Yashwant Singh and Inderpreet Singh carrying Happy Singh to the vehicle while Amolak went back to his house, Inderpreet Singh told me to rush Happy Singh to the hospital as he was still breathing at that time. I tried to make inquiries from the persons of the road if there were any doctor or dispensary nearby but there was no help. I told Inderpreet Singh that I knew where Kheterpal hospital was and hence we i.e. I, Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh immediately rushed Happy Singh to Kheterpal Hospital. There at Kheterpal Hospital, the doctor on duty informed us that Happy Singh required immediate specialized attention and they were not having Oxygen at that time and hence we should rush him to near by Kalra Hospital. We requested the doctors to arrange for an ambulance but we were told that since that would take time, hence we should immediately rush him in our own car and therefore we then put Happy Singh in the car and rushed him to Kalra Hospital. At that time Happy Singh was still breathing when Inderpreet Singh got him admitted and the doctors rushed him to ICU and admitted him there. I remained outside in the hospital and do not know what proceedings were being done. Police had also come to the hospital. In the morning at 6 AM we i.e. I, Inderpreet Singh, Yashwant Singh and police went to the house of Amolak where I was also interrogated and my statement was recorded. My statement was also recorded by the Ld. MM on the next day. I can identify the accused. At this stage, witness has correctly identified St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 79 both the accused persons i.e. Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh who are present in the court today...."
(90) The witness Gurpinder Singh has explained that previously Inderpreet Singh was having two body guards. He has admitted that it was on the insistence of Inderpreet Singh that Yashwant Singh had given his revolver to Inderpreet Singh when they were having chicken at Ashok Vihar. He has further stated that Harvinder Singh was conscious and was crying in pain while Yashwant Singh was holding him. He has explained that he had asked Yashwant if Harvinder was alright on which Yashwant told him that he was still conscious and they should rush him to the hospital. He has further proved that Yashwant Singh was throughout with him at the time when Inderpreet Singh went inside the house of Amolak and also thereafter when they went to the hospital.
(91) The father of the deceased Harvinder Singh namely Ajit Singh (PW13) and his brother in law namely Sarabhjeet Singh (PW14) have for the first time came up with a new story that the deceased Harvinder @ Happy was having some money dealings with Inderpreet Singh on account of which there was a KahaSuni and Harvinder was very tense on this account which fact he had even disclosed to this father Ajit Singh and Ajit Singh had shared this fact with Sarabhjeet Singh. Both Ajit Singh and Sarabhjeet Singh have corroborated the testimony of Amolak who was the childhood friend of Harvinder and on the date of incident Harvinder was to spent the night with Amolak as his family had gone out of Delhi. I may St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 80 mention that it is for the first time that the allegation of there being a prior money transaction between the deceased and the accused Inderpreet Singh has been brought to forth. No where in their statements made to the police have the father of the deceased or his brother in law disclosed this fact to them nor any evidence has been brought on record in this regard. Amolak the childhood friend of the deceased has conceded that he is not aware of any such transaction. This being the background the improvements in the testimonies of Ajit Singh and Sarabhjeet Singh is liable to be ignored. (92) Also, when the incriminating material was put to the accused Inderpreet he has not denied the incident. Rather, he has admitted the same and also the fact that it was he, himself who rushed the deceased to the hospital in order to save his life. The relevant questions put to him along with his response is reproduced as under:
Q19: It is in evidence against you that according to PW22 Amolak Singh after keeping the utensils in the kitchen he returned back at the door and found that you accused Inderpreet was crossing in front of door of his house and Harvinder @ Happy wished to you and asked you whether you recognized him or not and then you accused Inderpreet told that you recognized him very well and you parked your vehicle nearby and you hugged Harvinder @ Happy and Harvinder asked you accused Inderpreet to come inside the house to take dinner as they had cooked chicken and thereafter you accused Inderpreet came inside of his house and he served chicken to you accused Inderpreet and you asked about the liquor then Harvinder @ Happy replied that liquor was already finished. What you have to say about it? Ans. : It is correct.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 81 Q20: It is in evidence against you that according to PW22 Amolak Singh you accused Inderpreet went outside the house for liquor and he also came out of the house and you accused Inderpreet took out one quarter bottle of liquor from your car and prepared two pegs for yourself and for Harvinder @ Happy and thereafter you and and he (Amolak) reached inside of house and you and he (witness) were talking to each other and you accused Inderpreet took out your revolver and you told that the cost of the revolver was about 1.5 to 2 lac and took out the cartridges from the revolver and simultaneously cleaning the revolver and Harvinder asked you accused Inderpreet to see the revolver and Harvinder also kept the same on his hand and told that revolver was a heavy one and Harvinder asked him to take his photographs with the revolver for pasting the same on the facebook and thereafter he took one or two photographs of Harvinder with revolver by the mobile phone of Harvinder and thereafter he kept the revolver on the asking of Harvinder on his hand and Harvinder took photographs with revolver and handed over the same to you accused Inderpreet. What you have to say about it?
Ans. : It is correct.
Q21: It is in evidence against you that according to PW22 Amolak Singh you accused Inderpreet thereafter loaded the cartridges in the revolver and keeping the revolver under your pant and thereafter you took out the same and were saying that let the revolver be locked and you were in process of locking the revolver but suddenly a loud noise (Thayen) came from the revolver and Harvinder told that "usey lag gayee yaar" and meanwhile you accused Inderpreet started checking the body of Harvinder on his cloth part and thereafter ran away from the house. What you have to say about it?
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 82 Ans. : It is correct. I went outside to call other persons to help removing the injured to the hospital.
Q22: It is in evidence against you that according to PW22 Amolak Singh that he asked Harvinder @ Happy as to where he received the bullet injury and after 23 steps he was falling on the ground and meanwhile you accused Inderpreet again came inside the room with your coaccused Yashwant Singh and took the Harvinder @ Happy to the car and he (Amolak) asked you accused Inderpreet that he was coming after the closing of door but you accused Inderpreet went away with your coaccused Yashwant and injured Harvinder @ Happy with car from there. What you have to say about it? Ans. : It is correct.
(93) In view of the above, I hereby hold that not only the presence of the accused Inderpreet Singh & Yashwant Singh outside the house of Amolak stands established and proved but also the fact that the firing incident did take place and the revolver from which the bullet had been fired and which hit the deceased Harvinder Singh belonged to accused Yashwant Singh license of which has been duly proved by PW21 Tariq Ahmed Sheikh which is Ex.PW21/B. ➢ From a joint reading of the testimonies of the various witnesses the following facts stand established:
➢ That the accused Inderpreet Singh is a young boy of 23 years whose parents have expired. He is a businessman and used to maintain security guards / body guards round the clock. ➢ That the accused Yashwant Singh is an armed guard carrying a St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 83 licensed firearm i.e. NP Bore Revolver / Pistol of .32 (7.65 MM) and had joined his duties with Inderpreet Singh on the date of the incident itself i.e. 14.3.2012.
➢ That on 14.3.2012 at about 6:00 PM Inderpreet Singh told his driver Gurpinder Singh that he would be going to meet his Mama / Maternal Uncle at Tri Nagar on which he took his driver Gurpinder Singh and body guard Yashwant Singh with him and went to Tri Nagar in Ford Fiesta car bearing No. DL 3C AN 1539. ➢ That on the way to Tri Nagar they had chicken at Ashok Vihar where on the insistence of Inderpreet Singh as he wanted to have the revolver, the accused Yashwant Singh handed over his licensed revolver to Inderpreet Singh.
➢ That Amolak Singh is residing at House No. 2079/164 Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar and his parents had gone out of Delhi on which his childhood friend Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh had offered to stay with him overnight at his house on the night of 1415.3.2012. ➢ That Inderpreet Singh after visiting his Mama was going back home and he passed in front of house of Amolak bearing No. 2079/164 Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar where Harvinder Singh @ Happy was visiting Amolak.
➢ That Harvinder Singh @ Happy was known to Inderpreet Singh and when he saw him passing through the house, he called out to Inderpreet Singh from behind after which he invited Inderpreet St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 84 Singh to the house of Amolak where they had cooked their meals and offered the same to him for dinner.
➢ That Harvinder Singh @ Happy had come to the house of Amolak for eating and drinking together because the parents of Amolak had gone to Golden Temple at Amritsar.
➢ That Amolak and Harvinder Singh @ Happy already had three pegs of alcohol before Inderpreet Singh had joined them. ➢ That when Inderpreet Singh joined Amolak and Harvinder @ Happy, he asked for alcohol on which Harvinder @ Happy told him that there was no alcohol on which Inderpreet Singh went out to his car and procured the alcohol kept in the car after which he returned to the house of Amolak.
➢ That Inderpreet Singh who at that time was carrying the licensed revolver of Yashwant Singh and had not returned the same to him, took out the same and showed it to Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh and told that it was valuing around Rs. 1.5 to 2 Lacs in the market. ➢ That Inderpreet Singh removed the cartridges from the revolver and handed it over to Harvinder Singh @ Happy and Amolak. ➢ That both Harvinder Singh @ Happy and Amolak were fascinated by the firearm and wanted to get themselves snapped / photographed with the same after which all the boys i.e. Inderpreet Singh, Harvinder @ Happy and Amolak posed themselves with the firearm and took photographs of each other and thereafter returned the same St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 85 to Inderpreet Singh.
➢ That Inderpreet Singh again loaded the cartridges in the revolver and kept the same in the pocket of his pant.
➢ That soon thereafter Inderpreet Singh realized that he had not locked the revolver and hence he took out the revolver from his pocket and attempted to lock the same during which process the revolver went off and the bullets hit Harvinder @ Happy. ➢ That initially Amolak and Inderpreet Singh did not realize what had happened until Harvinder Singh @ Happy told them that he had been hit (lag gayi yaar).
➢ That on hearing this Inderpreet Singh tried to examine where Harvinder Singh @ Happy was hit but could not find the wound and hence immediately rushed out of the house and handed over the revolver to Yashwant Singh and told that there was an accidental firing (mujhse goli chal gaye hai).
➢ That the accused Yashwant Singh followed Inderpreet Singh inside the house of Amolak and picked up Harvinder Singh @ Happy and carried him to their car (testimony of Amolak in this regard is corroborated by the testimony of driver Gurpinder Singh and both the accused admit the same).
➢ That thereafter Inderpreet Singh along with his driver Gurpinder Singh immediately rushed to the nearest hospital while Yaswant Singh held on to the injured.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 86 ➢ That first they went to Kheterpal Nursing Home where the Oxygen Machine was not working and hence they took the injured to Kalra Hospital during which period the injured Harvinder Singh @ Happy was breathing and conscious but crying in pain. ➢ That at about 12:10 AM (midnight) Harvinder was admitted to Kalra Hospital and provided medical treatment and doctors also informed the police.
➢ That when the local police reached the hospital they met the accused Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh who informed them about what had happened in the house of Amolak and also cooperated in the investigations.
➢ That at about 2:30 AM the injured Harvinder Singh @ Happy expired on account of the said gun shot injuries. ➢ That the accused Yashwant Singh himself handed over his revolver along with the cartridges to the police in the hospital itself after which both Inderpreet and Yashwant were arrested. (94) he charges framed against the accused Inderpreet Singh is for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of Arms Act whereas against the Yashwant Singh for the offence under Section 30 of Arms Act. In so far as the accused Yashwant Singh is concerned the Arms Clerk Tariq Ahmad Sheikh (PW21) has proved the entries pertaining to Arms License bearing No. S/1088B/Arms/DMS/09 dated 7.10.2009 of St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 87 S/DBBL 12 Bore Gun along with 50 /100 cartridges in favour of accused Yashwant Singh which is Ex.PW21/A and its renewal record which is Ex.PW21/B showing that the license had been given on Keep and Carry basis. He has also proved that additional permission was granted to Yashwant Singh to purchase NP Bore Revolver / Pistol along with 50 /100 cartridges (Yashwant Singh being in Army at that time). The accused Yashwant Singh is an exservice man and on the date of incident was his first day in the employment of Inderpreet Singh when he was compelled by Inderpreet Singh to handover his revolver to him, which is a clear cut violation of the conditions of license and makes the accused Yashwant Singh liable for the offence punishable under Section 30 of Arms Act. (95) Coming now to the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code settled against the accused Inderpreet Singh, as per the provisions of Section 299 Indian Penal Code who ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. (96) Further, as per the provisions of Section 300 Indian Penal Code culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if it is St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 88 done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid and this is punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. (97) There are five exceptions provided to the above. Firstly culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. I may observe that this exception is also subject to the proviso that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily pro voked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person;
the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant; the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence; the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Secondly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 89 without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Thirdly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without illwill towards the person whose death is caused. Fourthly Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Lastly Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. (Ref.: Daya Nand Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2008 SC 1823).
(98) Whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 90 the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated is Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. Note: All murders are culpable homicide but not vice aversa. (Ref.: State of A.P. Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya reported in AIR 1977 SC 45).
(99) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is writ large from the evidence which has come on record and also from his subsequent conduct of the accused that there is no history of animosity between the deceased and the accused Inderpreet Singh. Rather, they were good friends and even on the date of incident the accused Inderpreet Singh was not even aware of the presence of Harvinder Singh @ Happy at the house of Amolak which is adjoining the house of St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 91 his maternal uncle / mama. It stands established that Inderpreet Singh had already crossed the house of Amolak when Harvinder Singh @ Happy called out him and invited him for a drinking session at the house of Amolak. It is also established that Harvinder @ Happy, Amolak & Inderpreet Singh are young boys in their early twenties and were having a good time having cooked dinner for themselves and a drinking session. The revolver was initially unloaded by Inderpreet Singh after which they all took turns in posing with the same and taking photographs with it reflecting how these young boys were fascinated by this weapon. It was only thereafter when Inderpreet Singh reloaded the revolver and kept the same in his pocket and then suddenly remembered that he had forgotten to lock the same, that while trying to lock the same that it accidentally went off. The nature of injuries reflected in the MLC and Postmortem report of Harvinder Singh @ Happy particularly the entry and exit wounds indicates that at the relevant time Harvinder Singh was in a sitting position. (100) Inderpreet Singh is a young boy not a professional in handling the firearms. At the time of the incident Inderpreet Singh was with his friends and was boastfully exhibiting the revolver to his friends after which all these young boys took turns in getting themselves photographed. From his side he had initially taken all necessary precautions when he removed the cartridges from the revolver and after the photography session he again loaded the same and kept it in his pocket when he suddenly realized that it was not locked and while locking the same the revolver accidentally went St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 92 off. He had taken the precautions of removing the cartridges from the revolver and after reloading the same he wanted to lock the same and it is this which establishes that the accused Inderpreet Singh never intended to do any harm to anyone and could not have foreseen the danger in trying the lock the revolver after loading the cartridges in the same while sitting in the room. The death of Harvinder Singh @ Happy was caused due to inadvertent triggering of the revolver while Inderpreet Singh was trying to lock the same when it accidentally went off which is a result of misadventure and misfortune.
(101) Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that the present case falls with the purview of Section 80 of Indian Penal code as no offence has been committed by the accused but I do not find any merit in the said argument because it is writ large that the revolver in question belonged to Yashwant Singh and Inderpreet Singh had no knowledge of operating the same and was incompetent to handle the revolver. In the background when he was trying to showoff the said revolver and while re loading the same it accidentally went off which is an act of gross negligence covered under the provisions of Section 304A Indian Penal Code. The accused Inderpreet Singh was fiddling with a dangerous weapon and he did not know how to operate its safety device. He started fiddling with the same regardless of the personal safety of the others around him and failed to exercise due care and caution which a reasonable person could have taken and conducted rashly and negligently within the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 93 meaning of Section 304A of Indian Penal Code. In so far as the provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code are concerned I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the intention and knowledge so attributed to the accused Inderpreet Singh to cause death of the deceased and in this regard I am supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kana Ram Vs, State of Rajasthan reported in 1987 ACJ 1768 and also in the case of Ram Dass Vs. State reported in MANU/UP/0415/1967. I may further note that even after the incident both Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh wasted no time in rushing Harvinder to the hospital and did their best to save his life. Rather, on the other hand it is Amolak whose conduct is highly improper. The incident had taken place in his house. He never bothered to either accompany the injured his childhood friend to the hospital nor informed his family or even the police of the same. Rather, on the other hand the subsequent conduct of Inderpreet leaves no doubt that not only did he try his best to save the life of the victim Harvinder but also made no attempts to run away or shift the liability on anybody else which he could conveniently do. This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the necessary intent and knowledge so attributed to the accused Inderpreet Singh who is hereby held guilty of gross negligence punishable under Section 304A Indian Penal Code (not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code). St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 94 (102) Further, it has been proved that after the registration of the case and during investigations the sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act to prosecute the accused Inderpreet Singh for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act had been accorded by the DCP Sh. S. Saravanan (PW16) which sanction is Ex.PW16/A. The license holder of the firearm is accused Yashwant Singh and the act of the accused Inderpreet Singh in retaining unauthorized possession of NP Bore Revolver / Pistol of .32 (7.65 MM) is illegal which is the same firearm which was negligently and casually used by him. I hereby hold the accused Inderpreet Singh guilty of the offence under Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(103) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 95
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(104) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses, the following facts stand established:
➢ That the accused Inderpreet Singh is a young boy of 23 years whose parents have expired. He is a businessman and used to maintain security guards / body guards round the clock.
➢ That the accused Yashwant Singh is an armed guard carrying a licensed firearm i.e. NP Bore Revolver / Pistol of .32 (7.65 MM) and had joined his duties with Inderpreet Singh on the date of the incident itself i.e. 14.3.2012.
➢ That on 14.3.2012 at about 6:00 PM Inderpreet Singh told his driver Gurpinder Singh that he would be going to meet his Mama / Maternal Uncle at Tri Nagar on which he took his driver Gurpinder St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 96 Singh and body guard Yashwant Singh with him and went to Tri Nagar in Ford Fiesta car bearing No. DL 3C AN 1539. ➢ That on the way to Tri Nagar they had chicken at Ashok Vihar where on the insistence of Inderpreet Singh as he wanted to have the revolver, the accused Yashwant Singh handed over his licensed revolver to Inderpreet Singh.
➢ That Amolak Singh is residing at House No. 2079/164 Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar and his parents had gone out of Delhi on which his childhood friend Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh had offered to stay with him overnight at his house on the night of 1415.3.2012. ➢ That Inderpreet Singh after visiting his Mama was going back home and he passed in front of house of Amolak bearing No. 2079/164 Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar where Harvinder Singh @ Happy was visiting Amolak.
➢ That Harvinder Singh @ Happy was known to Inderpreet Singh and when he saw him passing through the house, he called out to Inderpreet Singh from behind after which he invited Inderpreet Singh to the house of Amolak where they had cooked their meals and offered the same to him for dinner.
➢ That Harvinder Singh @ Happy had come to the house of Amolak for eating and drinking together because the parents of Amolak had gone to Golden Temple at Amritsar.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 97 ➢ That Amolak and Harvinder Singh @ Happy already had three pegs of alcohol before Inderpreet Singh had joined them. ➢ That when Inderpreet Singh joined Amolak and Harvinder @ Happy, he asked for alcohol on which Harvinder @ Happy told him that there was no alcohol on which Inderpreet Singh went out to his car and procured the alcohol kept in the car after which he returned to the house of Amolak.
➢ That Inderpreet Singh who at that time was carrying the licensed revolver of Yashwant Singh and had not returned the same to him, took out the same and showed it to Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh and told that it was valuing around Rs. 1.5 to 2 Lacs in the market. ➢ That Inderpreet Singh removed the cartridges from the revolver and handed it over to Harvinder Singh @ Happy and Amolak. ➢ That both Harvinder Singh @ Happy and Amolak were fascinated by the firearm and wanted to get themselves snapped / photographed with the same after which all the boys i.e. Inderpreet Singh, Harvinder @ Happy and Amolak posed themselves with the firearm and took photographs of each other and thereafter returned the same to Inderpreet Singh.
➢ That Inderpreet Singh again loaded the cartridges in the revolver and kept the same in the pocket of his pant.
➢ That soon thereafter Inderpreet Singh realized that he had not locked the revolver and hence he took out the revolver from his St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 98 pocket and attempted to lock the same during which process the revolver went off and the bullets hit Harvinder @ Happy. ➢ That initially Amolak and Inderpreet Singh did not realize what had happened until Harvinder Singh @ Happy told them that he had been hit (lag gayi yaar).
➢ That on hearing this Inderpreet Singh tried to examine where Harvinder Singh @ Happy was hit but could not find the wound and hence immediately rushed out of the house and handed over the revolver to Yashwant Singh and told that there was an accidental firing (mujhse goli chal gaye hai).
➢ That the accused Yashwant Singh followed Inderpreet Singh inside the house of Amolak and picked up Harvinder Singh @ Happy and carried him to their car (testimony of Amolak in this regard is corroborated by the testimony of driver Gurpinder Singh and both the accused admit the same).
➢ That thereafter Inderpreet Singh along with his driver Gurpinder Singh immediately rushed to the nearest hospital while Yaswant Singh held on to the injured.
➢ That first they went to Kheterpal Nursing Home where the Oxygen Machine was not working and hence they took the injured to Kalra Hospital during which period the injured Harvinder Singh @ Happy was breathing and conscious but crying in pain.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 99 ➢ That at about 12:10 AM (midnight) Harvinder was admitted to Kalra Hospital and provided medical treatment and doctors also informed the police.
➢ That when the local police reached the hospital they met the accused Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh who informed them about what had happened in the house of Amolak and also cooperated in the investigations.
➢ That at about 2:30 AM the injured Harvinder Singh @ Happy expired on account of the said gun shot injuries. ➢ That the accused Yashwant Singh himself handed over his revolver along with the cartridges to the police in the hospital itself after which both Inderpreet and Yashwant were arrested. (105) The medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution case that the deceased Harvinder Singh @ Happy Singh had received a gun shot injury and his death was due to shock consequent upon excessive blood loss due to fire arm injury which injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Further, the forensic evidence is compatible to the prosecution case that before the incident the deceased Harvinder Singh had consumed alcohol but was still under control and after being hit with the bullet he was rushed to the hospital in the car bearing No. DL 3C AN 1539 from where the exhibits were lifted. The forensic evidence is also compatible to the postmortem St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 100 report with regard to the entry and exit points of the bullet (as reflected from the clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time of the incident).
(106) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (107) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (108) However, it is evident that after the incident both Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh wasted no time in rushing Harvinder to the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 101 hospital and did their best to save his life. Rather, on the other hand it is Amolak whose conduct is highly improper. The incident had taken place in his house. He never bothered to either accompany the injured his childhood friend to the hospital nor informed his family or even the police of the same. Rather, on the other hand the subsequent conduct of Inderpreet leaves no doubt that not only did he try his best to save the life of the victim Harvinder but also made no attempts to run away or shift the liability on anybody else which he could conveniently do. This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the necessary intent and knowledge so attributed to the accused Inderpreet Singh who is hereby held guilty of gross negligence punishable under Section 304A Indian Penal Code (not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code).
(109) Further, it has been proved that the license holder of the firearm is accused Yashwant Singh and the act of the accused Inderpreet Singh in retaining unauthorized possession of NP Bore Revolver / Pistol of .32 (7.65 MM) is illegal which is the same firearm which was negligently and casually used by him. Therefore I hereby hold the accused Inderpreet Singh guilty of the offence under Section 25&27 of Arms Act. (110) In so far as the accused Yashwant Singh is concerned, he is an exservice man and on the date of incident was his first day in the employment of Inderpreet Singh when he was compelled by Inderpreet Singh to handover his revolver to him, which is a clear cut violation of the St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 102 conditions of license and makes the accused Yashwant Singh liable for the offence punishable under Section 30 of Arms Act. Therefore, I hold the accused Yashwant Singh guilty for the offence under Section 30 of Arms Act.
(111) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 11.4.2013.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 6.4.2013 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 103
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS:DELHI Session Case No. 63/2012 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0166312012 State Vs. (1) Inderpreet Singh S/o Late Sh. Trilochan Singh R/o B2, Model TownII, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Yashwant Singh S/o Late Sh. Munsi Lal R/o Village Saniya Pur, PS Dera Pur, Distt. Rama Bai Nagar, Kanpur Dehat (UP) (Convicted) FIR No.: 63/2012 Police Station: Keshav Puram Under Sections: 302 IPC & 25 Arms Act Date of Conviction: 6.4.2013 Arguments heard on: 11.4.2013 Date of Sentence: 17.4.2013 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Inderpreet Singh in Judicial Custody with Sh. Ravi Kant Advocate.
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 104 Convict Yashwant Singh in Judicial Custody with Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj Advocate / Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per allegations in the intervening night of 1415.3.2012 at about 12:10 AM at House House No. 2079/14, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar the accused Inderpreet Singh committed the murder of Harvinder Singh by firing upon him through a revolver which was in his possession without any license or permit and used the same while committing the murder of Harvinder Singh. In so far as the accused Yashwant Singh is concerned it has been alleged that he had handed over his loaded licensee revolver to coaccused Inderpreet Singh who was not having any permit or license for the same.
However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the eye witness Amolak & Gurpinder Singh and also on the basis of the medical, forensic and other circumstantial evidence on record, this Court vide a detail judgment dated 6.4.2013 held the accused Inderpreet Singh guilty of use of the firearm i.e. NP Bore Revolver / Pistol of .32 (7.65 MM) negligently and casually punishable under Section 304A Indian Penal Code (not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code) and also made Sections 25/27 of Arms Act. Further, the accused Yashwant Singh has been held guilty of violating the conditions of the license punishable under Section 30 of Arms Act.St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 105
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Inderpreet Singh is stated to be a young boy of 23 years who is running the family business of Spare Parts having his shop with the name of Rattan Auto Sales at Kashmere Gate. The convict was adopted by his foster parents in the year 1990 from the Adoption Center 'Palna'. Ld. Counsel for the convict submits that the convict is in Judicial Custody since 15.3.2012 and is not involved in any other case. He requests that a lenient view be taken against the convict.
In so far as the convict Yashwant Singh is concerned he is an ExServiceman aged about 47 years having a family comprising of wife, three daughters out of whom two are married & one is unmarried who is still studying and one son who is studying. Ld. Amicus Curiae for the convict had vehemently argued that the convict Yashwant Singh is the sole bread earner of his family who are totally dependent upon him. He has also argued that the convict is a first time offender . He requests that a lenient view be taken against the convict Yashwant Singh.
On the other hand the Ld. Addl. PP for the State duly assisted by Sh. Jai Ram Garg Advocate for the complainant has prayed that a stern view be taken against the convicts since the deceased Harvinder @ Happy Singh was a young boy in his early twenties who was the only brother of five sisters and sole bread earner for his family comprising of aged parents. He submits that no doubt the convict Inderpreet Singh was adopted but even after the death of his foster parents, he is having St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 106 sufficient financial means and assets and is in a position to compensate the family of the deceased.
The statement of the convict in this regard has been recorded separately wherein he has conceded that he is the owner of the first floor measuring 160 square yards at B2, Model TownII, Delhi which belonged to his deceased father late Sh. Trilochan Singh who has expired in the year 2010 after which he is in exclusive possession of the same. He has also conceded that he is running a shop of spare parts under the name and style of Rattan Auto Sales from Shop No. 2678, Gandhi Motor Market, Kashmere Gate, Delhi which is presently closed on account of his being in Judicial Custody. He further submits that he is having a bank account in Punjab National Bank, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in the name of the firm i.e. Rattan Auto Sales which bank account is solely operated by him.
Sh. Jai Ram Advocate for the complainant has submitted that the convict is deliberately trying to conceal his assets. He has argued that during the trial of the case the convict while he was in custody had been issuing blank cheques to his counsel and it is his apprehension that on legal advise he has transferred a substantial amount of money from his declared account. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that apart from what has been stated by the convict one Ford Fiesta car bearing No. DL3C AN1539 is also in the name of the convict which he had been using. He further submits that the financial capability of the convict is reflected from the fact that he had been maintaining a professional driver and two armed St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 107 security guards. He further submits that the convict has tried to mislead the Court by claiming that he has one shop at Kashmere Gate and states that in fact there were two shops which were made into one which he had inherited from his father and the information given to the Court in this regard is incorrect.
I have considered the submissions made before me. The father of the deceased Harvinder Singh @ Happy was also heard on the point of compensation. I may observe that both the convicts are first time offender and have no criminal record. It is evident that after the incident both Inderpreet Singh and Yashwant Singh wasted no time in rushing Harvinder to the hospital and did their best to save his life. Rather, on the other hand it is Amolak whose conduct was highly improper. The incident had taken place in his house. He never bothered to either accompany the his injured childhood friend to the hospital nor inform his family or even the police of the same whereas on the other hand the subsequent conduct of Inderpreet leaves no doubt that he not only tried his best to save the life of the victim Harvinder but also did not try to run away or shift the liability on anybody else which he could have conveniently done but chose not to do.
It is a settled law that jurisdiction to pay compensation to the victim of crime / their families has to be treated as a part of the over all jurisdiction of the Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again impressed upon the Courts of Law to exercise this power to award St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 108 compensation to the victim in a liberal way so that they may not have to rush to civil courts. Legislation has conferred this jurisdiction upon the criminal courts under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Case at the time of finalization of judgment of conviction (Reference: Hari Singh Vs. State reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127).
Compensation is something given in recompense i.e. equivalent rendered. The whole purpose of compensation is to make good the loss sustain by the victim or legal representative of the deceased. Though the psychological & physical trauma / pain and sufferings of the family of the deceased victim cannot be compensated but for the financial loss caused to the aged parents of the deceased on account of the death of the deceased they are required to be suitably compensated. Restitution is an important part of Criminal Sentencing which depends upon the convict's ability to pay for the harm caused by his act to the victim and his family and the convict Inderpreet Singh has the financial ability to pay for this harm caused to the family of the victim.
In this background I award the following sentences to the convict Inderpreet Singh:
1. For the offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and compensation for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/ (Rs.
Twenty Five lacs). The entire compensation shall be given to the parents of the deceased in equal proportions in default of which it St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 109 shall be recovered from the assets of the convict in accordance with law.
2. For the offence under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five Years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Both the sentences shall run consecutively.
In so far as the convict Yashwant Singh is concerned, he is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 30 of Arms Act.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to both the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial, as per rules.
The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant through the Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that he apprehends that the family of St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 110 the convict Inderpreet Singh may try to transfer the assets of the convict both movable and immovable and hence in order to secure the compensation amount for the family of the victim / deceased, directions may be issued to the SHO and the other authorities concerned. I have considered the submissions made and I hereby grant liberty to the Ld. Counsel for the complainant to make a specific request / prayer in this regard in writing in accordance with law.
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and one of order on sentence be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 17.04.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
St. Vs. Inderpreet Singh Etc. FIR No. 63/12, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 111