Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajendra Sharma And Others on 26 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(FAST TRACK COURT), SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Manika
Sessions Case No. 441022/2016
CNR no. DLSW010002502012
STATE Vs. RAJENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS
FIR No : 211/2012
Police Station : Dwarka North
Under Section : 143/147/148/149/201/448/
307/323/34 IPC & 27/30
Arms Act
Date of institution : 11.12.2012
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 22.12.2012
Date of receipt by way of transfer : 13.09.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 26.08.2023
Date of judgment : 26.08.2023
a) Serial number of the 441022/2016
case
b) Date of commission of 12.09.2012
offence
c) Name of the complainant Mr. Suman Kumar Gola
d) Name, parentage and 1. Rajendra Sharma s/o Leelu
addresses of the accused Ram r/o C-4, Baghya Vihar, Jain
persons colony, Rani Khera, Delhi.
2. Ajay Tripathi @ Monu s/o
Raghav Tripathi r/o A-120, Vipin
Garden, Sainik Enclave, Uttam
State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 1 of 19
Nagar, near Gori Shankar Mandir,
Delhi.
3. Jai Bhagwan s/o Jasmal Singh
r/o H. No.293, Village and Post
Office Rani Khera, New Delhi-
110081.
4. Manoj @ Monu s/o Dalbir
Singh r/o VPO Naya Gaon, PS
Bahadurgarh Sadar, District
Jhajjar, Haryana.
5. Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota
s/o Mukhtyar Singh r/o Village
Naya Gaon, PS Bahadurgarh
Sadar, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
6. Raj Kumar @ Matu s/o Jagbir
r/o H. No.181, VPO Rani Khera,
New Delhi.
7. Purushottam s/o Narayan
Singh r/o D-847, VPO Dichaun
Kalan, Delhi.
8. Vijender @ Babloo s/o Sri
Ram Chander r/o 50/1, VPO
Mundka, New Delhi.
9. Manoj @ Dillu s/o Jagbir
Singh r/o H. No.181, VPO Rani
Khera, New Delhi.
10. Ravinder s/o Chand Singh r/o
VPO Naya Gaon, PS Bahadurgarh
Sadar, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
11. Dharmender s/o Rajender
Singh r/o H. No.127 VPO Jaunti,
PS Kanjhawala, Delhi-110081
State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 2 of 19
12. Anand s/o Sher Singh r/o 143-
144, Kakrola Dairy, Nand Vihar,
Kakrola, Delhi.
13. Krishan @ Sunda s/o
Mahender Singh r/o H. no.72,
VPO Bakkarwala, Delhi
14. Amarjeet s/o Virender Singh
r/o Flat no.735, Pocket-A,
Bakkarwala, Delhi
e) Offence complained of Under Section 147/148/149/
201/307/323/448/34 IPC & 27/30
Arms Act
f) Plea of accused All accused persons pleaded not
guilty.
g) Final order Accused Rajendra Sharma, Ajay
Tripathi @ Monu, Jai Bhagwan,
Manoj @ Monu, Karambir @
Kale @ Chhota, Raj Kumar @
Matu, Purushottam, Vijender @
Babloo, Manoj @ Dillu,
Ravinder, Dharmender, Anand,
Krishan @ Sunda and Amarjeet
are acquitted of the offences
punishable under Section
147/148/149/448 IPC, Section
307 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC and
Section 323 IPC r/w Section 149
IPC.
Accused Manoj @ Monu is
acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 30 Arms
Act
Accused Karambir @ Kale @
Chhota is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 27 Arms
Act and Section 201 IPC
State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 3 of 19
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the accused persons namely Rajendra Sharma, Ajay Tripathi @ Monu, Jai Bhagwan, Manoj @ Monu, Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota, Raj Kumar @ Matu, Purushottam, Vijender @ Babloo, Manoj @ Dillu, Ravinder, Dharmender, Anand, Krishan @ Sunda and Amarjeet Singh are being acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'), Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC; accused Manoj @ Monu is being acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 30 Arms Act and accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota is being acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 27 Arms Act and Section 201 IPC in the instant case FIR No. 211/2012 Police Station Dwarka North, New Delhi for the reasons mentioned below.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.09.2012 at about 06:45 pm, at Plot No. C-22, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, Delhi all the fourteen accused persons named above formed an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapon, in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, committed house trespass in the aforesaid plot belonging to complainant Mr. Suman Kumar Gola, attempted to commit murder of Mr. Suman Kumar Gola and also gave beatings to the complainant's mother Ms. Bhagwan Devi thereby causing simple injuries on her State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 4 of 19person. It is further the case of prosecution that accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota and accused Krishan @ Sunda fired on the complainant and one bullet fired by accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota hit the complainant on the right side. It is further the case of prosecution that accused Manoj @ Monu had given his licensed revolver to co-accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota, who had, without any licence, used the same to fire on the complainant. It is further alleged by the prosecution that accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota had thrown the fired cartridge in a drain near Jharoda with the intention to screen himself from legal punishment.
3. The circumstances setting the criminal law into motion, as per the record of the case, are that on receipt of DD No. 68 B dated 12.09.2012, Sub Inspector (hereinafter referred to as 'SI') Nanag Ram alongwith Probationary Sub Inspector (hereinafter referred to at 'PSI') Dharmendra reached at Plot no. C-22, Hari Vihar, Kakrola where blood was found scattered in front of a constructed room. On inquiry, they came to know that the injured had already been shifted to the hospital by the PCR Van. Crime team was informed and the spot was got inspected through the Crime Team. In the meantime, SI Nanag Ram received DD No. 71 B regarding admission of injured at Deen Dayal Upadhyay hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'DDU hospital') and he accordingly proceeded for the hospital leaving PSI Dharmender to safeguard the spot. Injured Mr. Suman S/o Mr. Mahabir Prasad was found admitted at DDU Hospital vide MLC no. 18747/12 and his mother Ms. Bhagwan Devi was found admitted vide MLC no. 18749/12. The patient/injured Suman was declared fit State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 5 of 19for statement by the doctor. SI Nanag Ram recorded the statement of the injured Suman and also collected the MLCs of both the injured persons. Thereafter, SI Nanag Ram returned to the spot, prepared rukka and got the present FIR registered. SI Nanag Ram collected the exhibits i.e. blood, blood sand and earth control from the spot, prepared the site plan, and arrested accused Rajendra S/o Leelu Ram Sharma. Accused Rajendra produced photocopies of the documents (forged GPA) to the IO. Police custody remand of accused Rajendra was obtained and during the remand, accused Jai Bhagwan and Ajay Tripathi were arrested at the instance of the accused Rajendra. Application for TIP of accused Jai Bhagwan and Ajay Tripathi was moved, however, both of them refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. During further investigation, accused Manoj @ Monu was also arrested and the weapon of offence i.e. revolver and five live cartridges were recovered from him. At the instance of accused Manoj @ Monu, accused Karambir @ Kale, who had allegedly used the weapon was also arrested. Application for TIP of accused Manoj @ Monu and Karambir @ Kale was moved, however, both of them refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. During further investigation, accused Raj Kumar @ Matu was arrested and at his instance accused Vijender @ Bablu was arrested. Application for TIP of accused Raj Kumar @ Matu and Vijender @ Bablu was moved, however, both of them refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. From accused Vijender @ Bablu, the vehicle bearing registration No. HR 13F 2819 allegedly used by the accused persons was seized. During further investigation, accused Amarjeet was arrested by SI Raj State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 6 of 19Malik and accused Purshottam was arrested by SI Virender Kumar. The blood sample of complainant Suman was collected by the doctor and the samples were sent to the FSL for comparison, during investigation. Accused Manoj @ Dillu S/o Jagbir, who had moved an application for anticipatory before the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, South West, also joined the investigation. Application for TIP of accused Manoj @ Dillu was moved, however, he refused to participate in the TIP proceedings and his application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, South West District. Accused Krishan @ Sunda had also moved an application for anticipatory bail, however, he did not appear for TIP proceedings and also did not cooperate in the investigation and accordingly, his anticipatory bail application was dismissed. At the time of filing of charge-sheet, accused Manoj @ Dillu, Anand, Ravinder, Dharmender and Krishan @ Sunda were evading arrest and were declared absconders. During investigation, the investigating officer obtained the mobile numbers of the accused persons and collected their ownership records, call details and location record from the concerned service providers, whereby it was revealed that most of the mobile phones which were being used by the accused persons at the time of incident, were owned by some other persons and their locations at the time of incident were of the area around the place of incident. The investigating officer also recorded the statements of witnesses and obtained the result on the MLC of the injured. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court on 11.12.2012. On 11.03.2013, supplementary charge-sheet was filed qua accused State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 7 of 19Krishan @ Sunda, Dharmender, Ravinder and Manoj @ Dillu. Thereafter, on 24.05.2013, another supplementary charge-sheet was filed qua accused Anand S/o Sh. Sher Singh alongwith FSL result.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. In light of the police report and the documents filed alongwith the same, cognizance was taken vide order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.PC, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 21.12.2012, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.
6. The case was received by way of transfer by this Court on 13.09.2022.
CHARGE
7. Vide order dated 19.01.2013, passed by the Court of Mr. S.C. Rajan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, South West, Delhi, charge for the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/448 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC and Section 323/149 IPC was framed against accused Rajendra Sharma, Ajay Tripathi @ Monu, Jai Bhagwan, Vijender @ Bablu, Amarjeet Singh, Manoj @ Monu, Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota, Rajkumar @ Matu and Purushottam. Separate charge for the offence punishable under Section 30 Arms Act was framed against accused Manoj @ Monu. Further, separate charge for the offences punishable under Section 27 Arms Act and Section 201 IPC was framed against accused Karambir @ Kale.
State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 8 of 198. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.08.2013, passed by the Court of Mr. S.C. Rajan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, South West, Delhi, charge for the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/448 IPC, Section 307/149 IPC and Section 323/149 IPC was framed against accused Dharmender, Ravinder, Krishan @ Sunda, Anand and Manoj @ Dillu.
9. The respective charges were read over and explained to all the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
10. Vide order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Predecessor of this court, on the statement of Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the accused persons that they were not objecting to the reports of Dr. Akansha, Dr. Anupam, Dr. Anup, Nodal Officer Vodafone, Nodal Officer Airtel Bharti and Nodal Officer Tata and the PCR Forms prepared by Constable Mohit and Woman Constable Sunita, the respective reports of the said witnesses were exhibited on record.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
11. The prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses to prove the allegations levelled against the accused persons.
12. PW-1 Dr. Sanjay Rai, PW-2 Dr. Manjeet and PW-3 Dr. Vinal are doctors of DDU Hospital who have been examined to prove the MLCs of the injured persons. PW-17 Mr. Bhupinder Singh is the Senior Radiographer, DDU Hospital, who has been examined to prove the X-ray reports of complainant Suman and State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 9 of 19injured Bhagwan Devi.
13. PW-4 Assistant Sub Inspector Kailash Chander, PW-5 Constable Rakesh and PW-14 Constable Vijay Kumar are the duty officers/DD writers who have been examined to prove the FIR and various DD entries.
14. PW-6 Mr. Sanjay is the registered owner/superdar in respect of car bearing no. HR-13F-2819 make Verna.
15. PW-7 Mr. Amarnath Singh is the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular, who has been examined to prove the Call Detail Records and Customer Application Forms in respect of mobile no. 8744902063, 9891481605 and 9728733678.
16. PW-8 Mr. Suman Kumar Gola is the complainant and one of the injured and PW-9 Ms. Bhagwan Devi is the other injured. They are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident.
17. PW-10 Mr. Raghvender and PW-13 Mr. Joginder Pal Singh @ Kuku are brothers of the complainant and PW-11 Mr. Mahavir Prasad Gola is the father of the complainant. They are witnesses to the events preceding the alleged incident.
18. PW-12 Constable Om Prakash, PW-15 Assistant Sub Inspector Bijender and PW-18 Head Constable Pratap Singh had participated in the investigation. PW-16 Constable Anil is the photographer of crime team, who had photographed the scene of crime. PW-19 Inspector Raj Malik and PW-20 Sub Inspector Nanag Ram are the investigating officers in the present case.
State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 10 of 19DEFENCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
19. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, vide orders dated 08.07.2023 and 18.07.2023, all accused persons have denied the entire incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and stated that no public witness has deposed against them. Accused persons preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
20. The record has been carefully perused. The respective submissions of Mr. Girish Kumar Manhas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mudgil, learned counsel for the accused persons have been duly considered.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
21. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution was inter alia required to prove the identity of the accused persons as the assailants, the factum of formation of unlawful assembly by the accused persons, the fact that they committed house trespass in the plot/house of the complainant, the factum of happening of the alleged incident of firing at injured Mr. Suman Kumar Gola, the factum of a bullet fired by accused Karambir @ Kale hitting Mr. Suman Kumar Gola on his right side, the factum of beatings given to Smt. Bhagwan Devi by the accused persons, the factum of handing over of licensed revolver by accused Manoj @ Monu to co-accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota, the factum of firing by accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota with the revolver belonging to accused Manoj @ Monu and the factum of throwing of a fired cartridge in a drain State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 11 of 19by accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota.
22. For proving the aforesaid aspects, the most important witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW-8/complainant Mr. Suman Kumar Gola and PW-9 Ms. Bhagwan Devi being the victims/injured and eye-witnesses of the alleged incident.
23. PW-8 Mr. Suman Kumar Gola is the complainant and one of the victims in the present case. He deposed in his examination- in-chief that plot no. C-22, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi ad-measuring 200 square yards had been purchased by his father about 28-30 years prior to his testimony and the same had been in the possession of his family since then. He deposed that one room had been constructed upon the said plot and his family used to visit the same. He deposed that on 12.09.2012, he alongwith his mother Smt. Bhagwan Devi went to the aforesaid plot at about 7.00 pm and saw that 50-60 persons had gathered in the gali. He deposed that the said persons were quarreling with each other, though he did not know the issue over which they were quarreling. He deposed that suddenly all the said persons started running here and there and some object hit on his right leg. He deposed that he did not know as to who had hit him on his leg. He specifically deposed that none from among the aforesaid 50- 60 persons was present in the court on the day of his deposition. He stated that he did not know anything more about the present case. He further stated that his statement was not recorded by the police and volunteered that his signatures were obtained by the police in the hospital while he was not fully conscious.
24. PW-8 was cross-examined by learned Additional Public State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 12 of 19Prosecutor for State as he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police. In his cross-examination on behalf of the State, the complainant PW-1 admitted that the statement mark A bears his signatures at point A, however, he denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the police or that he was fully conscious at that time. He denied the suggestion that on 11.09.2012, accused Amarjeet and Rajendra had come to his plot at about 4.00 pm and showed some documents. He further denied the suggestion that on 12.09.2012, at about 04.00 pm, accused Karambir @ Kale had come to his plot and claimed that the said plot belonged to him. He further denied the suggestion that accused Karambir @ Kale had threatened to kill him. He denied having informed the police on 100 number on that day. He denied that on 12.09.2012, at about 06.45 pm, all the accused persons had come to his plot and accused Karambir @ Kale had claimed to have purchased the said plot in consideration of Rs.9,20,000/- or that he had asked him to return the said amount. He further denied the suggestion that he and his mother had been beaten by all the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that the accused Karambir @ Kale had taken out a pistol and fired three rounds out of which one had hit on his right leg. He denied the suggestion that he had named accused Amarjeet, Rajendra, Kale and others in his statement given to the police. He denied the suggestion that he had entered into a compromise with the accused persons outside the court and was therefore, not deposing against any of them. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely.
25. Perusal of the testimony of the complainant/PW-8 shows State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 13 of 19that he has not supported the prosecution version regarding occurrence of the incident. He has completely absolved the accused persons of any role in the alleged occurrence by stating that none of the 50-60 persons, who had gathered in the gali, were present in the court on the day of his deposition. He has denied having made any statement at all to the police and while he admitted his signatures on the statement mark A, he disowned the said statement stating that his signatures had been obtained by the police in the hospital while he was not fully conscious. Thus, in his testimony recorded in the court, the complainant/PW-8 has completely denied his earlier version recorded in his complaint Mark A. His testimony, therefore, does not aid the prosecution in establishing the charge against the accused persons.
26. PW-9 Ms. Bhagwan Devi is also an injured in the present case. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that her husband had purchased a plot admeasuring 200 square yards situated at C-22, Hari Vihar, Kakrola, New Delhi in the year 1988 and since then it had been in their possession. She deposed that one room was constructed on the said plot and they used to visit the same. She deposed that on 12.09.2012, she alongwith her son Mr. Suman Kumar Gola went to the aforesaid plot at about 07.00 pm and they saw that 40-50 persons had gathered in the gali and were quarrelling with each other. She deposed that suddenly all of them started running here and there and her son Mr. Suman Kumar Gola fell down due to stampede and sustained injuries on his right leg. She deposed that none of the said persons was present in the court on the day of her State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 14 of 19deposition. She stated that she did not know anything more about the present case. She further deposed that her statement was not recorded by the police.
27. PW-9 was cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State as she had resiled from her previous statement given to the police. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her statement had been recorded by the police. She specifically denied the suggestion that on 12.09.2012 at about 04.00 pm, accused Karambir @ Kale had come to their plot and claimed to be the owner thereof. She denied the suggestion that accused Karambir @ Kale had threatened to kill them. She further denied the suggestion that on 12.09.2012, at about 06.45 pm, all the accused persons had come to their plot and accused Karambir @ Kale had claimed to have purchased the said plot in consideration of Rs.9,20,000/- or that he had asked them to return the amount. She further denied the suggestion that she and her son were beaten by all the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that accused Karambir @ Kale had taken out a weapon and fired 03/04 rounds out of which one hit on the right leg of her son Mr. Suman Kumar Gola. She denied having named accused Amarjeet, Rajendra, Kale and others in her statement given to the police. She further denied the suggestion that they had compromised the matter with the accused persons outside the court and hence, she was not deposing against them. She further denied that she was deposing falsely.
28. Going by the testimony of PW-9, no incident as alleged in the complaint Ex.PW20/A had taken place on the alleged date, State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 15 of 19place and time. She has rather deposed that some 40-50 persons were quarrelling amongst themselves in the gali near her husband's plot and her son Mr. Suman Kumar Gola had sustained injuries on his leg due to a fall caused by a stampede. She has not identified any of the accused persons as having been present at the spot on the date and time of the alleged incident. The testimony of PW-9, therefore, does not aid the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused persons in respect of any of the offences for which they are charged.
29. From the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9 discussed above, it is evident that neither of them have identified the accused persons as the persons who had allegedly trespassed into their plot, fired at the complainant PW-8 Mr. Suman Kumar Gola or beaten PW-9 Ms. Bhagwan Devi. Further, as already pointed out above, neither of the aforesaid witnesses have supported the case of prosecution with regard to the cause of injury sustained by the complainant Mr. Suman Kumar Gola. Thus, neither of the injured/eye witnesses to the alleged incident, cited and examined on behalf of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged incident and the complicity of the accused persons or any of them in commission of the alleged offences. The same falsifies the prosecution version of involvement of the accused persons in the present case as well as the manner of occurrence of the alleged incident.
30. The remaining public witnesses, namely, PW-10 Mr. Raghvender, PW-11 Mr. Mahavir Prasad Gola and PW-13 Joginder Pal Singh @ Kuku had been examined merely as witnesses to the events preceding the alleged incident. None of State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 16 of 19them deposed regarding the alleged incident dated 12.09.2012. In fact, all three of them have stated in their examination-in-chief itself that no incident pertaining to the present case had taken place in their presence. Moreover, the said witnesses have not even supported the prosecution version with regard to the event dated 11.09.2012 which had allegedly preceded the alleged incident dated 12.09.2012. Thus, even the testimony of PW-10, PW-11 and PW-13 is not of any assistance to the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused persons with respect to the charge against them.
31. All the remaining witnesses cited or examined by the prosecution are either doctors or formal/police witnesses and their testimony is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons or either of them.
32. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons, namely, accused Rajendra Sharma, Ajay Tripathi @ Monu, Jai Bhagwan, Manoj @ Monu, Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota, Raj Kumar @ Matu, Purushottam, Vijender @ Babloo, Manoj @ Dillu, Ravinder, Dharmender, Anand, Krishan @ Sunda and Amarjeet.
33. As regards the charge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC against accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota, the only material on record is the alleged disclosure statement Ex.PW12/J2 of the accused Karambir @ Kale. As per the said statement, the accused Karambir @ Kale had disclosed that he had taken out the empty cartridges from the weapon of State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 17 of 19offence and thrown them in a drain near Jharoda. It is not the case of the prosecution that, pursuant to the aforesaid disclosure statement, any empty cartridge was recovered from the alleged drain near Jharoda. The said statement, having been recorded while the accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota was in police custody, is not admissible in evidence being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. No other evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid allegation. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the charge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC against accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota.
34. Accordingly, the accused persons, namely, accused Rajendra Sharma, Ajay Tripathi @ Monu, Jai Bhagwan, Manoj @ Monu, Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota, Raj Kumar @ Matu, Purushottam, Vijender @ Babloo, Manoj @ Dillu, Ravinder, Dharmender, Anand, Krishan @ Sunda and Amarjeet are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/448 IPC, Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, accused Manoj @ Monu is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 30 Arms Act and accused Karambir @ Kale @ Chhota is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 27 Arms Act and Section 201 IPC.
35. Necessary bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. with sureties along with passport size photographs and proofs of residence of the accused persons as well as sureties and proof of soundness of the sureties have been furnished by the accused persons and accepted.
State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 18 of 1936. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 26th August, 2023.
(MANIKA) Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi State Vs. Rajendra Sharma and Ors.
FIR No. 211/2012 PS Dwarka North Page 19 of 19