Delhi District Court
State vs (1)Mohan Lal @ Mohini on 31 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST) : KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.27/2011
Unique Case ID No.02402R0284892011
FIR No.390/1991
Police Station Trilok Puri
Under Section 186/353/307/34 IPC
State Versus (1)Mohan Lal @ Mohini
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o H.No.2, Tajpur Road,
Wakil Grewal Farm, Ludhiana,
Punjab.
(Declared PO vide order dt. 23.8.1997)
(2)Prem Nath @ Munna
S/o Sh. Ramji Lal
R/o 21/268, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 28.01.1994
Date of judgment reserved : 21.03.2012
Date of judgment : 30.03.2012
JUDGMENT
Two accused persons, namely, Mohan Lal @ Mohini and Prem Nath @ Munna have been sent to face trial by the police of SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 1 of 30 Police Station Kalyan Puri in FIR No.390/1991 under Section 186/ 353/307/34 IPC.
2 Facts, in brief, are that on 7.7.1991, Israr Ahmad @ Chunnu (PW5) came to the police station and produced Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) and Ct. Jia Lal (PW14) in injured condition. Israr Ahmad (PW5) got recorded his statement. In his statement, the complainant Israr Khan (PW5) has stated that his younger brother Ibrar Ahmad had a business of tent house and he used to help him in the said business. He has further stated that on the night intervening 6/7.7.1991, he was present at the footpath along with labourers to affix tent at Pocket5, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI for the marriage of son of Tuli Property Dealer. At about 2.30 or 3.00 AM, Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) and Ct. Jia Lal (PW14) came patrolling. Complainant knew Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) very well. In the meantime, four boys came from the side of Shashi Garden jhuggis. One of those boys was having a blue colour bag on his waist. Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) stopped those boys and asked as to who they were and as to from where they were coming from at such odd hours. Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) asked Israr Khan @ Chunnu (PW5) to check the bag. Those boys asked the police personnel as to who they were to check the bag and started abusing and grappling with them. One of the boys asked SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 2 of 30 the boy who was being checked by Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) to shoot. The boy who was being checked by Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) looking like a Pahari, retreated and took out a revolver from the dub of his pant and fired a gun shot on the stomach of Ct. Ram Lal (PW2). When Ct. Jia Lal (PW14) went ahead to save Ct. Ram Lal, he was also fired at on his stomach. When complainant (PW5) went ahead, the revolver was also pointed at him, as a result of which he retreated back and thereafter all the four boys fled away towards Mayur Vihar PhaseI. The description of those boys was given by the complainant (PW5). 3 The complainant (PW5) took both the injured constables to the police station on his scooter. Duty officer recorded the FIR and investigation was assigned to Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW3). Both the injured were got admitted in LNJP Hospital. Thereafter, Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW3) reached the hospital and collected their MLCs. Both the injured were declared unfit for statement. The clothes worn by the injured and recovered bullets from their stomach were seized. Thereafter, Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW3) visited the spot and prepared site plan. Crime team and photographer were called and the spot was got photographed. One torch Ex.P1 and two dandas Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 of injured Constables, SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 3 of 30 six live bullets of .32 bore and unburnt matchsticks were seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Result on the MLC of injured constables was obtained. IO tried to trace out accused persons but in vain and untraced report was submitted.
4 On 4.10.1993, HC Intezar Hussain (PW17) of Special Staff, New Delhi District informed that accused persons had been arrested under Section 411, PS Connaught Place. Accused persons made disclosure statement in that case regarding commission of the offence by them in the present case. They pointed out the place of incident.
5 Further investigation of the case was transferred to Inspector Kali Ram (PW25). He got issued production warrants of the accused persons and on 6.10.1993 permission to interrogate and arrest both the accused persons was sought. They were formally arrested in the present case. Their TIP was fixed, however on 13.10.1993 when the Link MM along with witnesses reached Central Jail, accused persons refused to join TIP. On 19.10.1993, complainant as well as injured constables identified accused persons in Shahdara Court. The photocopies of case u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act of Ludhiana, Punjab and SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 4 of 30 another case u/s 457/380/411 IPC of Chandigarh which were against accused Mohan Lal Mohan Lal (already PO) were obtained on the basis of disclosure statement. The revolver Ex.PW7/C which was stolen by accused Mohan Lal (already PO) with which he had fired at both the injured constables was seized from its owner Hardarshan Singh (PW7), Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Chandigarh vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B and photocopies of its licence is Ex.PW7/A. 6 Exhibits were sent to CFSL and results were obtained. Statement of witnesses were recorded.
7 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Ld. M.M. who after complying with provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions which in turn assigned the case to this Court for trial in accordance with law.
8 After hearing Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and Ld. Addl. PP for the State, charges under Section 186/307/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons on 26.05.1994 which read as under: "That on the night intervening 6/7.7.91 at about 2.30 a.m. at Pocket V, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, within the jurisdiction of PS Trilok Puri, you both in furtherance of your SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 5 of 30 common intention voluntarily obstructed Constable Ram Lal and Delhi Home Guard Constable Zia Lal, the Public Servants in discharge of their public functions i.e. while your search and two of your associates (not arrested) was being conducted and you thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 186 IPC r/w Sec. 34 IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on the abovesaid date, time and place, you both in furtherance of your common intention voluntarily caused injuries to said Constable Ram Lal and Delhi Home Guard Constable Zia Lal and also attempted to cause injury to Israr Ahmed with the revolver, with such intention, knowledge and under such circumstances that if by your said act either of the injured persons had died, you would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 307 r/w Sec. 34 IPC and within my cognizance."
9 Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed a trial.
10 After framing of charge and examining certain witnesses, accused Mohan Lal stopped appearing in the Court. After adopting due procedure, he was declared Proclaimed Offender vider order dated 23.08.1997.
11 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 25 witnesses. PW5 Israr Khan is the complainant whereas SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 6 of 30 PW2 Ct. Ram Lal and PW14 Ct. Zia Lal are the injured witnesses. PW21 Dr. Ravinder Kumar has proved MLCs Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B of injured Zia Lal and Ram Lal prepared by Dr. Pawan. PW22 Dr. Shefali Goel has also proved the said MLCs of injured. PW23 Dr. G.D. Gupta examined, clothes of the injured in CFSL and gave report whereas PW 24 Sh. N.B. Bardhan of CFSL, has examined clothes of the injured, revolver and bullet and gave his report. PW7 Hardar Singh is owner of the revolver allegedly used in the present case. PW1 Ct. Kuldeep Kumar, PW4 Ct. Mukesh Kumar, PW6 Ct. Rajiv Kumar, PW9 PW11 Ct. Rajender Kumar, PW12 ASI Balbir Singh, PW13 Ct. Pritam Singh, PW17 ASI Intijar Hussain, PW18 Ct. Satpal Singh and PW 20 ASI Shamsuddin remained associated in the investigation conducted by IO Inspector Ravinder Kumar (PW3) and PW25 Inspector Kali Ram. PW8 SI Jagat Pal was working as Duty Officer and had recorded FIR in the present case. PW10 SI Maghi Lal of Chandigarh Police had recorded FIR regarding theft of revolver. PW15 SI Mool Chand was also working as Duty Officer in PS Trilok Puri on 12.07.1991 when Ct. Mukesh Kumar produced four sealed parcels to him which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. PW16 HC Om Pal Singh has proved copy of DD No.24, 25 and 27. SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 7 of 30 12 After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Prem Nath @ Munna under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he has denied the case of the prosecution in toto and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused opted not to lead evidence in his defence. 13 I have heard. Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have meticulously gone through their submissions and material available on record.
Occurrence 14 Case of the prosecution is that on the day of incident, at about 2.30/300 a.m. during patrolling when both the injured who were police constables reached Pocket V, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI where one tent was being affixed in a park, accused along with his co accused Mohan Lal (PO) and other two associates (not arrested) came and one of them was carrying a bag on his shoulder. When they were stopped and asked as to from where they were coming, on the asking of accused Prem Nath, his coaccused Mohan (PO) fired at stomach of both the injured as a result of which they sustained bullet injury. It is also case of the prosecution that complainant Israr Khan, brother of the SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 8 of 30 tent owner and known to Ct. Ram Lal from earlier, was also present at the site of tent and had witnessed the incident.
15 To prove its case, prosecution has examined complainant Israr Khan. PW5 Israr Khan in his testimony has deposed that about 3 or 3½ years back, his tent was being affixed in Mayur Vihar for Kerala Property Dealer and his workers were working there for affixing the tent. According to him, he was also present there. At about 2.30 or 3.00 in the night, four boys came at that place. He has also testified that one policeman and two homeguards came to that place during the course of patrolling. Four boys were coming from the side of Shashi Garden. Police official and Home guards had stopped those four persons and started taking their personal search. Policeman knew the complainant from earlier and police personnel asked him to take search of one of those boys and they also started taking search of other three boys. According to him, one of the boys stepped back and fired a bullet which hit the police man. Thereafter, he fired again at one of the home guard who received bullet injuries. When he tried to chase those boys, they fired at him also but bullet did not hit him and all the boys ran away from the spot. However, on the point of identity of the assailants, this witness has stated that there was a darkness SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 9 of 30 during the night and as such he could not identify those boys. 16 This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. Addl PP for the State. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl PP, he has admitted to have lodged FIR Ex.PW3/B at PS Trilok Puri. He has also stated that police had seized one torch, six cartridges, one match box, two lathies in his presence vide memos Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B which bear his signatures. 17 From the testimony of this witness, incident of firing at police personnel stands established. Presence of this witness at the spot at the time of incident is also established and witnessing the incident him is also established. He has also proved that he had lodged the FIR and that police had seized cartridges, match box, torch etc. from the spot vide seizure memos which bear his signatures. 18 PW2 Ct. Ram Lal is one of the injured in the present case. He has deposed that on 6/7.7.91, he along with Home guard Jia Lal was present on patrol duty in the area. He has further deposed that at about 2.30/3.00 a.m. during patrolling they reached pocketV, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, one tent was being fixed in the park. One Chunnu @ Israr Ahmed, who was known to him, was getting the tent fixed. This witness started talking to Chunnu and in the meantime, SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 10 of 30 four boys came from the side of Jhuggies and when he inquired from there as to from where they were coming and where they were going, they did not satisfactorily reply. He asked them to give their search but they asked as to who they were to take search and they started abusing him. He asked Chunnu to take search of one of the boys and this witness and another Home Guard who was with him tried to take search of other three boys. When this witness proceeded to take search of one of the boys, another boy shouted to fire the bullet and as soon as he proceeded to take search, another boy took out a revolver and fired at him. One of the bullets hit him on his stomach. He has further testified that as Home Guard proceeded to take search of another boy, another bullet was fired, which hit the stomach of Home Guard. He has also testified that the person who had revolver, pointed the revolver towards Chunnu and threatened him to run away, therefore, Chunnu ran away. He has stated that he and Home Guard got injured and thereafter accused persons ran away. Thereafter Chunnu returned to the spot and took them to PS on his scooter and thereafter they were taken to hospital and were medically examined. This witness has further stated that on 13.10.1993, he had come to Shahdara Court when he met SI Kali Ram and Ct. Dinesh Kumar. SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 11 of 30 Both the accused persons had come to the Court in custody and he identified them and told SI Kali Ram that they were the persons who were involved in the incident.
19 In his cross examination, he has identified accused Prem Nath as the person who had shouted to shoot them. He has further stated that accused had shouted twice. He has also stated that accused persons had refused to join TIP.
20 PW14 Zia Lal is another injured. He has also deposed that on 6/7.7.91, he was posted at PS Trilok Puri as Delhi Home Guard and during hat night, he was on duty along with Ct. Ram Lal at PP Mayur ViharPhase I. He has stated that on that night during patrolling, they had gone in Pocket V, Mayur Vihar PhaseI and it was about 2.30/3.00 a.m. He further stated that there they saw that one Chunnu, resident of Trilok Puri, was installing his tent and Ct. Ram Lal knew him very well. He has stated that Chunnu and Ram Lal were talking at the footpath of the road at that time, when from the side of Shashi Garden, four young boys came and one of those boys was carrying a bag on his shoulder. Ram Lal stopped those boys and asked as to from where they were coming in odd hour. According to him, Ram Lal asked Chunnu to take search of the boys. When Chunnu SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 12 of 30 started checking that bag and Ram Lal started taking search of other boy, he also started taking search of one of those boys. According to this witness, the boy whose search he was taking told the boy whose search was being taken by Ram Lal "MAAR SALE KO GOLI". According to him, one Pahari type boy retreated a little and took out a revolver from pocket of his pant and "RAM LAL KO GOLI MAARI" (shot at Ram Lal) and when he tried to apprehend that boy, he had also "MERE PET MEIN GOLI MARI" (shot in his stomach). He has also stated that when Chunnu tried to apprehend that boy, "USNE CHUNNI KI TARAF BHI REVOLVER TAAN DI" (pointed revolver on Chunnu also). Chunnu ran away towards the side of the park. After firing, those boys ran away from the spot towards Shashi Garden. This witness has stated that Chunnu took him and Ct. Ram Lal to police station on his two wheeler scooter from where they were taken to hospital. This witness has stated that the boy who was having revolver and had fired at them and caused injuries was of Gore Rang Ka Pahari Type and he came to know his name later on as Mohan lal. He has also identified accused Prem Nath to be the person whose search this witness was taking and who had exhorted Mohan Lal to fire. This witness has identified his baniyan and one Kameez having SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 13 of 30 hole mark as Ex.P7 and has also identified one baniyan and shirt of Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) as Ex.P6.
21 From the testimony of this witness, it is clear that accused Prem Nath is the person who had asked his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) to fire at the police party and on his asking, they were fired at. He has clearly given the role of accused persons. 22 From the deposition of PW5 Israr Khan (complainant), PW2 Ct. Ram Lal and PW14 Ct. Zia Lal, it is proved that on the day of incident, PW5 was affixing tent in Pocket VMayur ViharI. It also stands proved on record that PW5 Israr Khan was known to PW2 Ct. Ram Lal. During the course of patrolling, PW2 and PW14, they reached near park where PW5 was affixing the tent. It also stands proved on record that at that time, four boys including present accused and his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) along with their two other associates (not arrested) came and they were asked by PW2 as to from where they were coming and when PW2, PW14 and PW5 started taking their search, present accused asked his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) to fire at them. It also stands proved on record that accused Mohan Lal (PO) on exhortation of accused Prem Nath, took out a revolver and fired at both the injured as a result of which they SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 14 of 30 both sustained injury on their stomach. It also stands proved on record that accused persons also pointed revolver towards complainant and threatened him to run away. It also stands proved on record that thereafter, accused persons ran away from the spot. It also stands proved on record that complainant removed injured persons to the PS and reported the matter to police.
23 The identity of accused Prem Nath as culprit has been established in the Court. Both the injured witnesses have duly identified him as the person who exhorted his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) to fire gun shot on them. Thus, it has been established that on the day of incident, accused Prem Nath and Mohan Lal (PO) were present at the spot and on the exhortation of accused Prem Nath, accused Mohan Lal (PO) fired gun shots on the person of both the injured, Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) and Ct. Zia Lal (PW14).
Medical Evidence 24 Both the injured Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) and Ct. Zia Lal (PW14) were removed to LNJP Hospital where they were medically examined. MLC of Zia Lal has been proved as Ex.PW21/A. According to MLC, Zia Lal has received a clean and circular gun shot SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 15 of 30 of ½ x ½ cms in diameter. Nature of injury has been opined to be grievous. MLC of Ram Lal has been proved as Ex.PW21/B. According to MLC, Ram Lal has received a clean and circular gun shot of ½ x ½ cms in diameter. Nature of injury has been opined to be grievous. PW21 Dr. Ravinder has stated that these MLCs were prepared by Dr. Pawan. The baniyan and shirt of injured were produced in the Court which were also having hole mark, which also proves the case of prosecution that the injured had suffered gun shot injuries.
25 Therefore, this piece of medical evidence also proves that both the injured Ct. Ram Lal and Ct. Zia Lal had received gun shot injury. Therefore, this evidence also corroborates the occurrence. From conjoint reading of statement of injured persons(PW2 and PW14) their MLCs Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B, it is evident that injured Ct. Ram Lal(PW2) and Ct. Zia Lal(PW14) received bullet injuries. MLC Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B duly establishes the case of prosecution that injured persons received bullet injuries. Expert Evidence 26 The occurrence of incident in which injured Ct. Ram SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 16 of 30 Lal and Ct. Zia Lal (PW14) received bullet injuries has also been corroborated from the report of Expert proved by PW23 Dr. G.D. Gupta. According to this witness, parcels of cloths i.e. Shirts, baniyans of injured persons having brown stains were examined and he has proved reports Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B. According to the reports Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B, human blood of 'B' group was detected on shirts and baniyans of the injured persons. 27 Shirts and baniyans of both the injured persons, revolver seized in the present case and cartridges recovered from the spot were sent to CFSL where they were examined by PW24 N.B. Bardhan. According to report Ex.PW24/A, .32" bullets sent for examination had been fired from .32" revolver and live cartridges sent for examination could be fired from the revolver sent to CFSL. It is also mentioned that hole on the front portion of the shirts and corresponding hole on the baniyans had been caused by the passage of .32" bullets of parcels sent for examination and revolver sent for examination.
28 Therefore, report of the Expert (PW23) corroborates that injured had received bullet injuries and blood had oozed out therefrom which fell on their clothes. Report Ex.PW24/A also SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 17 of 30 corroborates the case of the prosecution that fired bullets recovered could have been fired from the revolver seized in the present case and corresponding holes appearing on the clothes of injured had been caused by the passage of bullets recovered in the present case. It also stands proved on record that bullets had been fired from the recovered revolver, seized in the present case. From the testimony of Ballistic Expert (PW24) and his report Ex.PW24/A, it has been proved that injured received gun shot injuries fired from the revolver used in the present case by accused Mohan Lal (PO) which hit the stomach of both the injured Ct. Ram Lal and Ct. Zia Lal.
29 Even in the present case, testimony of injured/victim (PW1) has duly been corroborated by Israr Khan (PW5). My this view is strengthened by judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab 1983 Cr. L.J. 1457, in which it has been held that evidence of the victim of the crime alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, even if the evidence of other witnesses is excluded from the consideration. In the present case apart from testimony of injured police constables, the incident of firing on them has also been established from the testimony of complainant. Though, complainant turned hostile on certain points, but his testimony cannot SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 18 of 30 be discarded in toto. From the testimony of complainant, it stands proved that incident of firing on both the injured had taken place and from the testimony of both the injured, it has been established that it was accused Mohan Lal (PO) who fired on them on the exhortation of accused Prem Nath.
30 Consequently, it is held that the prosecution has successfully established that on the day of incident, accused Prem Nath exhorted his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) to fire at the injured Ct. Ram Lal and Ct. Zia Lal and thus Mohan Lal fired a gun shot from his revolver in the stomach of Ct. Ram Lal and Ct. Zia Lal. Testimony of injured persons has been corroborated from the testimony of complainant (PW5) coupled with medical evidence and report of ballistic expert.
Intention 31 Intention of a culprit to commit a crime is to be gathered from the circumstances brought on record. In the judgment titled as State of M.P. Vs. Kashiram & Ors. (Reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 1642), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused, is a SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 19 of 30 question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of injury.
32 In the present case, the intention of accused to commit the murder of injured (PW2 and PW14) has been established from their testimony as well as from the testimony of complainant. Both PW2 Ct. Ram Lal and PW14 Ct. Zia Lal have specifically stated that on the day of incident at about 2.30 or 3.00 a.m. when both the injured and complainant were present at Pocket V, Mayur Vihar PhaseI, accused persons along with their associates came and when injured persons asked them to stop and give their search, accused Prem Nath asked his coaccused Mohan Lal to fire at them. As a result of exhortation given by accused Prem Nath, accused Mohan Lal (PO) who was carrying a revolver with him, fired in the stomach of both the injured as a result of which they sustained injuries. It has also come in the testimony of complainant that when he tried to chase accused persons, they pointed revolver at him and fired but bullet did not hit him and he escaped. The intention of accused persons to take lives of injured persons is clear from the recovery of six live cartridges Ex.P4/1 to 6 which shows that they had sufficient number of live SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 20 of 30 cartridges and a revolver. Both the injured have clearly identified accused Prem Nath to be the person who exhorted his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) who fired at the injured persons. Carrying of deadly weapon i.e. revolver and live cartridges and the act of using the same to fire at injured Constables, proves that accused persons were having intention to commit the murder of injured persons. Therefore, the intention of the accused persons to commit the murder of injured persons (PW2 and 14) is apparent from the fact that they were armed with a deadly weapon i.e. Revolver and sufficient number of live cartridges. Accused Mohan Lal (PO) fired shots from the revolver carried by him at the asking of accused Prem Nath. The nature of injuries sustained by both the injured has been opined to be grievous. 33 In the judgment of Hari Kishan Vs. Sukhbir Singh (AIR 1988 SC 2127), it has been held that the nature of weapon used, manner in which it is used, severity of the blow, part of the body chosen to inflict injury are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration to determine the intention.
34 The acts committed by the accused is that he exhorted his coaccused Mohan Lal(PO) to fire shots at injured persons which he did as a result of which both the injured persons received gun shot SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 21 of 30 injuries which have been opined to be grievous which clearly goes to prove that the accused had intention to kill the injured persons. Knowledge 35 To establish the knowledge to commit the murder of injured persons (PW2 and PW14) it has been demonstrated that accused Mohan Lal (PO) on the exhortation of accused Prem Nath, fired gun shots at both the injured persons as well as on the complainant merely on asking of the injured persons as to where they were coming from. Both the injured persons (PW2 and PW14) and complainant have stated that when they were present near the park in Pocket V, Mayur Vihar PhaseI, accused persons along with their associates came. Both the injured have also deposed that when accused persons were stopped and they were asked to give their search, accused Prem Nath exhorted his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) to fire at the injured persons which he did as a result of which both the injured receives injuries on their stomach. Not only this, accused Mohan Lal (PO) also fired shot at the complainant but he escaped. Both the injured persons have identified accused Prem Nath to be the person who asked his coaccused Mohan Lal to fire which he did. SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 22 of 30 36 The knowledge of accused to cause the death of injured persons (PW2 and PW14) is also apparent from the MLC Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B of the injured persons. As per MLC Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B, injured persons had sustained gun shot injuries on their stomach. Entry of wound is clean and circular measuring 1/2 X 1/2 in diameter, which also establishes that they suffered bullet injury. The Doctors have opined the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons as "grievous". In the above scenario, it has well been established on record that the accused by the use of fire arm i.e. revolver in causing bullet injury on the stomach of Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) and Ct. Zia Lal (PW14) was having knowledge that it might cause the death of injured persons.
Defence 37 The defence of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated. It is his case that he was taken from his house and was falsely implicated in this case and that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers. However, he has not produced any evidence or material on record to show that on the day of incident he was not present at the spot along with hisaccused or associates. He has not SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 23 of 30 examined any of his family members or a person from his locality to show that he was lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in this case. He has not made any complaint to any authority regarding his false implication in the present case. He has not led any evidence to the effect that injured persons had any grudge or animosity against him or his coaccused. In the absence of such evidence, I hold that accused has not been able to probabilise his defence of false implication and this story put up by accused is not believable. 38 For these reasons, I do not find any ground to believe the defence of the accused. Accused has failed to probabilise his defence of false implication. Rather it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt it was the accused who exhorted his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) to fire shot at injured persons which he did and injured persons received injuries in their stomach. Conclusion 39 Keeping in view the above discussion, the prosecution has duly established that on the day of incident, both the injured Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) and Ct. Zia Lal (PW14) reached Pocket V, Mayur Vihar PhaseI during patrolling where they met the complainant. It SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 24 of 30 has been established on record that while PW2 was having talks with complainant, accused along with his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) and other two associates (not arrested) came and injured persons (PW2 and
14) asked them to stop and tell as to from where they were coming. On this, accused Prem Nath asked his coaccused Mohan Lal, who was carrying a revolver with him, to fire gun shot. On the exhortation of accused Prem Nath, his coaccused Mohan Lal fired shots at Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) and Ct. Zia Lal (PW14) which caused gun shot injury in their stomach. The injured Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) and Ct. Zia Lal (PW14) have duly supported the case of the prosecution. The testimony of the injured as regards incident of firing at them has also been duly corroborated by complainant.
40 The prosecution has duly proved the intention of the accused to cause the death of injured persons (PW2 and PW14) as it has duly been established that coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) was carrying revolver with him with sufficient number of live cartridges at the time of incident and fired gun shots from it on the stomach of injured persons (PW2 and PW14). Firing a gun shot from the revolver which has been identified in the Court as Ex.PW7/C and injuries caused by it on the person of injured (PW2 and PW14) coupled with SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 25 of 30 the medical evidence duly established that accused was having knowledge that by his said act, it would result into death of the injured. 41 The identity of the accused being one of the assailants has duly been established as he was duly identified by injured (PW2 and PW14). The presence of accused at the spot at the time of incident has also been established from the fact that live cartridges, carried by them at the time of incident were recovered from the spot. 42 It has also been established that both PW2 Ct. Ram Lal and PW14 Ct. Zia Lal were public servants and were discharging their public functions at the time of incident and it was their legal duty to ask the accused persons as to where they were coming from at odd hours of night. Therefore, it also stands proved on record that they were obstructed by accused Prem Nath, his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) and their other associates (not arrested) in discharge of their public functions. It has also been established that an attempt to commit the murder of injured persons has been committed by the accused.
43 Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has duly established beyond reasonable doubt that on the day of incident, accused in furtherance of common intention which he SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 26 of 30 shared with his coaccused Mohan Lal (PO) obstructed the police personnel i.e. injured Ct. Ram Lal (PW2) and Ct. Zia Lal (PW14) in discharge of their public functions and fired gun shots at them from revolver Ex.PW7/C on the stomach of both the above injured and by the said act, accused tried to commit their murder. Accordingly, accused Prem Nath @ Pintu is hereby held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 186/307/34 IPC and convicted thereunder.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 30.03.2012 District Judge and
Addl. Sessions Judge, I/C (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 27 of 30
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.27/2011 Unique Case ID No.02402R0284892011 FIR No.390/1991 Police Station Trilok Puri Under Section 186/353/307/34 IPC State Versus (1)Mohan Lal @ Mohini S/o Sh. Kishan Lal R/o H.No.2, Tajpur Road, Wakil Grewal Farm, Ludhiana, Punjab. (Declared PO vide order dt. 23.8.1997) (2)Prem Nath @ Munna S/o Sh. Ramji Lal R/o 21/268, Trilok Puri, Delhi. ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide my judgment dated 30.03.2012, the convict Prem Nath has been convicted for offence under Section 186/307/34 IPC.
SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 28 of 30 2 I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the convict on the point of sentence. 3 The learned Addl. PP has argued that convict has committed a heinous crime of attempt to commit the murder. In the present case, convict has been convicted for obstructing the public servants i.e. police constables in discharge of their public functions. It has been established that when checking of convict was being taken by the police constables, one of his coaccused shot both of them on the exhortation of convict Prem Nath. It is argued that convict be given exemplary punishment provided under the law as he along with his associates tried to commit the murder of public servants. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for convict has argued that he is the sole bread earner of the family. Apart from him, there is wife and old aged mother of 72 years in his family. He is the only male member of the family and entire family is dependent upon him. It is further submitted that no previous conviction has been alleged or proved against the convict. Ld. Counsel has prayed for taking a lenient view while awarding sentence to the convict. 5 In the present case, convict Prem Nath has been convicted for obstructing public servants in official discharge of their SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 29 of 30 public functions and also attempting to commit their murder along with his associates. Keeping in view the gravity of offences, I do not find any ground to show leniency to the convict.
6 In view of facts and circumstances of the present case, convict Prem Nath is hereby awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 186/34 IPC. Convict is also awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for six months.
7 Both the sentences of the convict shall run concurrently. The convict shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Copies of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convict.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 31.03.2012 District Judge and
Addl. Sessions Judge, I/C (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
SC No.27/2011 State Vs. Mohan Lal etc. Page 30 of 30