Delhi District Court
State vs Hardayal Rana Etc on 17 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI NAIN, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State V. Hardayal Rana @ Munna & ors.
FIR No. 305/2017
Under Section: 336/506/509 IPC & 25/27/30 Arms Act
Police Station: Swaroop Nagar
JUDGEMENT
Case registration No. : 708/2019
Date of Institution : 15.02.2019
Name of complainant : Smt. Urmila W/o Sh.Satish Kumar
Date of commission of offence : 08.10.2017
Name of accused :(1)Hardayual Rana@ Muna S/o Sh.Vijay
(2) Sulakshana W/o Sh. Vijay
(3) Vijay Pal S/o Late Sh.Narin Singh
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Judgment Case reserved on : 27.09.2023
Date of decision : 17.10.2023
Final order : Acquitted
FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 1 of 20
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Nain Date: 2023.10.17
17:50:31 +0530
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution shorn of unnecessary details is that on 08.10.2017, at about 05:55 pm, at House no. 17, Kadipur gali, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Swaroop Nagar, accused Hardayal Rana @ Munna did round fire with a Pistol/Rifle in a rash and negligent manner on the CCTV camera installed in front of the Haweli of Rajender and create endanger for human life and personal safety of others and accused Hardayal Rana criminally intimidated the complainant Smt. Urmila and also used abusive language against her with intent to insult her modesty. Further, accused Hardayal Rana was found in his possession of one pistol/rifle in contravention of Notification issued by Delhi Administration, without any permit or license and also threatened the complainant with Pistol/Rifle.
Further, on 08.10.2017, at about 05:55 pm, at House no. 17, Kadipur gali, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Swaroop Nagar, accused Sulakshana made contravention of license or rule and the provisions given under this act as her revolver/pistol was used by her son namely Hardayal Rana @ Munna.
Further, on 08.10.2017, at about 05:55 pm, at House no. 17, Kadipur gali, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Swaroop Nagar, accused Vijay Pal criminally intimidated the complainant Smt. Urmila and also used abusive language against her with intent to insult her modesty.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 2 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Nain Date: 2023.10.17 17:50:44 +0530 recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity]. The accused persons were arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused persons and challan was presented in the Court.
3. Copies of challan and relevant documents were supplied to the accused persons free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
Charge
4. A prima facie case under Sections 336/506/509 IPC & 25/27/30 were found to be made out against the accused persons. Charges were framed upon the accused Hardayal Rana @ Munna u/s 336/506/509 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, accused Sulakshana u/s 30 Arms Act and accused Vijay Pal u/s 506/509 IPC by the then Ld Predecessor on 07.12.2019. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined following witnesses:
6. PW1 is Urmila Rani W/o Sh. Satish Kumar, R/o H. No. 17, Post office Kadipur, North West Delhi - 110036.
(She is the complainant in the present case). She stated that she does not remember the exact date, month and year of offence, however, it was the day of Karwachaut Festival. The incident took place approximately four years ago at about 03:00/03:30 PM.
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Nain Date: 2023.10.17
17:50:54 +0530
FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 3 of 20
She further deposed, that on the day of incident, she was present at home alone. She heard a noise of firing ( goli chalne ki awaj ) and then, she came out from her house to see her grand son namely Naksh. When, she came out from the house, she saw accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu was having a rifle in his hand. Accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu had fired from his gun / rifle in front of their old haveli. She was under an apprehension that accused Hardayal Rana might fire upon her grandson namely Naksh. Accused Hardayal Rana gave a kick on the main gate of her house and threatened to kill her and her family members. Accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu was apprehended by his servant ( she does not remember his name ) and his family members and took the accused inside his house. IO recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/A bearing her name and thumb impression at Point A. She further deposed, that she had shown the place of incident to the police officials. Police officials had seized the CCTV Camera Footage from / near the spot. She further deposed, that she does not know whether accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu was arrested by the Police officials or not.
She further deposed, that she cannot identify the rifle which was having by the accused at that time. ( Vol. ) All the rifles are of similar type, therefore, I cannot identify the same. She further deposed, that she does not remember anything else about this case.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. She deposed in her crossexamination done by Ld. APP for the State, that " It is correct that the incident had taken place on 08.10.2017, at about 05:55 PM. It is correct that when the accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu moved towards FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 4 of 20 Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Jyoti Nain Date: 2023.10.17 17:51:07 +0530 me with his rifle, he was apprehended by his father namely Vijay Pal Rana and his mother namely Sulakshna or that they snatched the rifle from the hands of accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu. It is correct that accused Vijay Pal Rana took the above mentioned rifle in his house. Accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu and accused Vijay Pal Rana did not use abusive language against me. ( mujhe gandi gali nhi di ). It is wrong to suggest that accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu and Vijay Pal Rana used abusive language against me ( this fact is mentioned at point A to A1 on Ex. PW 1/A. It is correct that after the incident, I came inside my house. It is correct that the accused persons also went inside their house. (Vol) (After about, 10 minutes, I came out from my house and made a phone call to my husband from the mobile of store keeper). It is correct that accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu had fired from his rifle on a CCTV Camera installed in front of the haveli of Rajender Singh. I do not know whether 100 Number call was made by my son, my husband or any other person. It is wrong to suggest that my son namely Anshul had made call at 100 Number. It is correct that I did not sustain any injury in the said incident, therefore, I was not medically examined. It is correct that on 23.10.2017, my statement was also recorded by Ld. Magistrate which is Ex. PW 1/B bearing my thumb impression and name at Point A. It is correct that accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu threatened to kill me and my family members. It is correct that accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu had pointed his gun / rifle upon me. I do not remember whether the accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu was arrested by the IO on 08.10.2017 at about 09:15 PM. It is wrong to suggest that accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu was arrested by the IO on 08.10.2017 at about 09:15 PM at my instance vide memo Ex. PW 1/C bearing my thumb impression and name at Point A. It is FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 5 of 20 Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Jyoti Nain Date: 2023.10.17 17:51:12 +0530 correct that accused persons namely Hardayal Rana @ Mannu, Vijay Pal and Sulakshna are present in the court ( correctly identified by the witness ). It is wrong to suggest that I do not remember the complete facts due to lapse of long time".
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
7. PW2 is Anshul Rana S/o Satish Kumar R/o H. No. 17, Village Kadi Pur, Delhi.
He deposed, that on 08.10.2017, he was not present at his home. On that day, at about 05:00/05:30 PM, he received a phone call of his mother and thereafter, he reached at his home. His mother told him about the incident. She told him that accused Hardayal Rana @ Mannu run with his revolver. He further deposed, that he made call at 100 Number. After some time, police official reached at the spot and they carried out the investigation. IO recorded his statement and the statement of his mother.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
8. PW3 is Sudhir Rana S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Kishan Rana, R/o VPO Kadipur, Delhi - 110036.
He stated, that on 08.10.2017, at about 06:00 pm, he was present at his home. He heard a sound of firing. One boy namely Satender Rana and one lady who used to work at the house of accused Vijay Pal Rana came to his house and they informed him that the accused Hardayal Singh Rana @ Mannu fired with his rifle. He further deposed, that he does not remember the name of above mentioned FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 6 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Nain Date: 2023.10.17 17:51:16 +0530 lady but she resides in Kushak No. 2 Colony.
He further deposed, that he saw that accused Hardayal Rana went from his house from the back gate in his white color car. The above mentioned boy namely Satender Rana and above mentioned Lady also informed him that accused Hardayal Singh Rana was doing quarrel with his neighbour / aunty namely Urmila. He went near the Kadipur Haveli where one PCR Van came. SHO, PS Swaroop Nagar and other Police Officials came to the house of his brother namely Harpal Singh Rana and they checked the CCTV Camera which were installed in the House of his brother. In the CCTV Camera Footage, he and Police Officials saw the accused Hardayal Singh Rana was wandering near the Haveli alongwith the rifle and accused Hardayal Singh Rana was moving towards Urmila who was standing in front of her house. After some time, the Police officials came out from the house of his brother and they recovered 01 used cartridge. He further deposed, that he does not know anything else of about the present case.
This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State. He deposed in her crossexamination done by Ld. APP for the State, that "It is correct that Police officials recorded my statement which is marked as Mark X. It is wrong to suggest that I saw the accused Hardayal Singh Rana was having a rifle and he was standing near the Haveli of Rajender Singh ( confronted with the statement which is marked as Mark X from portion A to A1). It is correct that one boy namely Satender and one lady ( whose name I do not know ) had informed that accused Hardayal Singh Rana was in drunken condition. It is wrong to suggest that I saw the accused Hardayal Singh Rana fired on the CCTV Cameras installed in front of Rajender Singh's Haveli ( confronted with the FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 7 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date: 2023.10.17 Nain 17:51:21 +0530 statement Mark X from portion B to B1). I did not see when the parents of accused Hardayal Singh Rana snatched the rifle from the hands of accused Hardayal Singh Rana and they kept the same inside the House. It is wrong to suggest that the accused persons namely Vijay Pal and Sulakshna had snatched the rifle from the hands of accused Hardayal Singh Rana and they kept the same inside the house ( confronted with the statement Mark X from portion C to portion C1). It is correct that accused Vijay Pal Rana and his wife Sulakshna used abusive language against Urmila W/o Satish Kumar. It is correct that all the accused persons are present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. It is wrong to suggest that I am not disclosing complete facts as I have forgotten the same due to lapse of 05 years".
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
9. PW4 is HC Krishan Kumar, No. 8241/Security, PIS No. 28103966 He deposed that on 08.10.2017, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as Constable. On that day, he alongwith ASI Ramesh Kumar reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 17, Kadipur, Delhi where they met with the complainant Urmila. IO recorded the statement of complainant Urmila which is already exhibited as Ex.PW 1/A. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO.
He further deposed, that at about 09:15 pm, IO ASI Ramesh arrested the accused Hardayal Rana vide arrest memo which is already exhibited as Ex.
FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 8 of 20
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Date:
Nain 2023.10.17
17:51:25 +0530
PW1/C bearing his signatures at Point B. IO also conducted personal search of the accused Hardayal Rana vide memo which is exhibited as Ex.PW4/A bearing his signatures at Point A. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Hardayal Rana vide disclosure statement which is Ex. PW4/B bearing his signatures at Point A. Accused Hardayal Rana had produced one rifle alongwith the (07) Live Cartridges from his house. Accused Hardayal Singh Rana stated that he had used this rifle and fired one round with the rifle.
He further deposed, that IO did not prepare sketch of the rifle as no long white paper in size was available at that time. IO prepared sketch of the live cartridges which is exhibited as Ex.PW4/C. IO prepared pullindas of recovered 07 live cartridges and rifle. After that, they came to the PS alongwith accused Hardayal Singh Rana. Total Length of the above mentioned Rifle was 43.2 inch, length of the barrel was 12 inch, length of the butt of the rifle was 31.2 inch. During investigation, IO had also prepared site plan which is exhibited as Ex.PW4/D bearing his signatures at Point A. IO had also seized the recovered rifle and 07 cartridges vide memos which is exhibited as Ex.PW4/E bearing his signatures at Point A. This witness was also crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
10. PW5 is HC Chanderpal, No. 3829/DAP, PIS No. 28107978.
He deposed, that On 08.11.2017, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as a Constable. On that day, on the instruction of IO ASI Ramesh Kumar, he collected 02 sealed sample with the seal of RK from the MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide RC No. 186/21/17. He further deposed, that FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 9 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date:
Nain 2023.10.17
17:51:30 +0530
till the sample of the case property remained in his possession, no tempering was effected with the sample. He submitted the receiving copy to the MHC(M). IO recorded his statement.
This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
11. PW6 is SI Ramesh Kumar, No. 2863/D, PIS No. 28890784 He deposed, that on 08.10.2017, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as ASI. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 20A already Ex. A2, he alongwith Ct. Krishan reached at the spot i.e. House No. 17, Kadipur, Delhi where they met with complainant Urmila.
He further deposed, that he recorded statement of complainant Urmila which is already Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point B. He prepared rukka which is exhibited as Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at Point A and handed over the same to Ct. Krishan. Accordingly, Ct. Krishan went to the PS and got registered the present FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Krishan came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. In the mean time, he called Crime Inspection Team at the spot. The Crime Inspection Team had clicked the photographs of the spot as well as the photographs of rifle alongwith the cartridges.
He arrested the accused Hardayal Rana at the instance of complainant Urmila vide arrest memo which is already Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at Point C. He also conducted personal search of the accused Hardayal Rana vide personal search memo which is already Ex.PW4/A bearing his signatures at Point B. He recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide memo which is already exhibited as Ex.PW4/B bearing his signatures at Point B. After medical FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 10 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Nain Date: 2023.10.17 17:51:44 +0530 examination, accused was put into lock up.
He further deposed, that on the next day, the accused was sent to JC by order of Ld. Magistrate. On 23.10.2017, he produced the complainant Urmila Devi before the Ld. Magistrate for recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. On that day, statement of complainant Urmila was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate, Sh. Sachin Gupta, which is already Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed, that during the investigation, he had seized the above mentioned rifle with 05 live cartridges vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/E bearing his signatures at Point B. He deposited the case property in the Malkhana of PS Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
He further deposed, that on 08.11.2017, he sent the above mentioned rifle and cartridges to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Chander Pal. He does not remember the Road Certificate vide which the case property was sent to FSL for examination. During investigation, he had seized the Arms License produced by accused Vijay Pal vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW 6/B bearing my signatures at Point A. He further deposed, that on 25.10.2017, he got verified the above mentioned Arms License from the Licensing Authority, Defence Colony, PS Defence Colony, Delhi. On 05.03.2018, he received FSL Result pertaining to above mentioned rifle and cartridges. On 29.04.2018, he served notice u/s 41. A Cr.P.C to the accused persons Vijay Pal Rana and Sulochana Rana which are exhibited as Ex. PW 6/C and Ex. PW 6/D both bearing his signatures at Point A. After completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court for trial.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 11 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Nain Date: 2023.10.17 17:51:50 +0530
12. PW6 SI Ramesh Kumar deposed in his crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for the State that " It is correct that on 08.10.2017, I have prepared sketch of the 07 cartridges which is already exhibited as Ex. PW 4/C bearing my signatures at Point A. It is correct that on 08.10.2017, I had prepared sketch of the recovered rifle which is Ex. PW 6/E bearing my signatures at Point A. It is correct that on 08.11.2017, Anshul Rana ( son of the complainant ) handed over to me one CD of the alleged incident and I had seized the same which is Ex. PW 6/F bearing my signatures at Point A. It is correct that on 08.10.2017, I prepared site plan of the spot which is already Ex. PW 4/D bearing my signatures at Point B. It is correct that I had seized the 07 live cartridges.
Anshul Rana had not given to me 65 B Certificate to prove the genuineness of above mentioned CD. I did not seize DVR of the CCTV Camera".
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
13. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 30.11.2022.
Statement under section 313 Cr.PC
14. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.12.2022. All incriminating material brought on record were put to the accused persons to which they denied the allegations made against them and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons stated that they do not wish to lead any defence evidence in this case.
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Date: 2023.10.17
Nain 17:51:54 +0530
FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 12 of 20
Arguments
15. On the basis of the above oral and documentary evidence on record learned APP requested for conviction of the accused and severe punishment as per law.
16. On the other hand, learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. That there are grave discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. That the principal witness i.e. PW1 Urmila Rani in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she came out her house after listening to the sound of gun shot. That in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C she stated that she herself saw Hardayal Rana while he was firing from his rifle and that finally in her examination in chief, she has stated that she heard noise of firing and then came out from her house to see her grandson Naksh.
That the complainant in her crossexamination admitted that no bullet shell was recovered by police official in her presence from the spot.
That the complainant herself has admitted that accused Hardayal Rana and accused Vijay Pal Rana did not use abusive language against her. That the complainant failed to identify the rifle used in the commission of offence.
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons further argued that IO has failed to site any witness in the presence of whom the bullet shells were recovered, though shells have been sent to FSL for examination.
Ld. Counsel argued that even PW6 in his crossexamination has admitted that even the crime team did not recover any used cartridge from the spot FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 13 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Nain Date: 2023.10.17 17:51:59 +0530 on the date of alleged incident. That it has further been admitted by PW6 that he did not issue any Road Certificate while transferring the recovered rifle and cartridges from the house of the accused to FSL.
That CCTV footage is stated to have been handed over to the IO by son of the complainant but in reality, the CCTV footage is taken from the cameras installed in the premises of Harpal Singh Rana i.e. the brother of PW3 Sudhir Rana. That the CD containing the CCTV footage is not accompanied by certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act and moreover the CD was found corrupt when the court tried to run the same during the prosecution evidence.
That in his crossexamination, IO has stated that there was CCTV camera installed in the house of the complainant but the CCTV footage from this camera has not been provided by the complainant to the IO for the reasons best known to her. That even after knowing this fact, the IO did not make any effort to bring the CCTV footage on the record, thus the same creates doubt over the case of the prosecution.
Ld. Counsel argued that in examination in chief, IO has stated that he had seized 7 live cartridges from the spot but the photographs Ex.A8 (colly) reflects that there are only five cartridges in the holster of the rifle. That in the photograph, one cartridge is shown to be present in the chamber of the rifle. That IO has failed to answer in his crossexamination as to who had put that cartridge into the chamber of rifle. That no used cartridge was recovered from the spot. That the IO admitted that when the rifle was handed over to him, there were 07 cartridges in the holster and that there was no bullet in the chamber of the rifle but the photographs Ex.A8 (colly) show otherwise. That PW4 has also deposed on FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 14 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date: 2023.10.17 Nain 17:52:03 +0530 similar lines as that of IO that when the rifle was handed over to the IO by the accused, there was no bullet in the chamber of the rifle and all 07 bullets were present in the holster. That the possibility can not be denied that someone fired a gun shot from the rifle and that empty shell was sent to FSL for the purpose of examination.
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness and that owing to the previous enmity between the accused persons and complainant's family, accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, accused persons shall be acquitted of all the charges.
Point for determination
17. This court finds substance in the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the accused that there are various discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and especially the complainant. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that there is contradiction in the testimony of the complainant in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and her examination in chief. That during her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, she has stated that she came out of her house when the gun shot was fired and in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, she stated that she herself saw the accused Hardayal Rana firing from his rifle whereas in her examination in chief she has stated that after hearing noise of firing, she came out from her house. From this contradiction, it can be inferred that the complainant herself did not see FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 15 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Nain Date: 2023.10.17 17:52:10 +0530 the accused Hardayal Rana firing gun shot from his rifle.
That the complainant has turned hostile qua the accusation of criminal intimidation and use of abusive language against her when she deposed in her examination in chief that accused Hardayal Rana and accused Vijay Pal Rana did not use abusive language against her. Thus, the principal witness has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution for charges u/s 506/509 IPC qua accused Hardayal Rana and accused Vijay Pal Rana, accordingly, accused Hardayal Rana and accused Vijay Pal Rana stands acquitted of the offence u/s 506/509 IPC.
18. That the complainant has failed to identify the rifle which the accused was having at the time of incident. That the CCTV footage Ex.X1 which supposedly captured the incident, is not accompanied by certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, moreover, it could not be run before this court owing to it being corrupted.
19. That the testimony of PW2 i.e. son of the complainant being hearsay can not be read in evidence. Further, PW3 has not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied the suggestion that he saw accused Hardayal Rana having rifle while standing near the Haveli of Rajender Singh. PW3 has further denied the suggestion that accused Hardayal Rana fired on the CCTV cameras installed in front of Rajender Singh's haveli. PW3 stated that he did not see the parent of accused Hardayal Rana snatching rifle from his hand. The CCTV footage that PW3 tried to rely upon, has not ever been run before this court, thus, much FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 16 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date: 2023.10.17 Nain 17:52:14 +0530 reliance can not even be placed upon the testimony of PW3.
Further, this court agrees with the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the possibility of tampering with the case property can not be denied since, seal handing over memo has not been prepared and the road certificate vide which the case property was sent to FSL for examination has not been produced before this court. That no explanation has come on the record as to why the seal was not handed over to an independent witness. Reliance is placed on "Ramji Singh V/s State of Haryana " 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that:
7. "The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out".
20. Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Safiullah v. State", 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 622, held that "10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 17 of 20 Jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Nain Date: 2023.10.17 Nain 17:52:31 +0530 preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused."
21. That PW4 and PW6 have stated that the IO had seized the rifle and 7 cartridges vide seizure memo. That the IO has admitted that no bullet was there in the chamber of the rifle and it contained 7 cartridges in its pouch. That the same is contradictory to the photographs Ex.A8 (colly), which reflects five cartridges in the pouch and one cartridge in the chamber. That the IO has not been able to answer qua the aforesaid discrepancy.
22. All the lapses in investigation creates serious doubt on the very recovery of the rifle and cartridges from the possession of the accused Hardayal Rana. The court is of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused Hardayal Rana qua the section 25 of Arms Act, accordingly, accused Hardayal Rana stands acquitted for the offence under section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
23. Since, accused Hardayal Rana stands acquitted of the offence u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act, thus, in absence of the same, accused Sulakshana can not be accused of contravention of licence or rule and the provision given under the Arms Act, since, it has not been proved that her rifle was used by her son namely Hardayal Rana, accordingly, accused Sulakshana is acquitted for the offence u/s 30 of Arms Act.
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Date:
Nain 2023.10.17
17:52:36 +0530
FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 18 of 20
24. Finally, coming to the accusation of firing round with rifle in rash and negligent manner on the CCTV cameras installed in front of the haveli of Rajender and endangering human life and personal safety of other, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record sufficient evidences which could proved the guilt of accused Hardayal Rana u/s 336 IPC.
25. At this stage, court deems it fit to state, that no doubt wrong acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of the innocent man. The consequences of conviction of innocent men are far more serious and its reverberation would be felt by an innocent all his life in a civilized society, therefore, it is the duty of the court to avoid any wrongful conviction and to grant benefit of doubt where ever the need arises. If two views are possible, one favouring the accused and the other against him, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and in the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
26. At this stage, court further deems it fit to state, that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, that culpability cannot be established on surmises and conjectures, but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence, dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence must have been committed by the accused. In the present case, it is pellucid, that the case of the prosecution suffers from several glaring loopholes, as there are numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of star witness itself.
FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 19 of 20
Jyoti Digitally signed
by Jyoti Nain
Date:
Nain 2023.10.17
17:52:41 +0530
27. Therefore, in light of the above observations and findings, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Hardayal Rana beyond reasonable doubt qua accusation u/s 336 IPC as well. Accordingly, accused Hardayal Rana is also acquitted from the charge under section 336 IPC.
28. Previous Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. Endorsement if any, be cancelled and documents if any, be returned, against acknowledgment after due verification. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
29. This judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signedAnnounced and dictated directly Jyoti by Jyoti Nain Date:
2023.10.17 into the computer in open court on 17th day of October, 2023.
Nain 17:52:47
+0530
(JYOTI NAIN)
MM07, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURT, DELHI
FIR No. 305/17 State Vs. Hardayal Rana & Ors PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 20 of 20