Delhi District Court
State vs . Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 1 Of 20 on 14 November, 2022
:: 1 ::
In the Court of Sh. Narottam Kaushal
Principal District and Sessions Judge : South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
In the matter of :
Session Case No. 7210/16
FIR No. 63/15
u/Sec. 307/34/120B/182/195 IPC & Sec. 25/27Arms Act
PS Ambedkar Nagar
CNR No. DLST01-001118-2015
STATE
VERSUS
1. GAURAV @ MUNDI
S/o Sh. Preetam
R/o G-1/121, Madangir
New Delhi
2. SANDEEP
S/o Sh. Ramesh
R/o G-1/132, Madangir
New Delhi ... Accused
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 10.04.2015
Date of committal : 13.05.2015
Arguments heard on : 27.10.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 14.11.2022
Argued by: Sh. R.K. Pandey, Ld. Chief Prosecutor for State.
Sh. Rajesh Pandey, Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGMENT
14.11.2022 1.1 Accused Gaurav @ Mundy and Sandeep have been charge- sheeted by PS Ambedkar Nagar for offences punishable under SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 1 of 20 :: 2 ::
Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Section 182/195 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act.
2.1 It is the case of prosecution that accused Gaurav @ Mundy and Sandeep along with two juveniles, (whose identities have been withheld and for the sake of convenience, they shall henceforth be named as 'Y @ M' and 'V'); all the four accused persons had conspired to falsely implicate Vikas, Manish, Deepak and Monu in a criminal case, as they bore a grude. They also wanted to pressurise one Rafiqu through the aforementioned four persons, who had previously complained against accused Gaurav @ Mundi. On the basis whereof, accused Gaurav @ Mundi was facing a trial for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
2.2 It is further the case of prosecution that in furtherance of aforenoticed conspiracy, CCL 'Y @ M' allowed himself to be shot at by accused Gaurav @ Mundi and the pistol after use was handed over to other CCL 'V'. Subsequently, pistol was recovered from the possession of accused Sandeep. As a part of conspiracy, accused Sandeep called up police and gave false information that his friend 'Y @ M' had been shot at by Vikas, Manish, Deepak and Monu. A written complaint was filed at PS Ambedkar Nagar by CCL 'Y @ M'. However, during investigation, the CCL broke down and gave true facts of attempt to falsely implicate Vikas, Manish, Deepak and Monu SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 2 of 20 :: 3 ::
2.3 Further, during investigation, it unrevelled that all the four persons sought to be implicated by 'Y @ M' were found at their respective residences at the alleged time of occurrence. During investigation, IO/ SI Ram Singh recorded statements of witnesses, recovered the fire arm, collected forensic report and submitted charge-sheet.
3.1 After taking cognizance, predecessor of this court framed charge against accused Gaurav @ Mundi and Sandeep for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and also, under Section 307 IPC read with Section 195 IPC and Section 182 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.2 Accused Gaurav @ Mundi was also charged for offence punishable under Section 25/27 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty. Accused Sandeep was separately charged for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act.
4. Prosecution in support of its case examined 25 witnesses:.
(i) PW-2 Abhishek and PW-5 Suraj deposed that when they were going to market, they saw 'Y @ M' in injured condition near Charley Collection, Madangir and they took him to AIIMS Trauma Centre on their scooty;
SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 3 of 20:: 4 ::
(ii) PW-6 Darshan Kumar is uncle of Manish @ Mani and deposed regarding quarrel between two groups on 14.01.2015;
(iii) PW-9 Saurabh Aggarwal and PW-11 Surender Kumar, Nodal Officers from Vodafone IDEA Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd., respectively. PW-9 proved record Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/S w.r.t. mobile numbers 7838658136, 9899735219, 8585948191, 9899615441, 9899256198. 9711160174. PW-11 proved record Ex.PW11/A to Ex.PW11/F w.r.t. mobile numbers 9560630089 and 9650986714.
(iv) PW-19 Dr. S.S. Murthy is expert witness, who had examined country made pistol and cartridges and gave his report Ex.PW19/A.
(v) PW-20 Ms. Pooja Shrotriya is also an expert witness, who had examined blood stained shirt and sweater and gave her report Ex.PW20/A.
(vi) PW-21 Sh. Kartar Singh, Record Clerk and PW-22 Dr. Piyush Mishra were deputed by MS, JPNA, Trauma Centre, AIIMS to depose on behalf of Dr. Mayank Sinha, who had prepared MLC of injured 'Y @ M'. PW-21 proved MLC Ex.PW21/A. PW-22 deposed about injury caused to 'Y @ M', which was simple in nature.
(vii) PW-13 Ct. Sunil Kumar, PW-14 HC Parasram, PW-15 Ct. Sandeep Kumar, PW-16 Ct.
SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 4 of 20:: 5 ::
Rasool, PW-17 HC Vikram, PW-18 SI Satish, PW-23 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan and PW-24 ASI Dinesh Chandra are police officials, who have deposed about their respective roles in investigation.
(viii) PW-1 Deepak, PW-4 Manish, PW-6 Surender, PW-7 Anup Kumar, PW-10 Vijay and PW- 12 Rupesh Kumar are witnesses, who did not support the case of prosecution and were declared hostile.
(ix) PW-25 SI Ram Singh is IO of the case, who after conclusion of investigation had filed charge-sheet in the court.
5. Incriminating evidence that had come up against accused persons was put to them and their respective statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. They denied the prosecution case and claimed the same to be false and fictitious but declined to lead evidence in their defence.
6. Sh. R.K. Pandey, Chief Prosecutor has argued that prosecution case is established beyond reasonable doubt from the ocular and circumstantial evidence. Medical evidence also supports the case of prosecution and accused ought to be convicted and sentenced.
7.1 Sh. Rajesh Pandey, Counsel for accused has contested the case of prosecution. It is argued that offence under Section 307 SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 5 of 20 :: 6 ::
IPC is not attracted at all, as actually there was no intention to cause death, when 'Y @ M' allowed himself to be shot at by accused Gaurav @ Mundi. As per the case of prosecution itself, it was sham act only with the purpose of creating evidence against Vikas, Manish, Deepak and Monu. It is therefore, argued that offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted against any of the accused persons. Moreover, CCL 'Y @ M' who had been shot at and had allegedly received injury, has not even been cited or examined as witness. His MLC Ex.PW21/A opines the injury to be simple, on a non-vital part of the body. Therefore, there is no evidence for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
7.2 As regards offences punishable under Section 195/182 IPC, it is argued that court has committed error in taking cognizance of the offence in the absence of any complaint by public servant against whom offence is alleged to have been committed. It is thus, argued that accused persons have been falsely charge-
sheeted and subjected to unnecessary trial. Reliance has been placed upon law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Sushil Sharma Vs. State Crl. Revision No. 418/08 decided on 27.02.2015. Reliance has also been placed on Pankaj Chaudhary Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 384/2000 decided on 05.05.2009.
8. In rebuttal, Ld. Chief Proseuctor has argued that as regards, SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 6 of 20 :: 7 ::
offence under Section 195 IPC, cognizance by court is barred under Section 195(1)(b) IPC' only if, the offence is alleged to have been committed 'in or in relation to any proceedings in any court'. In the present matter, the offence under Section 195 IPC had been committed w.r.t. involvement of some innocent persons in a criminal case. The false evidence has not been given in any court or in relation to any pending proceedings in a court. Therefore, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) IPC is not attracted. It is next argued that offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is also made out, as the assailant had knowledge that the injuries caused on the person of 'Y @ M', could have caused death. It is next argued that usage of fire arm by accused Gaurav @ Mundi and recovery thereof, from Sandeep stand established. Therefore, accused persons have been rightly charge-sheeted and ought to be convicted and sentenced.
9. I have heard Sh. Sh. R.K. Pandey, Ld. Chief Prosecutor for State and Sh. Rajesh Pandey, Counsel for accused persons and with their assistance, I have gone through the evidence on record and law cited and documents collected.
10.1 Prosecution case is best understood from the testimony of IO/ SI Ram Singh (PW-25). He has deposed that on 14.01.2015 at about 09:30 pm, he received DD No. 34A (Ex.PW25/A) regarding telephonic information that near the NGO Chowk, a SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 7 of 20 :: 8 ::
boy had been shot at and was in critical condition. IO went to the spot, but none was present. The caller, namely, Sandeep reached the spot and informed him that CCL 'Y @ M' had received gun shot injuries and had been removed to AIIMS by his friends Suraj and Abhishek.
10.2 It has further come up in the testimony of PW-25 that accused Sandeep repeatedly gave information regarding various locations to be the place of occurrence and on none of those places, stains of blood were detected. IO finally reached the injured 'Y @ M' and made enquiries from him. On being asked, CCL 'Y @ M' gave name of his assailants as Manish @ Manni, Deepak @ Macchi, Vikas and Monu. Injured CCL 'Y @ M' informed the IO about place of occurrence to be Shiv Krishna Mandir, Madangir, Phase-I. IO again went to the said spot and yet again did not find any blood stains or empty cartridges. On local enquiry also, he could not find any evidence of occurrence having taken place. Meanwhile, IO interrogated assailants named by injured CCL 'Y @ M' and on their interrogation, it was revealed that none of them was anywhere near the place of occurrence and they were all at their respective residence or place of work at the time of occurrence. Finding the information given by 'Y @ M' and the caller of DD No. 34A to be doubtful, injured was further interrogated, who confessed and disclosed to the IO SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 8 of 20 :: 9 ::
that the information was false and attempt had been made to falsely implicate Manish @ Manni, Deepak @ Macchi, Vikas and Monu.
10.3 During investigation, story woven by accused persons was revealed to be false and thus, the complaint Ex.PW25/C under signatures of 'Y @ M' was obviously false. PW-3 Vikas Thakur and PW-4 Manish are persons against whom the initial complaint (Ex.PW25/C) was made by 'Y @ M' that they had shot at 'Y @ M'. Both the witnesses deposed in the court that on 14.01.2015 at about 10:00 pm, they were at their respective houses and were rounded up by police and taken to Chowki. They were interrogated regarding shooting at a person and they explained that they were not involved therein. They further deposed that they had been falsely implicated by Gaurav and his friends, who had themselves shot at 'Y @ M' because of animosity towards them. The complaint against them was false. Nothing damaging to the prosecution case came up during their cross-examination.
Therefore, these two witnesses support the prosecution case that they were sought to be falsely implicated by accused persons for the shooting incident in the night of 14.01.2015.
10.4 PW-6 Darshan Kumar has been cited to prove about previous animosity between the two group. PW-8 Anup also deposed that he learnt that there was quarrel between two groups SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 9 of 20 :: 10 ::
of boys; Vikas and Manish were falsely implicated by boys of other group. PW-8 was not cross-examined by defence counsel. Thus, the aforementioned witnesses also support the case of prosecution that accused persons gave false information implicating Vikas and Manish etc. in a false. Apparently, the complaint (Ex.PW25/C) lodged by 'Y @ M', which bears his signatures was false.
11.1 DD No. 34A (Ex.PW25/A) records a telephonic call having been received from mobile number 9560630089 that at NGO Chowk, a boy had been shot at and was critical. Prosecution has examined Surender Kumar (PW-11), Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited to ascertain the name of subscriber to whom aforementioned mobile number was issued. PW-11 has proved the customer application form of aforesaid mobile number and as per record, the same was issued in the name of Ramesh S/o Bajranga, R/o H. No. G-1/131-132, Madangir, New Delhi. It is further the case of prosecution that accused Sandeep is son of Ramesh and has the same address as that of subscriber of mobile no. 9560630089. It thus, stands established that phone number from which PCR call of information regarding occurrence was received, was subscribed in the name of father of accused Sandeep. Call detail record (Ex.PW11/A) of this mobile number mentions a call made to PCR at phone no. 100 on 14.01.2015 at SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 10 of 20 :: 11 ::
21:20:44 hours. Evidently, this is the PCR call on which, DD No. 34A (Ex.PW25/A) was recorded. It thus, stands established that accused Sandeep, who was using a mobile number subscribed in the name of his father, gave a false PCR call about a boy having been shot at and being in critical condition at NGO Chowk.
11.2 It may further be noticed that it has come in the evidence of IO/ SI Ram Singh (PW-25) that he was taken on a wild goose chase by Sandeep, who met him at the spot and gave three different locations of the alleged place of occurrence. PW-25 has deposed that caller had initially disclosed the place of occurrence as NGO Chowk, Mandangir; when no blood stains or empty cartridges were found, accused Sandeep told the IO that place of occurrence was Charlie Wala Chowk, Madangir; when no blood stains or empty cartridges were found there also, he then shifted the place of occurrence to road opposite to Shitla Mata Mandir and IO did not find blood stains or empty cartridges at that spot also. Subsequently, during interrogation, 'CCL Y @ M' disclosed the place of occurrence as opposite Shiv Krishna Mandir, Madangir, Phase-I. No blood stains or empty cartridges were found at that spot as well and it was on further interrogation that CCL 'Y @ M' disclosed the actual place of occurrence to be MCD Part, Village Madangir and not the places previously mentioned by accused Sandeep and himself.SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 11 of 20
:: 12 ::
11.2.1PW-25 was cross-examined by defence counsel as regards shifting places of occurrence allegedly informed by accused Sandeep. It was suggested that since the IO did not record the statement of Sandeep to this effect and also that of any person at the disclosed spots, allegation is false. However, it stands established from documentary evidence that in the first information (Ex.PW25/A) given by Sandeep to PCR, the place of occurrence was narrated to be NGO Chowk and injured CCL 'Y @ M' in his complaint Ex.PW25/C, disclosed the place of occurrence to be Shiv Krishan Mandir, Madangir, Phase-I. Actually, none of the two documented places disclosed by accused persons were found to be the place of occurrence. Thus, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sandeep had given false PCR information and subsequently, more false information about place of occurrence. Thus, making out an offence punishable under Section 195 IPC.
11.3 There is no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of IO/ SI Ram Singh (PW-25) that Sandeep had disclosed different places of incident and none of them were found to be the actual place of occurrence and accused had thus, misled the public servant. It has been argued by Sh. Rajesh Pandey, defence counsel that the statement of Sandeep would be hit by Section 25 of SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 12 of 20 :: 13 ::
Indian Evidence Act, as the same was made to police officer, while in custody. This court does not agree with the proposition of law argued by Sh. Pandey. Accused Sandeep and CCL 'Y @M' till this part of the investigation, were neither in custody nor accused persons. They were till that stage of investigation, enjoying the status of a complainant. It was only subsequently, that their information was found false and their status changed from that of complainant to that of accused. Therefore, statements made by present accused persons at that stage of investigation would not be hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.
12.1 It is further the case of prosecution that fire arm, i.e., country made pistol along with three unused cartridges, was got recovered from the possession of accused Sandeep and the same were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/J). Sketch of cartridges and country made pistol is Ex.PW16/I; the country made pistol Ex.P1 and and unused cartridges are Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. Ct. Rasool (PW-16) and IO/ SI Ram Singh (PW-25) have proved the recovery. The used emptry cartridge was recovered from the possession of accused Gaurav @ Mundi vide memo Ex.PW25/G and the empty cartridge has been identified as Ex.P5.
12.2 The evidence to connect aforesaid recoveries with the offence in question, is the FSL Report (Ex.PW19/A). Dr. S. S. Murty (PW-19) has proved his report wherein, he opined the SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 13 of 20 :: 14 ::
recovered empty cartridge to have been fired from the recovered country made pistol (Ex.P1) sent for examination. He had also test fired the live cartridges to compare the characteristic marks on the cartridges after being fired through the fire arm. Thus, from the evidence of expert witness, Dr. S.S. Murty (PW-19) and the recovery of fire arm and cartridges (used and empty), it stands established that fire arm and cartridges, which were recovered from possession of accused Gaurav @ Mundi and Sandeep had been used in the present case. Further, sanction under Section 39 Arms Act (Ex.PW23/A) to prosecute accused Gaurav @ Mundi and Sandeep had been granted by Addl. DCP, Sh. Rajeev Ranjan (PW-23). Thus, prosecution case stands established as regards the involvement of accused persons in usage of the fire arm and recovery of unlicensed fire arm and cartridges from them; thereby, establishing the offence punishable under Sections 25/27 Arms Act.
13.1 Next piece of evidence that has been collected by IO to establish the conspiracy of all the accused persons in committing the aforesaid offences is call detail records of phones used by accused persons. To establish meeting of mind and execution of the crime in pursuance of such planning and meeting of mind, prosecution has relied upon call detail records of mobile phone of accused persons. Accused Gaurav @ Mundi was using mobile SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 14 of 20 :: 15 ::
phone no. 9899256198 subscribed in his name; customer application form w.r..t aforesaid mobile number has been proved as Ex.PW9/N. Call detail records of the aforesaid phone number for the relevant period have been proved on record as Ex.PW9/P. As noticed above, the mobile no. 9560630089 was being used by accused Sandeep, which was subscribed in the name of his father, Ramesh; customer application is Ex.PW11/B; call detail records of phone used by Sandeep is Ex.PW11/A. IO has also collected the customer application form and call details records of phone numbers subscribed in the names of parents of CCL 'Y @ M' and CCL 'V'.
13.2 A study of call detail records of all the phone numbers reveals that on the day of occurrence, i.e., 14.01.2015, at about 09:00 pm or prior thereto, all the four persons were in constant touch with each other. Their location also at the relevant time is in the vicinity of same mobile tower. Thus, it is established that both the accused persons facing trial before this court and the juveniles were acting in furtherance of a conspiracy. There was a meeting of mind and as a consequence whereof, accused CCL 'Y @ M' was superficially shot at by one of the conspirators to create an evidence to falsely implicate the opposite gang. Though, there is no cogent evidence on record as to establish that Gaurav @ Mundi had shot at CCL 'Y @ M'; nonetheless, this court is of SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 15 of 20 :: 16 ::
the opinion that CCL 'Y @ M' was shot at by one of the accused persons in furtherance of conspiracy between them. Actually, there could not have been a direct evidence of shooter, as the witness to the occurrence are none else, but accused persons themselves. Prosecution has successfully established, beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of events which led to crime in question.
13.2.1It may further be noticed that there is a common thread running between the recovered fire arm & cartridges, medical opinion and FSL opinion, which further corroborate meeting of mind between the accused persons and acting in furtherance of such meeting of minds. The meeting of minds is established by the fact that they were all in touch with each other which has been established through their call detail records. Their presence at the time of occurrence at the same location is frozen by the cell tower locations. Recovery of fire arm and the used/ unused cartridges from the accused persons and evidence that the used cartridge was fired from the recovered fire arm, establish usage of fire arm recovered from accused Sandeep for firing the cartridge recovered from accused Gaurav @ Mundi. The nature of injury being simple establishes that it was a superficial injury caused in conspiracy with the sole purpose of creating evidence and not for the purposes of actually, harming the recipient of fire arm injury.SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 16 of 20
:: 17 ::
PW-6 and PW-8 have proved the reason of accused persons to implicate boys of other group, namely, Vikas, Manish etc. Attempt to mislead the police by disclosing incorrect place of occurrence and by making false PCR call and false complaint is also established. From the evidence as noticed above, involvement of each person in performing role differently assigned and ascribed to him, stands established. Thus, making out offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.
13.2.2Further, the manner in which accused Sandeep and CCL 'Y @ M' led the police to a wild goose chase indicating conflicting and different places of incident and lodging of false PCR complaint (Ex.PW25/A) and a false complaint (Ex.PW25/C), establishes that all the accused persons acted in furtherance of conspiracy to commit the offence of creating false evidence against Manish, Deepak, Vikas and Monu. This court is of the opinion that offence under Section 195 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act read with Section 120B IPC is made out against accused Gaurav @ Mundi and Sandeep. Offence under Section 25 Arms is independently made out against accused Sandeep for being in possession of country made pistol and three live cartridges. Thus, accused Sandeep is also established to have committed offence under Section 25 Arms Act.
13.3 This court is however, of the opinion that prosecution has SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 17 of 20 :: 18 ::
failed to establish offence under Section 307 IPC to have been committed. As discussed above, the injuries were caused upon the person of CCL 'Y @ M' not with the intention to cause death. The same was a sham act only for the purposes of creating evidence of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The offence made out is under Section 195 IPC read with Section 120B IPC with the purpose of creating evidence of commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
14.1 As regards offence under Section 182 IPC, this court is further of the opinion that the offence under Section 182 IPC is not made out, as there is bar under Section 195(1) Cr. P.C. to take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 182 IPC. For the court to take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 182 IPC, a complaint in writing by public servant concerned or other public servant subordinate to him is the mandate of law. In the present case, there is no such complaint in writing by any public servant. However, the bar of Section 195 Cr. P.C. is not attracted in the case of offence under Section 195 IPC unless, the offence is committed in relation to any proceedings in any court. Admittedly, in the present case the offence of creation of false evidence was not in relation to any proceeding pending in any court. Therefore, the bar of Section 195 Cr. P.C. is not attracted. For ready reference, relevant portion of Section 195 Cr. P.C. is SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 18 of 20 :: 19 ::
reproduced herein below:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence - (1) No court shall take cognizance--
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or ...
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or ..."
(emphasis supplied) 14.2 Reliance by Sh. Pandey's on Pankaj Chaudhary's case (supra) is misplaced. In the cited case, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has referred to Section 195(1)(c) Cr. P.C. and held that no court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 193/195/211 Cr. P.C., when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or relation to any proceedings in the court except on a complaint in writing by the court. There is no dispute to aforesaid proposition above. However, in the present case, offence has not been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 19 of 20 :: 20 ::
any court. Similarly, the law laid down in Sushil Sharma's case (supra) also does not help defence, for the same reasons as noticed above.
15.1 Thus, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has successfully established the commission of offence punishable under Section 195 IPC read with Section 120B IPC w.r.t. offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, by both the accused persons. Prosecution has also successfully established offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act read with Section 120B IPC against both the accused persons. Offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act is established qua accused Sandeep. Both the accused persons are accordingly, held guilty and convicted.
15.2 Accused persons stand acquitted of offences punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and also for offence punishable under Section 182 read with Section 120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
16. Put up for arguments/ order on quantum of sentence.
Digitally signedby NAROTTAM Announced in the open Court NAROTTAM KAUSHAL on this 14 day of November, 2022 KAUSHAL Date:
th 2022.11.14 (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) 14:33:21 +0530 Principal District & Sessions Judge South District: Saket Courts 14.11.2022 (v) SC No. 7210/16 State Vs. Gaurav @ Mundi & Anr. Page No. 20 of 20