Delhi District Court
State vs Bhoop Singh @Manta And Ors on 6 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. GURMOHINA KAUR: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH-WEST)-05, DWARKA COURTS:
DELHI
DLSW010120852019
Sessions Case No. 775/2019
CNR No: DLSW01-012085-2019
FIR No. 267/2019
Police Station : BHD Nagar
Under Section: 307/147/148/149/201/120B/34 IPC &
25/27 Arms Act
In the matter of:
State
VERSUS
1. Bhoop Singh @ Manta
S/o Sh. Maha Singh,
R/o : VPO : Mitraon, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
2. Bijender Singh
S/o Sh. Maha Singh,
R/o : VPO : Mitraon, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
3. Himanshu
S/o Sh. Bijender Singh,
R/o : VPO : Mitraon, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
4. Satish @ Jai Bhagwan (expired)
S/o Lt. Sh. Maha Singh,
R/o : Mitrau, BHD Nagar,
Outer District, Delhi.
State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 1/26
5. Pramod @ Silu
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan,
R/o : Mitrau, BHD Nagar,
Outer District, Delhi.
6. Krishan Kumar
S/o Sh. Anoop Singh,
R/o : Mitrau, BHD Nagar,
Outer District, Delhi.
7. Sonu @ Ravinder
S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan,
R/o : 372, Mitrau, BHD Nagar,
Outer District, Delhi.
8. Sanjeev
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar,
R/o : 169, Mitrau, BHD Nagar,
Outer District, Delhi.
9. Naveen
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar,
R/o : 169, Mitrau, BHD Nagar,
Outer District, Delhi.
..... Accused persons
Date of filing of the case : 16.10.2019
Date of Reserving judgment : 29.11.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present charge-sheet under Section 307/147/148/149/201/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act was committed to this Court on 16.10.2019 being a Sessions Triable Offence.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That on 01.07.2019 between 11-11.30 pm, in front of State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 2/26 Central Bank, Village Mitrau, Najafgarh, New Delhi, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and armed with weapons, bricks and dandas assaulted the complainant Sudarshan, Amarjeet, Naveen, Samar Singh and Satish Kumar and caused grievous injuries to Sudarshan, dangerous injuries to Amarjeet, grievous injuries to Samar singh and simple injuries to Naveen and Satish Kumar by firing at them and pelting bricks on them.
On the complaint of the complainant Sudarshan, the FIR was registered. During the investigation of the case, a pistol with magazine and a live cartridge was recovered at the instance of Bhoop Singh @ Manta from the bushes near Baba New Star Hotel, Village Silani, District Jhajjhar without any valid licence. The MLC's of the injured persons were conducted at Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh. On completion of investigation, it was concluded by the IO, that Accused persons namely Bhoop Singh @ Manta, Bijender Singh, Himanshu, Pramod @ Silu, Krishan Kumar, Sonu @ Ravinder, Sanjeev @ Rocky and Naveen @ Bablu along with accused Jai Bhagwan ( proceedings abated) had committed the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/201/307/323 IPC along with 25/27 Arms Act. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was put before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate with a view to put the accused persons on trial.
3. In the light of the police report and the documents filed along with the same, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence, complied with the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 3/264. On 21.03.2024, after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the Accused persons, charge were framed against the accused persons under Section 147/148/149/201/307/323 IPC. The charges was read over to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Separate charge was framed against accused Bhoop Singh @ Manta for offences punishable under Section 25/27 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of the case, the prosecution got examined the following witnesses namely, PW-1 Dr. Uttam kondle, PW-2 Dr. J. K. Kochhar, PW-3 Sh. Sudarshan, PW-4 Sh. Amarjeet, PW-5 Sh. Shamsher, PW-6 Dr. Col. Vijay Dutta, PW-7 Sh. Satish Kumar, PW-8 Sh. Naveen, PW-9 Sh. Samar, PW-10 HC Bhagirath, PW-11 HC Devender, PW-12 ASI Sunil and PW-13 SI Naresh Kumar.
6. On completion of Prosecution Evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and their statements were recorded on 26.11.2024. During their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused persons denied having knowledge of the incrimination circumstances appearing in the evidence against them and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. At the stage of Defence evidence, accused persons did not wish to lead Defence Evidence.
State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 4/268. Final arguments heard on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Counsel for all accused persons. Record perused. Considered.
9. In the present case, to bring home the guilt of accused persons, prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
10. PW-1 Dr. Uttam Kondle, SMO, RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur Kalan deposed that on 26.07.2019, he had taken the blood samples of Samar Singh, male, aged about 41 years, Naveen, male, aged about 21 years and Amarjeet, male, aged about 25 years on the request of police. He stated that blood in gauze and vial were sealed and handed over to IO. He stated that he prepared the detailed MLC's and the same were Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D respectively. The said witness was not cross- examined by counsel for all the accused persons.
11. PW-2 Dr. H. K. Kochhar, Surgeon at Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh deposed that on 01.07.2019, injured Sudarshan, Amarjeet, Naveen and Samar Singh were medically examined by him vide MLCs No. Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/D respectively. He further stated that on 02.07.2019, injured Satish Kumar was medically examined by him vide MLC Ex.PW2/E and in case of injured Sudarshan and Samar Singh, the nature of injuries were grievous and in the case of injured Amarjeet, the nature of injuries were dangerous and the natures of injuries in the rest of the cases were simple. The said witness was not cross-examined State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 5/26 by counsel for all accused persons.
12. PW-3 Sudarshan deposed that on 01.07.2019, he alongwith Amarjeet, Naveen, Samar, Satish and Shamsher were coming to their home from the Baithak which was on the other side of the road at about 11:30 pm when some persons came and assaulted them and one of them fired upon him. He stated that he did not know who the said persons were, however, he could identify them and they were not present in the Court. He stated that he sustained bullet injuries on his right thigh and his other family members also sustained injuries in the said incident. He stated that the assailants ran away from the spot after the incident and his son Naveen had taken him to Vikas Hospital where he got his treatment. He further stated that his statement was not recorded by the police, however, his signatures were obtained on some of the papers.
12.1 The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled form his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and he denied all the suggestions put forth by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
12.2 The said witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for all accused persons.
13. PW-4 Amarjeet deposed that on 01.07.2019, he alongwith Sudarshan, Naveen, Samar and Satish were coming to their home from the Baithak which was on the other side of the road at about 11/11:30 pm when some persons came from behind and assaulted them and one of them fired upon him. He stated that he did not State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 6/26 know who the said persons were, however, he could identify them and they were not present in the Court. He stated that he sustained bullet injuries on his abdomen and his other family members also sustained injuries in the said incident. He stated that the assailants ran away from the spot after the incident and his brother Naveen had taken him to Vikas Hospital where he got his treatment. He further stated that his statement was not recorded by the police, however, his signatures were obtained on some of the papers.
13.1 The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled form his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and he denied all the suggestions put forth by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
13.2 The said witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for all accused persons.
14. PW-5 Shamsher deposed that on 01.07.2019 at 11:00 pm, he was present in his house and he had heard some noise. He stated that he came outside and found that his family members, namely, Amarjeet, Samar Singh, Sudarshan, Naveen and Satish were present in the gali outside their house and they were having injuries. He stated that the injured persons were taken to Vikas Hospital and he did not know anything more about the case. 14.1 The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled form his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He denied all the suggestions put forth by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
14.2 The said witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 7/26 for all accused persons.
15. PW-6 Dr. Col. Vijay Dutta, deposed that on 24.07.2019, Sudarshan resident of 18, VPO Mitraun, Najafgarh, New Delhi was admitted in the hospital with alleged history of gun shot injury on right thigh on 02.07.2019. He stated that he was medically examined in the hospital and was given treatment and discharged on 01.08.2019. He stated that the discharge summary of Sudarshan was Ex.PW6/A. He deposed that on 03.12.2019, he had given a letter to police regarding the patient Sudarshan Ex.PW6/B and on 27.07.2019, SI Naresh Kumar came to the Hospital alongwith the copy of order of Ld. MM Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, Dwarka Courts dated 26.07.2019 and the blood sample of the above-mentioned patient was taken and sealed in the envelope on 27.07.2019 and was handed over to SI Naresh Kumar and the copy of document related to blood sample was Ex.PW6/C. The said witness was not cross-examined by counsel for all the accused persons.
16. PW-7 Satish Kumar deposed that on 01.07.2019, he alongwith Shamsher, Sudarshan, Naveen and Samar were coming to their home from the Baithak which was on the other side of the road at about 11/11:30 pm when some persons came from behind and assaulted them and one of them fire upon Amarjeet. He stated that he did not know who the said persons were, however, he could identify them and they were not present in the Court. He stated that Amarjeet sustained bullet injuries in his abdomen and his other family members also sustained injuries in the said State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 8/26 incident. He stated that the assailants ran away from the spot after the incident and his nephew Naveen had taken Amarjeet to Vikas Hospital where he got his treatment. He further stated that his statement was not recorded by the police.
16.1 The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled form his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He denied all the suggestions put forth by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
16.2 The said witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for all accused persons.
17. PW-8 Naveen deposed that on 01.07.2019, he alongwith Shamsher, Sudarshan, Satish and Samar were coming to their home from the Baithak which was on the other side of the road at about 11/11:30 pm when some persons came from behind and assaulted them and one of them fired upon Amarjeet. He stated that he did not know who the said persons were, however, he could identify them and they were not present in the Court. He stated that Amarjeet sustained bullet injuries in his abdomen and his other family members also sustained injuries in the said incident. He stated that the assailants ran away from the spot after the incident and he had taken Amarjeet to Vikas Hospital where he got his treatment. He further stated that his statement was not recorded by the police.
17.1 The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled form his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He denied all the suggestions put forth by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 9/2617.2 The said witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for all accused persons.
18. PW-9 Samar deposed that on 01.07.2019, he alongwith Shamsher, Sudarshan, Naveen and Amarjeet were coming to their home from the Baithak which was on the other side of the road at about 11/11:30 pm when some persons came from behind and assaulted them and one of them fired upon Amarjeet. He stated that he did not know who the said persons were, however, he could identify them and they were not present in the Court. He stated that Amarjeet sustained bullet injuries in his abdomen and his other family members also sustained injuries in the said incident. He stated that the assailants ran away from the spot after the incident and his nephew Naveen had taken Amarjeet to Vikas Hospital where he got his treatment. He further stated that his statement was not recorded by the police.
18.1 The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled form his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He denied all the suggestions put forth by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
18.2 The said witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for all accused persons.
19. PW-10 HC Bhagirath deposed that on 02.07.2019, 17 sealed parcels along with 5 sample seals pertaining to this case were deposited by SI Naresh Kumar with him in the malkhana and entry to this effect was made vide entry no. 1609 in register no. 19 which was Ex.PW-10/A(OSR). He stated that on State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 10/26 04.07.2019, one car No. DL10CL0110 pertaining to this case was deposited by SI Naresh Kumar with him in the malkhana and entry to this effect was made vide entry no. 1614 in register no. 19 which was Ex.PW-10/B(OSR). He stated that on 13.07.2019, 1 sealed pullanda pertaining to this case was deposited by SI Naresh Kumar with him in the malkhana and entry to this effect was made vide entry no. 1642 in register no. 19 which was Ex.PW-10/C(OSR). He stated that on 26.07.2019, 4 sealed pullandas and four sample seals pertaining to this case were deposited by SI Naresh Kumar with him in the malkhana and entry to this effect was made vide entry no. 1699 in register no. 19 which was Ex.PW-10/D(OSR). He stated that on 27.07.2019, 1 sealed pullanda and one sample seal pertaining to this case were deposited by SI Naresh Kumar with him in the malkhana and entry to this effect was made vide entry no. 1710 in register no. 19 which was Ex.PW-10/E(OSR). He stated that on 08.11.2019, on the instruction of IO/SHO, 9 sealed pullandas and one sample seal pertaining to this case were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi through Constable Devender vide RC No. 250/21/19 which was Ex.PW-10/F(OSR). He further stated that after returning from the FSL, Constable Devender handed over him receipt of the FSL which was Ex.PW-10/G. He stated that on 05.12.2019, on the instruction of IO/SHO, 14 sealed pullandas and 9 sample seals pertaining to this case were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi through Constable Ram Niwas vide RC No. 259/21/19 which was Ex.PW-10/H(OSR). He stated that after returning from the FSL, Constable Ram Niwas handed over him receipt of the FSL which was Ex.PW-10/H1. He stated that till the pullandas and State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 11/26 sample seals remained in his custody, the same were not tampered with.
19.1 During his cross-examination by counsel for all accused persons, he denied the suggestion that entries in register No. 19 and road certificates were ante dated and ante timed and also denied the suggestion that the said entries were manipulated at the instance of the IO.
20. PW-11 HC Devender deposed that on 08.11.2019, on the instructions of IO/SHO he had taken nine sealed pullandas and one sample seal pertaining to this case to FSL Delhi after receiving the same from MHC(M) HC Bhagirath. He stated that he deposited the sealed pullandas and the sample seal in the FSL Rohini and obtained receipt thereof which he brought to the police station and handed over to MHC(M). He stated that the till the pullandas and sample seals remained in his custody, the same were not tampered with.
20.1 During his cross-examination by counsel for all accused persons, he stated that he did not remember the DD number of his departure and arrival. He stated that he did not know the name of official of FSL with whom the pullandas were deposited.
21. PW-12 ASI Sunil deposed that on 12.07.2019, he was present in Village Mitraon, in the arrangement of Manjeet Mahal and at about 12:00 noon alongwith Ct. Rajdeep and when he received secret information that accused Manta @ Bhoop Singh who was absconding would come to his house at Village Mitraon for taking money in the night. He stated that he told Ct. Rajdeep State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 12/26 about this secret information and thereafter they took position near the house of accused Manta @ Bhoop Singh. He stated that he was already knew accused Manta @ Bhoop Singh and in the night at around 12/12:30 am, accused Manta @ Bhoop Singh was seen in the gali and he alongwith Ct. Rajdeep apprehended him. He stated that accused Manta @ Bhoop Singh was interrogated and he admitted about his involvement in the present case and accused was brought to the police station and was arrested by SI Naresh Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/A and his personal search was got conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/B. He stated that accused Bhoop Singh was thoroughly interrogated by SI Naresh Kumar in his presence and his disclosure statement Ex.PW12/C was recorded wherein he disclosed that he could get the weapon of offence recovered from near Baba New Star Hotel, Village Silani, District Jhajjar, Haryana. He stated that accused Bhoop Singh was again interrogated and other disclosure statement was recorded by SI Naresh Kumar Ex.PW11/D. He stated that he joined investigation of the case with IO SI Naresh and accused Bhoop Singh @ Manta was produced in the Court and one day PC remand was obtained where accused Manta @ Bhoop Singh led the police party including him, SI Naresh Kumar, Ct. Suresh and Ct. Rajdeep to bushes near Baba New Star Hotel, Village Silani, District Jhajjar, Haryana at around 12:00 noon and took out a pistol from the bushes and produced before SI Naresh who checked the same and found a live cartridge in its magazine. He deposed that the sketch of pistol, magazine and live cartridge was prepared by SI Naresh Kumar vide Ex.PW12/E and seized vide memo Ex.PW12/F. He identified the pistol and live cartridge State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 13/26 Ex.P12/1 and Ex.P12/2 respectively.
21.1 During his cross-examination by counsel for all accused persons, he stated that he tried to join the neighbours of the accused Bhoop Singh at the time he was apprehended but none came forward. He stated that he could not tell the number of houses, resident of which were requested and he did not ask the name of said neighbours. He admitted that in the disclosure statement Ex.PW12/C, the name of dhaba and Village Silani is not mentioned. He admitted that in the alleged another disclosure statement Ex.PW12/D which was also recorded in his presence and in the same it had been mentioned that the weapon was with Sonu and Rocky and he can get recovered. He stated further that the hotel near the alleged bushes from where the alleged recovery was effected was open and no person was called from the said hotel. He added that they had tried to join the passers by. He stated that no written request was given to passers by and alleged place of recovery was an open place and accessible to all.
22. PW-13 SI Naresh Kumar deposed that on 01.07.2019, on receipt of DD No. 65A, he along with Head Constable Pradeep reached the spot in front of Central Bank, village Mitraon, New Delhi at about 11.45 PM and on inquiries, it was revealed that injured had been taken to Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh, New Delhi. He stated that he called the crime team at the spot which reached there and had photographed and inspected the scene of crime and four empty cartridges, one magazine and one lead, one misfired cartridge and blood, were lying at the spot.
He further deposed that on 02.07.2019, he lifted the above State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 14/26 said cartridges and magazine from the spot and prepared the sketch thereof vide memo Ex.PW-13/A and sealed and seized the recovered cartridges and in separate pullandas with seal of NK. He stated that the seizure memo of bullet lead was Ex.PW-13/B and the seizure memo of misfired round Ex.PW-13/C, seizure memo of empty cartridges given serial E2 was Ex.PW-13/D, seizure memo of empty cartridge given serial E1 was Ex.PW-13/E, seizure memo of empty cartridges given serial E3 was Ex.PW-13/F, seizure memo of empty cartridges given serial E4 was Ex.PW-13/G, seizure memo of magazine with two live round was Ex.PW-13/H. He further stated that he also lifted blood in three gauze and blood stained tile piece from the spot and sealed and seized the same vide separate seizure memos after sealing the same in pullandas with seal of NK. He stated that the seizure memo of blood stained tile piece was Ex.PW-13/H1, seizure memo of blood gauze Mark A was Ex.PW-13/H2, seizure memo of blood gauze Mark B was Ex.PW-13/H3 and seizure memo of blood gauze Mark C was Ex.PW-13/H4. He stated that one blood stained stone was also found lying in front of house of Satish and the same was also sealed and seized by him in a pullanda with seal of NK and seizure memo of the same was Ex.PW-13/H5. He further stated that after completion of the proceedings at the spot, he reached Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh, New Delhi, where injured Amarjeet, Sudarshan, Naveen and Samar Singh were found under treatment and he collected their MLCs. He stated that among the injured persons only complainant Sudarshan was fit for statement and he recorded his statement and prepared rukka Ex.PW-13/H6. He stated further State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 15/26 that during investigation, on 02.07.2019, I prepared site plan of the spot vide memo Ex.PW-13/HA and he deposited the case property in malkhana. He stated that on 02.07.2019, the doctor of Vikas Hospital had given the blood stained clothes of the injured persons in sealed pullandas and sample seals and he seized the same vide seizure memos Ex.PW-13/H7, Ex.PW-13/H8, Ex.PW-13/H9 and Ex.PW-13/H10. He further stated that the doctor also handed over one bullet recovered from the body of injured Samar in a sealed pullanda along with sample seal and seized the same, vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/H11 and on 02.07.2019, during investigation, he also visited RTRM Hospital with the injured persons for collection of their blood samples and after taking their blood samples, the doctor handed over the same to him in four pullandas along with four sample seal which he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/H12. He stated that on the same day, he also visited Indian Spinal Injury Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, for collection of blood sample of injured Sudarshan, which was given to him by the doctor in a sealed pullanda and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/H13 and on 02.07.2019, accused Bijender and Himanshu were arrested by him vide arrest memos Ex. PW13/H14 and Ex. PW13/H17 respectively and their personal search were conducted vide personal search memos Ex.PW13/H15 and Ex.PW13/H18 respectively. He stated their disclosure statements were recorded Ex. PW13/H16 and Ex. PW13/H19 respectively. He also stated that during investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses including injured persons and deposited the case properties in malkhana.
State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 16/26PW13/IO further deposed that on 04.07.2019, Car no. DL10CL0110, which was used by the accused persons in running away from the spot was seized in this case by SI PR Hooda and he collected the seizure memo, Ex. PW13/H20 of the car from him and placed on record. He stated that on 12.07.2019, HC Sunil and Constable Rajdeep, produced accused Manta @ Bhoop Singh before him at PS and accused Manta @ Bhoop Singh was arrested by him vide arrest memo already Ex.PW-12/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW-12/B. He deposed regarding the interrogation and recording of disclosure statement of Accused Bhoop Singh and recovery of pistol with magazine and live cartridge at the instance of Accused Bhoop Singh @ Manta. He further stated that on 10.12.2019, accused Satish @ Jai Bhagwan (since expired) was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-13/H21 from bani area near Village Mitraon and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW-13/H22 and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/H23 and on the same day i.e. 10.12.2019 accused Pramod Kumar was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-13/H24 from bani area near Village Mitraon and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW-13/H25 and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/H26. He also stated that on 16.12.2019, accused Ravinder @ Shri Bhagwan was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-13/H27 from kair road and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW-13/H28 and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/H29.
The witness further stated that on 16.12.2019, accused State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 17/26 Krishan Kumar was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-13/H30 from kair road and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW-13/H31 and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/H32. He stated that on 15.02.2020, accused Sandeep @ Naveen was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-13/H33 from bus stand village Mitraon and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW-13/H34 and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/H35. He further stated on 15.02.2020, accused Sanjeev @ Rocky was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-13/H36 from bus stand village Mitraon and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW-13/H37 and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/H38. He stated that during investigation, he recorded the statement of the relevant witnesses at the relevant time, collected papers from the concerned IOs, relevant medical papers and sent the exhibits pertaining to this case to FSL and collected the FSL report and the chargesheet and reports were filed in the court. He also identified the case property produced before the court during his deposition.
22.1 During his cross-examination by Counsel for all the accused persons he denied the suggestion that complainant Sudarshan did not allege anything against any of the accused persons or that his statement was recorded by him on his own and on which signatures were obtained. He stated that he did not remember the DD number of his arrival at the PS on 02.07.2019. He also admitted that in the alleged disclosure statement Ex.PW-12/C, the name of the Dhaba and village Silani was not State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 18/26 mentioned and further admitted that as per the alleged disclosure statement the weapon was thrown near dhaba in Jhajar. He admitted that in the alleged disclosure statement Ex.PW-12/D, it is mentioned that the weapon was with Sonu and Rocky and he can get it recovered and added that in this case, more than one weapon was involved. He stated that at the time of alleged recovery of pistol, the hotel was open and no person from the said hotel was called. He stated that some passerby were requested and the passerby who were requested were on foot. He stated that no written notice was given to any of the passerby who did not join despite request. The witness also stated during cross-examination that the alleged place of recovery was an open place and it was accessible to all. He stated that they did not visit the local police station and no information was given to the local police before or after the alleged recovery. He denied the suggestions put forth by Counsel for the accused persons.
23. The accused persons also admitted to the following documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C, namely, genuineness of FIR No. 267/19, Ex. A1, endorsement on rukka Ex. A2, Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex. A3, DD no. 65A, Ex. A4, Crime Team Report, Ex. A5, Photographs of crime team Ex. A6, certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding photograph Ex. A7,,FSL report no SFL DHL 112/98/DAL/2297/19 dated 13.07.2021 Ex. A8 and Sanction order under section 39 of Arms Act dated 20.04.2023 Ex. A9.
24. In the present case, it is seen that the injured and the eye State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 19/26 witnesses have been cited as a public witnesses by the prosecution. However, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. No other eye-witness has been cited or examined to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. No evidence has been brought forth to prima facie show that the accused persons had fired on the injured persons with the intention to kill them. Thus, the offences under Section 307/34 IPC for which the accused persons have been charged has not been proved or established during trial.
25. The complicity of the accused persons could have been proved by leading ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The material witnesses who are the injured and eye-witness have turned hostile and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of all the accused persons. It is well settled law that to convict the accused persons on circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused persons and no other. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, that:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 20/26 of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
26. In case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the test which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (2) The circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established; (3) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, State Vs. Mohd. Khalil FIR No. 148/2017, PS Chandni Mahal 9 of 11 that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (4) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency; (5) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (6) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must so that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
27. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 21/26 burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof.
28. In the present case, the main star witnesses PW-3 Sudarshan and PW-4 Amarjeet, PW-5 Shamsher, PW-7 Satish Kumar, PW-8 Sh. Naveen and PW-9 Sh. Samar who were the injured and the the eye-witness have turned hostile and there is no other witness to prove the complicity of the accused persons in the commission of the present offence. The circumstantial evidence is insufficient and does not form complete chain of events leading to the inescapable conclusion of guilt of both the accused persons.
29. Thus, this Court unflinchingly holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons by leading convincing or cogent evidence. The prosecution has failed to discharge the burden placed upon it and therefore, the accused persons are entitled to be exonerated.
30. Resultantly, the accused Bhoop Singh, @ Manta, Pramod Kumar, Sanjeev, Ravinder, Krishan Kumar, Naveen, Bijender and Himanshu are hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 147/148/149/201/307/323 IPC.
31. In order to sustain conviction under Section 25/27 Arms State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 22/26 Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(I) The accused was found in the possession of a pistol and live cartridge.
(ii) He was carrying the same without any licence/permit or in contravention of notification of Delhi Administration.
32. The prosecution was required to prove that the alleged pistol was a countrymade pistol and live cartridge were recovered at the instance of accused Bhoop Singh @ Manta. PW-12 ASI Sunil and PW-13 SI Naresh Kumar are the recovery witnesses. As per the charge-sheet, they were accompanied with Ct. Rajdeep. It is seen that none of these witnesses had provided and proved on record their departure entry to establish their presence at the spot of alleged recovery. Further, PW-13 has stated during his cross-examination that as per the disclosure statement of accused Bhoop Singh @ Manta, the weapon was thrown near dhaba in Jhajar and he also stated that in the disclosure statement Ex.PW-12/D that the weapon was with Sonu and Rocky and he could get it recovered. He stated that at the time of alleged recovery of pistol, the hotel was open and no person from the said hotel was called.
33. None of the recovery witnesses have deposed regarding any DD entry being placed on record of their departure. The said departure entry is indispensable for establishing the presence of the recovery witnesses at the place of alleged recovery of countrymade pistol. Though of the recovery of the pistol has State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 23/26 been shown from the bushes near Baba New Star Hotel, Village Silani, District Jhajjhar without any valid licence. In the said circumstances, the recovery of the pistol at the instance of accused Bhoop Singh @ Manta is doubtful, more particularly when the disclosure statements of accused Bhoop Singh @ Manta states that the weapon was with co-accused Sonu and Rocky. Further, it is pertinent to mention that though the IO SI Naresh has stated during his cross-examination as PW-13 that there were other weapon of offences also but in the present case, no other weapon of offence has been recovered or seized. It also requires mentioned that all the recovery witnesses mentioned above have stated that the hotel was open at the time of alleged recovery weapon but no hotel staff or any public person has joined the police officials at the time of alleged recovery. Thus, it is seen that no effective and sincere effort was made by the IO to join the public persons as witness. The IO of the case did not join any public/independent witness. The criminal law has duly empowered the investigating officer/police officials to initiate action against the persons who refuse to participate in the investigation. But still, IO neither made any genuine efforts to join public/independent witnesses nor advanced any plausible explanation as to why no independent witnesses were examined by him. Hence, story of the prosecution is further shrouded in suspicion.
34. The prosecution has failed to examine any public witness therefore, the version of the prosecution has remained uncorroborated by an independent material witness. The State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 24/26 witnesses that are examined by the prosecution in the present case are police witnesses who are interested in the success of the prosecution case and therefore, the probability of them being guided by the extraneous factors, other than truth, cannot be ruled out. The police witnesses cannot be straightaway termed as unreliable witnesses, however, when there is a possibility of joining any public witness in the investigation and still no genuine efforts are made to join the independent person as witness, then the testimony of the police witness does not lends sufficient credence/reliability, unless it is corroborated by independent material witness. In view of above discussion, it is duly established that genuine efforts were not made by the IO of the case to join the public witness. The non joining of the public witness creates doubt in the story of the prosecution as held in "Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration 1987 CC 585 DELHI HC".
35. Keeping in view the fact that the version of PWs have remained uncorroborated by any other independent witness regarding the alleged recovery of pistol with magazine and live cartridge, it will be highly unsafe to rely upon their version to pass the order of conviction against the accused Bhoop Singh @ Manta. It has been held in: 1975 CAR 309 (SC) that :
"Prosecution case resting solely on the testimony of head constable and no independent witness examined-prosecution story appearing improbable and unnatural. Held that the prosecution case can not be said to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted".State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 25/26
36. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus placed upon it and so have failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused Bhoop Singh @ Manta and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 25/27 Arms Act. Case property be confiscated to the State.
Digitally signed by37. Ordered accordingly. GURMOHINA GURMOHINA KAUR KAUR Date:
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN 2024.12.06
15:23:29 +0530
COURT ON 06.12.2024
(Gurmohina Kaur)
ASJ-05 (South- West),
Dwarka Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Bhoop Singh @ Manta & Ors. Page No. 26/26