Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr. on 9 June, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
(New Delhi & South East District)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No.115/09
FIR No.909/06
U/s 186/353/307/393/34 IPC & 25/27 A.Act
& 3/4/5 Explosive Act
PS Mehrauli
State
Vs.
1. Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar s/o Sh. Sumer Sarkar
2. Sakur @ Suleman s/o Rustam
........ Accused
Challan filed on : 17.02.2007
Received by Fast Track Court on:04.11.2009
Reserved for Order on : 04.06.2011
Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2011
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that in on 20.12.06 ASI Ram Bhaj Singh alongwith HC Phool Chand were on patrolling duty and were present on Western Marg of village Saidulajaib. At about 5.15 p.m, ASI Ram Bhaj heard some noise 'pakro pakro chor chor' from the side of Five Senses Garden. He saw two boys coming in running condition and out of them one was having steel dibby in one hand and desi katta on the other and crying 'maar dunga maar dunga' and he had thrown the dibby on ASI Rambhaj. ASI State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 1 of 37Ram Bhaj bent down and said steel dibby hit the wall and blasted with loud sound and lot of smoke came out of it. The said boy was apprehended by HC Phool Chand and katta was snatched from his hands and his name came to know as Suleman. Some persons had brought one boy with jute bag. His name came to know as Ravi. The bag was checked and 7 live cartridges of .315 bore alongwith one steel dibbi were recovered. The said boy disclosed that it is a bomb. So, it was put in a hole and people were removed from there. The villagers disclosed that these boys tried to rob the jewellery of village ladies while taking a walk in the park but when the ladies had raised alarm, all the three boys had ran away from there and two were apprehended by them. One boy has succeeded to run away from the spot. PCR came and accused Ravi was removed to the hospital since beaten by the public. The recovered katta and cartridges were taken into possession. The accused were possessing arms, ammunition and explosives. On this statement Ex.PW24/A, IO SI UK Malik made endorsement Ex.PW26/A and got the case registered. Thereafter investigation was conducted and accused persons were arrested. After completion of the investigation, challan 307/393/186/353/34 IPC & 25/27 A.Act and 3/4/5 Explosive Act was filed in the court.
2. This case being triable by the court of session, after committal proceedings, it was committed by the Ld.MM and received State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 2 of 37by the court of sessions on 26.06.07.
3. The charge against accused Sakur @ Suleman was framed u/s 186/353/307 IPC and 25 Arms Act as well as u/s 3 of Explosive Substance Act and accused Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar has also been charged u/s 4 of Explosive Substance Act and 25 Arms Act on 30.05.2008 by Sh.V.K.Bansal, the then Ld. ASJ to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in all has examined as many as 26 witnesses.
5. The evidence against the accused persons were put to them in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they have pleaded their innocence and deposed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. No defence witness has been examined by the accused persons. Thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments.
6. I have heard the Ld.counsel for the accused as well as Ld.APP for the State and perused the testimonies of all the PWS and exhibited documents carefully.
7. In view of the arguments advanced by the Ld.APP and State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 3 of 37Ld.counsel on behalf of the accused persons, I have perused the testimonies of all the PWS.
8. PW1 Satpal is the public witness who was walking in the park and he has stated that there were two boys in the park who were teasing the females in the park. When he asked that boy as to why he is indulging in such kind of act, he took out a fire arm and fired a shot towards him. It did not hit him but he fell on the ground. These boys indulged in chain snatching from females and fired in air to create a terror. The boys were carrying bombs also which they had used in burst however, both the boys were apprehended a little distance when they tried to run towards a jungle. One boy entangled in the fencing of the park and thus could not succeed to run away but he himself did not see this. He did not identify both the accused present in the court as culprits. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but nothing could be extracted regarding identity of the accused persons.
9. PW2 Surender Singh has also reached in the park and saw the incident. He also did not identify the accused present in the court. He has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by th Ld. APP but nothing could be extracted regarding identity of the accused persons.
State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 4 of 37
10. PW3 Narender Singh has deposed that he accompanied IO to NSG Samalkha. Rajbir, his villager was with him. IO handed over one steel type country made bomb to BDU staff of NSG for getting the same dismantled. The same dismantled. Glass marble and red colour chemical was also taken out. Both these were kept in steel box and sealed with the seal of BDU and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/A.
11. PW4 Ct. Raj Kumar has taken the country made bomb to Samalkha for dismantling. The contents were seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A.
12. PW5 Ct. Suresh has deposed that on 23.12.06 Incharge of BDU (BDU) section of NSG, Ltd. Col.RS Rathore came on the spot i.e. Indian Park and inspected the bomb and after inspection handed over the same to HC Phool Singh and instructed to keep the same in plastic container after wrapping with cotton. The container was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/A.
13. PW6 HC Phool Singh has deposed that on 20.12.06 he alongwith ASI Ram Bhaj were on patrolling on Western Marg Saidulajaib and heard noise of 'Pakro Pakro Chor Chor' from Five State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 5 of 37Senses Garden side and saw two persons coming towards them. One was carrying country made pistol and one steel container and another was carrying one small jute bag and was being chased by many persons. He apprehended one person Suleman who was carrying country made pistol and steel container. He has further deposed that prior to his apprehension he threw the steel container towards them but it hit the wall of the garden and it exploded. But he was over powered. The another person carrying jute bag ran towards park and public persons went behind him and after sometime he was brought by the public from the park side giving beatings to him. At the time of explosion there was high noise and smoke also came out. Public persons Umesh, Satpal, Sandeep and Surender were amongst the public persons who had produced accused Ravi. From the bag seven cartridges were recovered. Ravi disclosed that the steel container contains bomb. The earth was dig out and steel container was kept inside it. The public persons told that these two accused were trying to snatch jewellery from the women of the village on the point of arms but alarm was raised by the ladies. Ravi was taken to the hospital. The sketch of the country made pistol is Ex.PW1/A and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/C. The 7 live cartridges were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/D. SI Umesh lifted the carbon from the wall of the disposal bomb with the help of cotton and seized vide memo EX.PW6/A. The another bomb was inspected by Col.RS State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 6 of 37Rathore after taking out from the ditch and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/A. IO prepared the rukka and got the case registered. On 21.12.06 accused Suleman and Ravi were interrogated and their disclosure statement were recorded which are Ex.PW6/B and C. On 27.12.06 supplementary disclosure statements were recorded which are Ex.PW6/D and E. Accused Suleman had thrown bomb on them which passed over the head of ASI Ram Bhaj and hit the wall and then blasted. Accused Suleman shouted 'hut jao hut jao nahi to maar dunga'. He identified the case property.
14. PW7 Ct. Anil Kumar has deposed that both the accused took the police in search of accused Lankesh but he was not traced. He was also searched on 24.12.06 but he could not be traced and supplementary disclosure statement of Suleman was recorded which is Ex.PW7/A and of accused Ravi is Ex.PW7/B.
15. PW8 Umesh Kumar has deposed that in the year 2006 at about 7 or 8 p.m he heard noise of some people and they were shouting badmash, badmash. He saw some person gathered on the road where two boys might be beaten by someone smeared with dust but those boys are not present in the court and accused are not the same boys. He heard from some public persons that pistol and bomb were recovered from those boys. Thereafter both the boys and pistol State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 7 of 37and bomb were taken by the police with them. He did not see the pistol as well as Bomb. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but in vain.
16. PW9 Ct Raghubir Singh has deposed that on 20.12.06 accused Ravi was brought by the PCR for medical examination and after medical his articles recovered from personals search were handed over to IO which were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/H.
17. PW10 HC Virender Kumar has deposed that he accompanied SI Umesh Malik to Indian Park Garden of five senses where SI Umesh Malik recorded the statement of ASI Ram Bhaj, prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of the case. He got the case registered.
18. PW11 HC Dharam Singh has deposed that he made entries in register no.19 of Malkhana. The entries are Ex.PW11/A &B.
19. PW12 HC Jitender Singh has deposed that he was working as DD writer and he recorded DD no.16 at about 5.10 p.m. At 5.12 p.m he again recorded DD no.17 regarding snatching of jewellery from the ladies roaming in the over. The copy of DD is Ex.PW12/B. He again recorded information vide DD no.18 Ex.PW12/C regarding State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 8 of 37apprehension of one person opposite Western Marg, RTDC Showroom, Saidulajaib.
20. PW13 HC Ram Daya is the FIR recorder and he has stated that he rcorded the FIR no.909/05 u/s 307/394/397/511/34 IPC. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW13/B.
21. PW14 Sandeep Yadav has deposed that during light summer season at about 5/6 p.m he was coming to his office from Saket and when he reached near Saidulajaib village he saw crowd gathered there and two boys were present in the PCR gypsy. One boy was having one country made pistol and two desi bomb which was told to him by the police at that time it was in the possession of police. He cannot identify those boys who were sitting in the PCR van due to lapse of many years. The sketch of country made pistol is Ex.PW1/B. Next day he was called by the police and bomb disposal squad was also summoned and same was blasted outside the village in his presence. He identified the case property. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but in vain.
22. PW15 ASI Ram Nath has deposed that he received snatching call at about 10 p.m and reached at the spot. PCR E55 was State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 9 of 37already there. Both the accused were having injuries on their persons by the beatings given by the public. Both were taken to AIIMS Hospital by them.
23. PW16 Sudhir has deposed that on 20.12.06 at about 4 or 4.30 p.m the gardner came to him and informed about some noise and incident of pelting stones. He made call at number 100.
24. PW17 ASI Bhim Singh has deposed that he was on PCR Van Eagle 59 and on receiving of message regarding pelting stones he proceeded for the spot and when reached near Banerjee Hospital one accused Ravi smeared with dust having injuries on his person due to beating given by the public persons. He took him to AIIMS Hospital. He came to know that Ravi was having jute bag and desi katta with two hand grenade/steel type container. He cannot identify the accused.
25. PW17 Subedar Ganesh (PW number given wrongly it should have been PW18) has deposed that on 1.2.2007 he defused the container and separated the small glass marble balls, light red colour chemical powder and he identified the defused container and material.
26. PW18 HC Keshav Dev has deposed that on 20.12.06 at about 5.17 p.m he received information regarding pelting of stones by State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 10 of 37crowd on thieves. He recorded this information in form Ex.PW18/A.
27. PW19 Sh D.Midha, Assistant Director, CFSL has examined the exhibits of defused bomb and prepared his report. The report is Ex.PW19/A.
28. PW20 Lt.Col.R.S.Rathore was posted at NSG Smalkha as OC Bomb Disposal Unit and after defusing the bomb he prepared destruction certificate which is Ex.PW20/A.
29. PW21 Ms Butan Guha Biswas has accorded sanction u/s 3,4,5&7 of Explosive Substance act to prosecute accused Sakur and Ravi. The sanction order is Ex.PW21/A.
30. PW22 Sh NS Bundela, DCP has accorded sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution of accused Suleman and Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar. The sanction is Ex.PW22/A.
31. PW23 Asha Dhir, Dy. Director, Ballistic, CFSL has examined the exhibits i.e. country made pistol and prepared her report which is Ex.PW23/A.
32. PW24 ASI Ram Bhaj Singh has deposed that on 20.12.06 State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 11 of 37he was on patrolling duty. At about 5.15 p.m he heard noise 'pakro pakro chor chor' and saw two boys coming in running condition. One boy was having steel dibby and he was crying 'maar dunga, maar dunga'. He was apprehended by him. The said boy thrown one steel dibby on him but he bent down and it hit on the wall and blasted with loud sound a lot of smoke came out from it. Desi katta was snatched from his hand. Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar was brought to him by 45 public persons with a jute bag snatched from him. On checking seven live cartridges and one steel dibby was found in it. Accused disclosed that it is a bomb. It was kept in small ditch. The villagers told him that accused used to snatch the jewellery of ladies walking in the park. Third boy succeeded to run away from there. The sketch of the katta and live cartridges were prepared which is Ex.PW1/A &B and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/C&D. He further deposed about defusing of bomb. His statement Ex.PW24/A was recorded by SI Umesh Malik and case was registered. He further deposed about arrest of accused persons, conducting their personal search and recording of their disclosure statements. He identified the recovered articles.
33. PW25 Retired ACP HPS Cheema has deposed that he has made complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC in this case.
State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 12 of 37
34. PW26 SI Umesh has deposed that on information from Duty Officer he rushed to the spot where police officials including ASI Ram Bhaj met him. Accused Suleman with country made pistol and bag containing 7 cartridges were handed over to him. He prepared the sketch Ex.PW1/A and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW1/C. The sketch of live cartridge is Ex.PW1/B and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He also lifted the carbon with the help of cotton from the wall where the bomb was blasted and it was kept in small plastic dibbi. He lifted the remnants of the blasted bomb and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW6/A. He seized the jute bag vide memo Ex.PW1/D and recorded the statement of ASI Rambhaj Ex.PW24/A, made endorsement Ex.PW26/A and got the case registered. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW26/B He arrested the accused persons, conducted their personal search and recorded their disclosure statement. He deposited the case property in malkhana. He also recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW7/A and B. On 22.12.06 he received the copy of one application handed over to him by the naib court regarding illegal detention of accused Salman @ Shakur and Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar moved by the mother of Salman. NSG team stated that the bomb cannot be blasted without pressure on it so it was kept in a jar safely in malkhana. The copy of seizure memo is Ex.PW5/A. He recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused which are State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 13 of 37Ex.PW6/B and E. He got dismantled the bomb in NSG Smalkha and seized the different parts vide memo Ex.PW3/A. He sent the case property to FSL. The certificate regarding dismantled bomb is Ex.PW20/A. He informed the SHO who made complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC. He identified the exhibits.
35. In the overall analysis of the testimonies of all the PWS it is revealed that PW1 Satpal, PW2 Surender Singh, PW8 Umesh Kumar, PW14 Sandeep Yadav are the eye witnesses of the incident. PW16 Sudhir was working on Satnam Farm house as Supervisor and he has stated that he made call at no.100 on 20.12.06 as the gardner came to him and told him that some noise and incident of pelting stones is going on at the back side of the farm house. In cross examination he has stated that the gardner name was Vinod Singh and he is still working in Satnam Farm House. PW16 himself did not see any incident of pelting stones. The prosecution has not examined gardner Vinod Singh who actually informed PW16. Further PW1,2,8&14 are the eye witnesses. PW1 Satpal has stated that on 20.12.2006 at about 5 O'clock he was taking a walk in their colony park known as Indian Park and sitting on a bench. There were two boys present in the park and one of them was trying to tease a female in the park. He took up the courage and went to that boy to question him as to why he is indulging in such kind of act and movement and State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 14 of 37put his hand on his shoulder from his back side. He took out a fire arm like pistol and fired a shot towards him. The fire arm bullet did not hit him but still out of fear and tear he fell down on the ground. Meanwhile these boys indulged in chain snatching and other valuables from 2,3 or 4 females who were walking in the park. Accused had fired in the air to create a terror. One chain in that process had fallen on the ground and it was recovered next day. Both the culprits in this incident had tried to run away. They were carrying bombs also which they had used in burst, however, both the boys were apprehended at a little distance when they were tried to run towards jungle area. One of those boy had got entangled in the fencing of the park and thus he could not succeed to run away but this fact he had not seen happening. He cannot say if two accused persons today present in the court are those same boys who committed crime in this incident at that time. PW1 has been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he has denied the suggestion that he alongwith other villagers were chasing three boys. He denied that one of the boy was holding desi katta in one hand and in other hand he was holding one small steal box(dibi). He denied about apprehension of one boy by him alongwith villagers and that jute bag was recovered from him containing 7 cartridges and one steal dibbi. He denied that the said boy told them that it was a bomb. He denied that the said boy was produced before ASI Ram Bhaj. He State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 15 of 37denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying accused persons in order to save them. He further denied the suggestion that the bomb recovered from accused Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar was kept in a pit keeping in view the safety and security of the public. His signatures were obtained on the exhibits by the police afterward. He denied the suggestion that IO had lifted the carbon of the bomb from near the wall with the help of cotton or that the remains of the bomb after blast was also lifted by the IO in a dibi. He denied the suggestion that both the accused were arrested by the police or that the police has recorded his statement Ex.PW1/J. He denied having made statement Ex.Pw1/J to the police.
36. PW2 Surender Singh has deposed that on 20.12.06 at about 5/5.15 p.m he reached near the park and hear loud voice of females shouting 'bachao bachao'. He alongwith Umesh went towards that direction and saw two boys trying to snatch gold chain from the person of ladies in the park. He heard a sound of fire arm. When they ran towards that direction, those boys in their attempt to escape ran towards jungle/ridge area behind Lado Sarai. One of those two boys he saw was carrying a cloth carry bag. One was captured near nallah. The bag was seized and it contained a kind of ammunition which if hit against a wall would burst in a loud voice. ASI Ram Bhaj who happened to be in the area was able to capture the other culprit. He is State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 16 of 37not very sure if two accused persons present in the court in this case are those two culprit boys one of whom was captured near nallah and the other was captured by ASI Ram Bhaj as the incident is quite old and it was a crowd of people when the incident happened. A country made pistol was recovered from the spot which had fallen from the possession of culprit boys which they were trying to run away. The two boys were found to have taken alcohol and that is how they could be captured in this incident. Bomb disposal squad had also arrived in this case and they had inspected the site where a bomb had been blasted in this incident. Police prepared the sketch of country made pistol and cartridge which had been recovered from the spot, the same is Ex.PW1/A. The sketch of 7 cartridges is Ex.PW1/B.He identified his signatures on arrest memo of Suleman and Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar. On showing the case property he has stated that he is not sure that this pistol and cartridge Ex.P2 was the same which had been recovered in this case. He has further stated that he is not sure if a small size steel container is also there as is taken out from the jar which contains a small size bomb recovered from the bag. PW2 has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld.APP for the State and he has stated that he has seen accused Ravi @ Gaurechand Sarkar present in the court but again he is not sure though he appears alike the culprit boy who had been captured near nallah situated there 5 Senses Garden and then given State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 17 of 37severe beatings by the public. Ex.P1 bag from which 7 cartridges Ex.P3 and steel container which contained bomb were recovered from the spot as thrown by one of the culprit while they were running away but he cannot say if it was thrown away by accused Ravi. He admitted that the public got enraged when the bag Ex.P1 was found containing a bomb in the steel container and he was given beating by the public. It is true that the culprit boy apprehended on the spot when they had been caused severe beating by the public, meanwhile ASI Ram Bhaj arrived who took the custody of that boy from the custody of the public and got that boy removed in PCR van to hospital. He admitted that the second boy had been captured by ASI Ram Bhaj and the country made pistol was recovered from that boy but he cannot say if that country made pistol was loaded with live cartridges as that fact he himself had not observed. He did not see a third culprit boy in this incident. He cannot say if second accused Suleman is the second boy who had been captured by ASI Ram Bhaj or that he has given his name as he came to know on the spot. He denied the suggestion that he is evading 100% identity of two accused persons today present in the court in this case as the culprit boys involved in this incident. In cross examination conducted by the Ld. Defence counsel he has stated that there was no other police official with him at that time. His signatures were taken on four or five further documents. He had put his signatures on these documents on next day of incident when police State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 18 of 37had recorded his statement police had prepared already. Cartridges were also recovered from the spot where bag Ex.P1 was found lying and recovered. He had not seen as to what mark the cartridges were bearing which were recovered from the spot. He denied that accused Ravi had sarees around 10 or 12 in number in a cloth packing meant for sale or that accused Ravi was sleeping in the park.
37. PW8 Umesh Kumar has stated that he heard a noise of some people as they were shouting badmash, badmash. He came out of his office and saw some public persons gathered on the road in which two boys, might have been beaten by some persons, smeared with dust were present. Those boys are not present in the court today and accused are not the same boy. He heard some public persons that one pistol and bomb was recovered from those boys. He did not see the pistol as well as bomb. He has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he has stated that his statement was not recorded by the police but his signatures were obtained. He has been confronted with his statement on various aspect. He did not stated to the police that the police officials lifted the carbon of the disposed bomb with the help of cotton. He did not state that the said boys were arrested after interrogation. He admitted that the sketch memo Ex.PW1/A bears his signatures at point C. the sketch of 7 live cartridges does not bear his State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 19 of 37signatures at point C. On showing case property he denied about recovery of five live cartridges and two test fired cartridges as well as country made pistol from accused Ravi. In cross examination he has stated that his signatures were obtained by the police officer on Ex.PW1/A after 2/3 days from the incident.
38. PW14 Sandeep Yadav is another eye witness and he has stated that when he was reached Saidulajaib he saw crowd and two boys were there in the PCR gypsy and those were having one country made pistol and two desi bomb which was told to him by the police and at that time these were in the possession of the police. He cannot identify those boys who were sitting in the PCR Van. Next day he was called by the police and bomb disposal squad was also summoned and same was blasted outside village Saidulajaib in his presence. He has also been declared hostile and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he has stated that he did not stated to the police that he was roaming in the park alongwith villagers and saw three boys having arms and trying to rob the chain of ladies. He did not stated that those boys were running towards Five Senses Garden and one was having katta in his hand and another was having steel dibi and third was having jute bag and they all ran towards them and one boy was apprehended by them and 7 cartridges were found in the bag. He did not state that accused Suleman was apprehended by ASI Ram Bhaj State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 20 of 37and one country made pistol was recovered from him and he had thrown one dibbi on ASI Rambhaj but it hit on wall and then blasted. He cannot say whether the accused present in the court today are the same boys or not. He denied the suggestion that he is not identifying both the boys intentionally and deliberately as he has been won over by them.
39. Considering the deposition made by the above PWS who are the eye witnesses of the occurrence, it has come on record that none of the witness has identified the accused Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar and Shakur @ Suleman as the same boys who were involved in chain snatching from the ladies walking in the park on the alleged day of incident or that they are the same boys who were apprehended with bombs and country made pistols. PW1,2, & 14 have even made contradictory statements in this case. The testimonies of each public witness revealed that the accused persons were trying to snatch the jewellery of ladies roaming in the park. Even PW1 has stated that when he asked that boy as to why he is snatching the wearing ornaments that boy made fire which did not hit him but he fell on the ground and even whose jewellery i.e. gold chain of a female in that grappling fell on the ground which was recovered, the next day. The prosecution has not examined any such women who was roaming in the park and attempt was made by the accused to snatch her wearing State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 21 of 37gold ornaments. As per testimony of PW2 Surender; PW8 Umesh accompanied him to the park. PW2 has stated that he heard the shouting of 'Bachao bachao' while PW8 has stated that he heard badmash,badmash. PW8 has stated that he came out from his office and some public persons gathered on the road in which those two boys, might be beaten by the some one, smeared with dust were present. But from the testimony of PW2 it seems that PW8 accompanied him to the spot and PW2 was in the gathering. PW8 has stated that he heard some public persons that one pistol and bomb was recovered from those boys and there both the boys and pistol and bomb were taken by the police with them. From this version it seems that PW8 had heard from the public persons about pistol and Bomb and he did not see himself while on the other hand as per testimony of PW2 he was with him. Pw2 has stated that the said boys were found to have taken alcohol. As per the evidence of police officials and PCR, the said boys were taken to hospital since beaten by public. But no MLC of the said boys has been placed on record. Pw2 has further stated that the bomb disposal squad had also arrived in this case and they had inspected the site where a bomb had been blasted in this incident. None of the public witness has stated that those boys had blasted the bomb at the spot. PW1,2,8 have not identified the case property i.e. country made pistol and bomb before the court. PW1,2,8 & 14 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 22 of 37examined by the Ld. APP for the State. I have perused their cross examination. From the cross examination conducted by the Ld. APP, it is revealed that all these witnesses PW1,2,8 & 14 who are the eye witnesses of this case have denied most of the question put by the Ld. APP in cross examination and it seems that they had not made any statements as recorded by the police. They have not identified the accused persons as the same boys who were arrested at the spot or attempted to snatch the chains of ladies. PW1,2, & 14 are the villagers of village Saidulajaib where Indian park is situated and where the incident of this case has taken place. The accused persons are belonging to West Bengal. There is no reason for four witnesses to depose in their favour that too when they were carrying country made pistols, bomb etc. Nothing fruitful could be extracted by the Ld. APP in cross examination after declaring PW1,2,8&14 hostile.
40. In this case charge has been framed u/s 186/353/307 IPC and 25 Arms Act and u/s 3 of Explosive Substance Act against accused Sakur @ Suleman. As per the case of the prosecution, PW24 ASI Rambhaj and PW6 HC Phool Singh have apprehended the accused persons. Pw6 HC Phool Singh has stated that on 20.12.2006 he alongwith ASI Ram Bhaj were on patrolling on Western marg, Saidulajaib and in the meanwhile he heard noise 'pakro pakro chor chor from the side of Five Senses Garden and during that time he saw State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 23 of 37two persons coming towards them from the side of garden. One was carrying one country made pistol and one steel container and another was carrying one small jute bag. He was chased by many persons. He apprehended one boy who was carrying country made pistol and steel container and his name came to know as Suleman. Prior to apprehension, the said boy threw the steel container towards them but it hit the wall of garden and exploded. Accused Ravi was apprehended by public persons and brought by the public while giving beatings. PW6 has stated that the said boy was uttering hut jao hut jao nahi to maar dung while PW24 has stated that he was uttering maar dunga, maar dunga. As per testimony of PW24 he has stated that the accused has thrown the steel dibby on him but he immediately bent down and said steel dibby hit the wall and blasted and loud noise occurred with lot of smoke. PW6 has stated that the said boy had thrown the steel dibby towards them but PW24 has stated that it was thrown towards him.
41. Sec.186 contemplates obstruction caused to public servant in discharge of public functions. No DD entry has been placed on record showing that ASI Ram Bhaj and HC Phool Singh were on patrolling duty in the area on that day. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has stated as to how the accused persons have obstructed them in carrying of their duties which they were doing State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 24 of 37at the time of incident. The nature of duties being performed as public servant has not been explained in this case. Section 353 IPC contemplates assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty. As per the deposition of public witnesses, they have not identified the accused persons as the same boys who were apprehended by them and the PW6 and PW24. PW6 & 24 were coming after demolition work. As per fardbyan accused Suleman was carrying loaded country made pistol in his hand. But neither PW6 or PW24 or any public witness have deposed that the accused had made fire. None of the public witness has stated about assault or criminal force used by the accused against the police officials. So, it is crystal clear that the accused Suleman has not caused any obstruction in carrying out of public functions and also that he has not used any criminal force to deter the public servants in discharge of their duties. No injury has been sustained to any of the police official by the hands of present accused. Even none of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution have stated that the present accused Suleman has pointed the pistols towards them or made fire on the police party. There is no allegation in this respect against present accused Suleman. So, section 186/353 IPC does not attract to this case against accused Suleman. As far as section 307 IPC is concerned, it has been stated that accused Suleman had thrown steel dibby on ASI Ram Bhaj which hit the wall and exploded. I have given my thoughtful consideration on Police State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 25 of 37control room form which is Ex.PW18/A. The said form states "
'Information - Saidulajaib village near Banerjee Hospital in jungle many people are standing and throwing stones on thieves.
At 5.22 p.m. there are 125/150 persons gathered. One person has been beaten by the public. He has fracture in his hand. He is having cloth bag in his hand in whcih there is country made pistol. Injured is being taken to the hospital. Thaila and katta handed over to ASI Ram Bhaj at the spot. At the back of this form it has been reported that : Two boys Ravi s/o Sumer and Salman s/o Kamal had tried to snatch the chain from a lady. The boys of Saidulajaib were playing who had seen him. He was apprehended by them and he was given beatings. Salman succeeded to run away. Ravi was beaten by public from whose possession one thaila (bag) containing loaded country made pistol and two bomb like articles were recovered. Another boy Suleman was apprehended by the local police from whose possession seven cartridges were recovered. They are under the influence of liquor. There are about 125/150 people at the spot. SHO, IC PP with staff reached at the spot. Thaila (Bag) handed over to ASI Ram Bhaj'.
42. From the above development reported by the police itself at the back of Ex.PW18/A, it is crystal clear that accused Suleman did not throw any bomb on PW24 ASI Rambhaj with the intention to kill him. On the other hand PW14 who is a public witness has also sated that he saw two boys sitting in PCR gypsy. They were having country made pistol and two desi bomb. It is clear that accused Suleman did not throw the bomb on ASI Rambhaj. He has further stated that the bomb was defused next day outside village Saidulajaib. Allegedly there were two bombs, one exploded on the wall by accused Suleman and another defused by PW17 Subedar Ganesh Nath and Pw20 Lt. State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 26 of 37Col. RS Rathore. But PW14 who is public witness has also stated that one bomb was defused outside village Saidulajaib. This also create doubt in the story of prosecution that the steel dibby was thrown on ASI Ram Bhaj which hit the wall and then exploded. So, section 307 IPC is also not made out against accused Suleman. As per Ex.PW18/A, accused Suleman was found possessing only live cartridges. No katta was recovered from him. As per allegation in the present case, katta was also recovered from him. But no public witness has supported this version that katta was recovered from accused Suleman. He has also not been identified by the public witnesses. On the other hand PW2 Surender Singh who is a public witness has stated that the country made pistol was recovered from the spot which had fallen from the possession of culprit boys while they were trying to run away. It is crystal clear that no country made pistol was recovered from accused Suleman. So, section 25 Arms Act is not made out against him.
43. In case Law 2004 (2) CC Cases SC 328 in which in the head note it is stated that : 'Penal Code, 1860, Sec.307 r/w sec.25 and 27Arms Act.Not safe to convict on vague and scanty evidence - Evidence of both witnesses vague & Scanty - Lead/empties not recovered - No definite evidence that accused targeted members of patrolling party - Direction in which shot from revolver traveled and details relating to other logistics not forthcoming - Held:
Not safe to convict accused-accused acquitted for offence u/s State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.FIR no.909/06 Page No. 27 of 37
307 IPC Appeal part allowed'.
44. Accused Suleman @ Shakur has also been charged u/s 3 of Explosive Substance Act. Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act contemplates - Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property. As per Ex.PW18/A, the bomb like articles were recovered from accused Ravi from a bag with country made pistol. No bomb was recovered from accused Suleman. So, there is no question of exploding the same by accused Suleman. As per testimony of PW2 Surender, the bomb was exploded on the next day of incident outside village Saidulajaib. There were only two bombs in this case, one defused by PW17 and 20 and one allegedly thrown by accused Suleman on ASI Rambhaj. But as per testimony of PW2 the another bomb was exploded, the next day outside village. No remnants of bomb exploded by accused Suleman has been recovered by the IO. No one has sustained any injury when the alleged bomb was exploded on the wall while as per testimony of PW24 ASI Rambhaj and PW6 HC Phool Singh they were standing at the distance of 10 to 15 feet away. No public witness has deposed about any explosion of bomb at the spot. Since as per Ex.PW18/A, no bomb was recovered from accused Suleman, question of explosion by him does not arise. There are vague allegations against the accused Suleman @ Sakur in this case which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. So, State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 28 of 37section 3 of Explosive Substance Act is also not made out against accused Suleman @ Shakur.
45. Accused Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar has been charged u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act and u/s 4 of Explosive Substance Act. I have considered the testimonies of each and every official witness. PW4 Ct. Suresh Kumar has stated that Lt Col RS Rathore came on the spot i.e. Indian Park on 23.12.06 and inspected the bomb and as per instruction it was wrapped with cotton and seized vide memo Ex.PW5/A. The bomb was recovered on 20.12.06. The witnesses of the prosecution has stated that it was kept in ditch after digging the soil but there is no evidence that it was kept for 3 days in the ditch and no such witness has been examined by the prosecution who escorted the said bomb. PW4 Ct. Raj Kumar had taken the sealed box containing country made bomb to NSG Smalkha and handed over there. Pw17 Subendar Ganesh Nath has stated that the container was defused by him and he identified the defused material. Pw20 Lt.Col.RS Rathore has issued the destruction certificate which is Ex.PW20/A. In cross examination PW17 has admitted that the glass marble balls are easily available in the market as well as the small steel container.
46. PW6 HC Phool Singh has stated that the public persons State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 29 of 37told that these two accused were trying to snatch the jewellery from the women of the village on the point of arms with their association but on alarm raised by the ladies, the three associates managed to flee away and these two persons ran towards the park. So as per testimony of PW6 there were total five boys. Pw7 Ct. Anil Kumar went with the raiding team to arrest accused Lankesh but he was not traceable. PW10 HC Virender Kumar has accompanied SI Umesh Malik to the spot ie. Indian Park. He got the case registered. PW13 HC Ram Daya is the formal witness who recorded the FIR copy of which is Ex.PW13/A. PW17 ASI Bhim Singh removed the injured to hospital. PW21 Nutan Guha Biswas is the formal witness who had accorded sanction u/s 3,4,5&7 of Explosive Substance Act. The sanction order is Ex.PW21/A. PW22 Sh NS Bundela is also a formal witness who accorded sanction Ex.PW22/A u/s 39 Arms Act.
47. PW12 has recorded DD no.16 & 17. DD no.16 states about pelting of stones by the public persons in the jungle near Banerjee Hospital. DD no.17 states that some persons have taken away the jewellery of ladies roaming in the park. DD no.16 was recorded first and then DD no.17. It means that the incident of pelting stones was already going on and taking away of jewellery of the ladies has taken place afterwards. The allegations against the present accused are that they were present in the park and snatching the jewellery from ladies. State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 30 of 37So, it seems that they might not be available in those persons on whose the stone pelting was going on. I have also perused another DD no.18 which is Ex.PW12/C. It is mentioned in the said DD that in front of RTDC Show room at the house of Sandeep Yadav police be sent as one person has been apprehended and two have absconded. They were having arms. From persons of this DD the story of the prosecution regarding chain snatching and pelting of stones seems to be doubtful because one boy was already apprehended at the house of Sandeep Yadav. Further PW14 Sandeep Yadav has not identified any of the accused present in the court today. It further establishes that accused was not arrested from the Indian Park. I have also perused the arrest memo Ex.PW1/E of Suleman and Ex.Pw1/F. On perusal of the same it is revealed that column no.1&2 of the arrest memos have been filed in Hindi language while rest of the column no.4 to 8 have been filled in English. Also different pen has been used to fill these columns which create doubt in the case of the prosecution.
48. PW6 HC Phool Singh and PW24 ASI Ram Bhaj have stated that public persons named Satpal, Surender, Sandeep and Umesh produced Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar and disclosed that they had snatched a jute bag from the hands of accused Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar. But this testimony has not been corrborated by the public witneses. On checking it was found contained seven live State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 31 of 37cartridges and one steel dibby which accused disclosed that it is a bomb. So as per testimony of PW6, 24 and 26 SI Umesh, the jute bag containing seven cartridges and steel dibby was handed over to SI Ram Bhaj by the public persons. So, as per the testimonies of the witnesses it is clear that the said recoveries have not been effected from the accused by ASI Ram Bhaj and these were produced by the public witnesses. Considering the testimonies of public witnesses they did not identified the accused as well as the case property. Pw1 Satpal has denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP that the other boy was holding one jute bag and he ran towards Indian Park. He also denied the suggestion that the villagers had apprehended that boy. It is further denied that the jute bag was found containing cartridges and one steel dibby and denied that the said boy disclosed that it was a bomb. His signatures were obtained by the police afterwards on the documents. Pw2 Surender Singh has stated that the country made pistol was recovered from the spot which had fallen from the possession of culprit boys while they were trying to run away. PW1 as well as PW2 did not identify the case property i.e. live cartridges as well as bomb material. He has further stated that he put the signatures next day on the documents already prepared by the police. He has further stated that the cartridges were also recovered from the spot where bag Ex.PW1 was found lying and recovered. This version of PW2 makes clear that cartridges as well as jute bag Ex.P1was found lying at the State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 32 of 37spot and it was not recovered from accused Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar. Further Pw8 Umesh has stated that he did not see the pistol as well as bomb. PW14 has stated that he saw crowd gathered at the spot and two boys were present in the PCR gypsy of the police and those two boys were having one country made pistol and two desi bomb which was told to him by the police and it was in the possession of Police. PW14 has not stated about recovery of any jute bag containing bomb. In cross examination conducted by the Ld. APP for the State he has stated that he cannot say whether the accused present in the court today are the same boys or not. In this case the testimony of PW6 HC Phool Singh, PW24 ASI Ram Bhaj and PW26 SI Umesh has not been corroborated by PW1,2,8&14 who are the public witnesses in this case. I have perused some case laws. In case Law 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 192, Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab it is stated in head note that : Explosive Substance Act, 1980, Sec. 4 & 5 - Recovery of hand grenade - No independent witness joined - Evidence of Pws contradictory and not reliable - conviction of accused set aside.
49. In the present case in hand, allegedly country made bomb was recovered. But no independent witnesses have identified the accused while they were present at the spot. No other people of the vicinity has been jointed by the police. The evidence of PWS as discussed above as well as public witnesses is contradictory. State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 33 of 37
50. It is stated in case law 2006 Cri.L.J. 3951 Nuneshwar Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) that : IPC 1860, Sec. 326 - Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Sec.3&4 - Grievous hurt - Accused allegedly chased informant and fired with country made pistol - Bombs thrown with intention to cause death - contradiction in statement of witnesses regarding place of occurrence
- Injuries said to be caused by firearms - Not support by any material on records - Held, that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts - Accused are thus entitled to benefit of doubt - the judgment holding appellants guilty for various offences is set aside - Appeal allowed.
In the present case in hand none sustained any injury while allegedly accused Suleman hit the bomb against wall and ASI Ram Bhaj was standing at that time at the distance of 10/15 feet from that place. The story regarding thrown of bomb on ASI Rambhaj is contradictory to the evidence produced as well as Ex.PW18/A which is the police control room form. Allegedly accused were having loaded country made pistol but no use of it has been made. Public witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused persons without any reasonable doubt.
51. It is stated in case Law 2004(4) AICLR 803 Boya Pedda Madduleti & Ors. Vs. State of A.P that : 'IPC 1860, Sec. 302, 324, 149 and 148 - Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Sec.3&5 - Murder - Accused persons alleged to have killed deceased with deadly weapons - Ocular evidence not supported by medical evidence - Statement of police constable who was on bandobast duty in village not reliable - Statement of wife, son and brother of deceased cannot be believed during suspicious as they State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 34 of 37
could not be expected to be mum on occurrence - No proper explanation of delay of 7 hours for dispatching FIR - prosecution failed to prove its case - Accused Acquitted'.
In the present case in hand the ocular evidence has not supported the case of the prosecution. The statements of police officials is not reliable taking into account the statements of public witnesses.
52. As per testimony of PW19 Sh D Midha Assistant Director the parcel after defusing the bomb by PW17 &20 was sent to CFSL and PW19 has examined those contents. As per report Ex.PW19/A, the gun power found comes under the purview of explosive and it is a source to propel a projectile. But as per the testimony of public witness, the jute bag was found lying at the spot which means that it was not recovered from accused Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar. The evidence of PW6,24 & 26 is quite contrary to the evidence of public witnesses PW1,2,8&14. On the facts of the present case when the evidence is inconsistent, it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of official witnesses in view of the inherent inconsistencies in their evidence. The evidence of PWS has no ring of truth and it does not inspire confidence regarding the manner of the occurrence as alleged in the fardbeyan. No witness of the vicinity has come forward to support the prosecution case.
State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 35 of 37
53. In case Law titled Ulka Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan it has been stated in head note (B) that : 'Criminal trial - Prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused is only to probablise his defence'.
54. In this present case and as per the material available on record and testimonies of witnesses, the prosecution has produced three stories in this case but none of the story could be proved by the prosecution and it seems that the prosecution has itself entangled in these three stories and unable to prove even a single story due to lack of proper and better investigation. As per DD recorded in the PS, pelting of stones was being done in the jungle on the thieves and this information has also been passed to the police. If it was the case, the accused might have fled somewhere in the jungle but in the present case the accused have been arrested by ASI Ram Bhaj near Five Senses Park. There is also story that the accused were snatching the chain of the ladies walking in the park. But this version has not been established since no lady has been examined. Even the public witnesses have not identified the accused persons. Another story is that one person was arrested from the house of Sandeep Yadav. This create doubt about apprehension of accused from the Five Senses Park. So, there is treacherous evidence in this case which cannot be relied upon and it is not safe to convict the accused persons on this State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 36 of 37evidence.
55. Having regards to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and after consideration of the material on records, I find that the prosecution could not establish in the present facts, the place of occurrence, the manner of assault and recovery of bomb from accused Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar. As such the prosecution has failed to establish its allegations beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus the accused persons deserves benefit of doubt. I therefore give the benefit of doubt to both the accused and acquit accused Sakur @ Suleman u/s 186/353/307 IPC & 25 Arms Act as well as u/s 3 of Explosive Substance Act and also acquit accused Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar u/s 4 of Explosive Substance Act & u/s 25 Arms Act. Both the accused are in JC in this case. They be released from the jail forthwith if not required in any other case. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 09.06.2011 (SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track CourtNew Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI State Vs.Ravi @ Gaure Chand Sarkar & Anr.
FIR no.909/06 Page No. 37 of 37