Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Danish S/O Khalid, on 20 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02(NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No.84/2011
FIR No.141/2008
PS Bhajan Pura
U/s 326/307/34 IPC
State Versus 1. Danish S/o Khalid,
R/o V17/21, Gali No.16A,
Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi.
2. Shahnawaj Shah
S/o Nazim Afzal,
R/o 700/9, Gali No.27,
Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi53.
Date of Assignment. : 30.11.2011
Date of Arguments. : 20.12.2012
Date of Judgment. : 20.12.2012
J U D G M E N T :
1. The above named accused persons were charge sheeted U/s 326/307/34 IPC & Sec.25/27/54/59 Arms Act by the SHO PS Bhajan Pura and have faced trial for having committed offences punishable U/s 307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.
2. FACTUAL MATRIX: It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.04.2008 on receipt of DD No.21A, ASI Shri Ram alongwith HC Mushtaq went to the spot i.e. Bhagat Singh Park, MTNL Ground inside the tent of marriage, where they found a shirt having blood on it, one pair of sandal, one footwear State Vs. Danish & Anr. (SC No.84/2011) Page No. 1 of pages 8 (chappal) and blood was also found lying on the green colour carpet. No eye witness could be found there and on inquiry it was revealed that the injured had already been removed to the GTB Hospital by the relatives on private vehicle. Then after leaving HC Mushtaq at the spot, SI/IO went to GTB Hospital, where he collected the MLC of one Rehman S/o Anwar Khan, wherein doctor opined as "Alleged H/O Gun Shot Injury Fit For Statement injury U/o Fire Arm". Thereafter, he recorded the statement of injured/complainant Rehman in GTB Hospital, wherein he alleged that on 17.04.2008 he had gone to attend marriage of his relative at MTNL Park and at about 9.45 p.m accused Shehnawaz and Danish, who were know to him had also come there and had quarrel with one person namely Aabid. They were pacified by them and they went away. After some time, again accused Shahnawaz and his brother Danish and one other boy came there abusing and started beating Aabid and when he tried to intervene, Danish started telling that "hum pehle tere se hi nipat lete hain" and thereafter, Danish fired on him with arms already with him, which hit him on his hip. Shehnawaz with motive to fire him, again fired but on the way Danish came in between and that fire hit Danish. Many persons gathered there and accused persons fled away. From the statement and MLC, offence punishable U/s 326/34 IPC & Sec.27/54/59 Arms Act was found to be committed and SI/IO sent HC Mushtaq alongwith the tehrir for registration of FIR. Crime Team was sent at the spot. Investigation of the case was carried out, accused persons were arrested and State Vs. Danish & Anr. (SC No.84/2011) Page No. 2 of pages 8 thereafter, on completion of investigation challan u/s 326/34 IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act was filed before the concerned court of Ld. MM/KKD.
3. During the course of proceedings before Ld. MM (NE), KKD Delhi it was observed by the Ld. MM that prima facie offence U/Sec.307 IPC is made out which is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, so the case was committed to the court of Sessions.
4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, charge U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 27 Arms Act were framed against both the accused persons. Charge U/s 25 Arms Act was also framed separately against both the accused persons. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. In this case so far seven witnesses namely ASI Krishan Dutt (Duty Officer), Rehman (injured/complainant), Abid, Mubarak, Kallu Khan, Mohd. Ahmed & Yunus Khan have been examined as PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 & PW7 respectively were examined till today and today also three more witnesses i.e. Insp. Rajesh Dogra, Ct. Kulbir Singh and SI Raj Pal Singh have been examined as PW8, PW9 & PW10 respectively.
6. Out of ten witnesses examined by the prosecution, six witnesses i.e PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 & PW7 were the material witnesses of the occurrence but none of them have supported the story of prosecution and they all were declared hostile. They were cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP at length but nothing incriminating could be State Vs. Danish & Anr. (SC No.84/2011) Page No. 3 of pages 8 taken out from their mouth against the accused persons. They while denying all the suggestions put forward by Ld. Addl. PP completely denied the contents of the statements earlier recorded by the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Other witnesses i.e. PW1, PW8, PW9 & PW10 are formal/official witnesses, who have narrated only about their proceeding conducting during the relevant time.
7. PW-1 ASI Krishan Datt, Duty Officer, has proved on record the copy of FIR of the instant case as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. He also proved on record his endorsement made on rukka as Ex.PW1/B. PW2 Rehman (complainant/injured) has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has categorically stated that he can not tell as to who had fired on him. He flatly denied the suggestion that accused Danish had fired on his hip portion by fire arm or that accused Shahnawaz had also fired aiming him but the same hit Danish, as he came in between.
PW3 Abid (with whom the alleged incident of beatings by accused persons took place) has also not supported the case of the prosecution. First of all, he could not tell the exact date of incident. He stated that on the day of incident, when he had gone to attend the marriage party, at about 9.10 p.m he suddenly heard the noise of firing and on hearing the noise of firing, the persons started running/ dispersing from there. He stated that he had not seen as to who had fired. He specifically denied the suggestion that accused Danish and State Vs. Danish & Anr. (SC No.84/2011) Page No. 4 of pages 8 Shahnawaz are the same persons, who quarreled with him and gave beatings to him in the marriage party and his relatives tried to save him from them, they fired upon his relative Rehman.
PW4 Mubarak Ali (the alleged eye witness) has also not supported the case of prosecution while stating that he had not seen as to who had inflicted injuries on the person of Rehman, so he can not tell or identify the assailant. He denied that he snatched the KATTA/ country made pistol from Danish and handed over the same to the police, when police reached at the spot.
PW5 Kallu Khan (another eye witness of the incident) too has not supported the case of prosecution and stated that when he reached at the marriage, he came to know that one person has received injuries and thereafter, he came back to his home. He could not tell/identify as to who were the assailants. He denied that the incident had occurred in his presence or that accused Danish and Shehnawaj are the same persons, who had fired in the marriage party.
PW6 Mohd. Ahmed (the person, who had made call at 100 number) has also not supported the case of prosecution while stating that while he was taking refreshment at the said function, some told him that goli chali hai and thereafter, he made a call at 100 number. People, who were present there started running here and there and he also came back to his house. He could not tell as to who had fired and who had received fire injuries.
PW7 Yunus Khan (the alleged eye witness) has deposed on State Vs. Danish & Anr. (SC No.84/2011) Page No. 5 of pages 8 the same lines of PW6 and this witness too has not supported the case of prosecution by stating that while he was taking dinner at the said function, some body told him that goli chali hai and thereafter, he left the meal and came back to his house. He could not tell as to who had fired and who had received fire injuries.
PW8 Insp. Rajesh Dogra (Incharge Crime Team, NE) testified that on 17.04.2008 after receiving the call from the Duty Officer of PS Bhajan Pura, he alongwith his team consisting of Photographer and Finger Print Expert went to the spot i.e. MTNL Park, Bhajan Pura, where ASI Sri Ram alongwith his staff met them. He proved on record his inspection report as Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW9 Ct. Kulbir Singh testified that on 31.03.2009 at the directions of the IO, MHC(M) handed over two sealed parcels to him and took the same to FSL, Rohini vide RC No.15/21 and deposited the same in FSL Rohini. After depositing the case property in FSL, Rohini, he handed over the acknowledgment receipt to the MHC(M).
PW10 SI Raj Pal Singh (IO of the case) testified that on 09.06.2008 accused Shehnawaz and Danish were formally arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW10/A & B respectively and their personal search was also conducted vide moms Ex.PW10/C & D respectively. He had obtained the result about the nature of injury on the MLC of Rehman and doctor opined the nature of injury as simple. He also testified that he had purchased the six live cartridges from Chandni Chowk after seeking permission from the higher authority and the said State Vs. Danish & Anr. (SC No.84/2011) Page No. 6 of pages 8 cartridges were sealed in the cloth parcel with the seal of RPS and thereafter the above said parcel (containing six cartridges) and another parcel containing country made pistol were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Kulbir Singh vide RC No.15/21/09. He correctly identified both the accused, who were formally arrested by him.
8. In the case in hand, as many as twenty five witnesses have been cited by the prosecution, out of them the prosecution has examined the aforesaid ten witnesses, out of which PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 & PW7 are the star witnesses of the prosecution (being the injured/ complainant and alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence) and none of them has supported the story of prosecution. Although, they were cross examined by Ld. APP for the state at a great length but nothing incriminating against the accused persons could be taken out from them. The remaining witnesses are police/official witnesses and therefore, by making observation that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the trial by examining the remaining witnesses as it would be a futile exercise, the prosecution evidence was closed vide the order of even date.
9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they both denied the case of the prosecution on the ground of false implication. They opted not to lead any evidence in their defence.
10. I have heard the respective rival submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused persons and in the instant State Vs. Danish & Anr. (SC No.84/2011) Page No. 7 of pages 8 case where the prosecution has examined all the material witnesses of the occurrence and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and no incriminating evidence has come on record and the remaining witnesses are of formal/official nature, in these circumstances, I have no option but to acquit both the accused persons of the charges. Both the accused stand acquitted accordingly. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
(Announced in Open court (RAKESH KUMAR)
th
on 20 December, 2012) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Danish & Anr. (SC No.84/2011) Page No. 8 of pages 8