Delhi District Court
State vs . Furkan @ Furki S/O Babu Khan, on 20 October, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF Sh. J.R. ARYAN : DISTRICT JUDGECUM
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : INCHARGE NEDISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C. No. 91/09
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0121952009
State Vs. Furkan @ Furki S/o Babu Khan,
R/o H. No. 1680, Gali No.17, New Mustafabad,
Delhi.
FIR No. 24/09
U/S 302/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act
PS Gokalpuri
Date of Institution : 08.06.2009
Date of reserving for Order : 06.10.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2012
J U D G E M E N T :
1. Accused Furkan @ Furki S/o Babu Khan was initially put on trial for a charge of attempt to murder. Charge set for trial on 18.08.2009 was that on 26.01.2009 at around 7.45 pm on the main Brijpuri road, near street no.12, Bhaghirath Vihar, in front of plot of Kedar, accused in furtherance of common intention with coaccused juvenile Sagir caused a firearm bullet injury to victim Ashok with an intention and knowledge and under circumstances that he caused death of Ashok he would have been guilty of murder. While this charge was on trial that fact came to notice of the court that victim Ashok after being discharged from GTB Hospital had been taken to his native place in District Lakhimpur, Khiri, U.P. and there victim died. This fact was brought before the court by mother of the victim S.C. No.91/09 Page 1/23 2 whose statement was recorded on 17.08.2010. On the basis of that statement and medical reports of the victim Ashok got procured through police from GTB Hospital which detailed medical report is now Ex.PW23/A that charge was amended and a charge for offence u/S 302/34 IPC was drawn and sent for trial against accused on 30.08.2010. Accused claimed trial by pleading not guilty on both occasions.
2. The prosecution case is that victim/deceased Ashok was brought to GTB Hospital on 26.01.2009 at 8.20 pm described to be an unknown person S/o unknown person, aged about 33 years, residential address unknown brought by CATS ambulance. Victim was alleged to be a case of assault by gunshot. MLC Ex.PW12/A was prepared wherein general condition of the victim was found poor. A lacerated wound on the left side of the scalp (temporal region was noticed). Victim was declared unfit for statement. Subsequent medical reports Ex.PW23/A revealed that CT head showed bullet present in left temporal region and this was recorded on 26.01.2009 itself. Further medical report of 09.02.2009 shows that victim patient had been operated on 27.01.2009 and he was continuing to be a case of discharge from scalp wound. Further report dated 16.03.2009 shows that patient was lying as destitute as the attendant had run away. However, vitals were found stable. Another report dated 16.04.2009 shows that a request was sent to a social worker GTBH whereby a shelter and care was requested to be S.C. No.91/09 Page 2/23 3 arranged for this destitute patient as the patient did not need specialized neurological care any more.
3. It is further the case of prosecution that a DD 28A was recorded in PS Gokalpuri on 26.01.2009 at 8.03 pm to the effect that some person has been caused gunshot injury near tripal factory. ASI Hari Ram PW11 along with staff proceeded and reached spot which was near Kedar Nath plot, Bhagirathi Vihar, Old Mustafabad and he found a lot of blood lying on the road. That blood on the road is now shown in photographs (Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/P) which had been recorded by the crime team soon after the incident as it arrived there. By that time, injured was found to have been removed to GTB Hospital by CATS ambulance. ASI with a Ct. Rajesh reached GTB Hospital and found victim/injured an unknown aged around 33 years admitted vide MLC as a case of gunshot injury. No other witness was found present there and from the MLC and the circumstances an offence u/S 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act was found committed and ASI recorded tehrir Ex.PW11/A on DD 28A and FIR Ex.PW10/B was registered on 26.01.2009 at 22.00 hrs. It is further the case of prosecution that during investigation ASI Hari Ram found Suresh PW9 to be the eye witness of incident of this case. 161 CrPC statement of this witness Suresh was recorded on 26.01.2009.
4. According to this witness he was rickshaw puller living in Akram garage situated in gali no.9 , Old Mustafabad, Delhi. On the date of incident at around 7.30 pm, three boys boarded his rickshaw S.C. No.91/09 Page 3/23 4 from Shiv Vihar puliya, Old Mustafabad and they were brought to the spot near tripal factory, Old Mustafabad, their destination. This witness when demanded fare, one of those three boys took out a country made firearm and asked the witness to run away till that boy counted number 1 to 3 failing he would kill the witness. Out of fear witness leaving his rickshaw ran and reached Akram garage and informed there his colleagues. Some of his colleagues came over there and the boy carrying country firearm fired a shot into the head of Ashok @ Pappu S/o Ram Kumar and ran away with other two boys. This witness and his colleagues could not apprehend anyone of the assailants despite chase. By that time witness and his colleagues came back, victim/ deceased Ashok @ Pappu had been removed to GTB Hospital by ambulance. Witness claimed that he could identify culprit boys if shown to him.
5. Further prosecution case is that on 30.01.2009 during investigation the investigating officer received a secret information and on the basis of that information he apprehended accused Sagir S/o Salim. Interrogation of that accused Sagir revealed that accused along with coaccused Furkan @ Furki and a third boy who was friend of Furkan had committed this crime. This confession/ disclosure of Sagir was recorded as Ex.PW4/A. Accused Sagir later on was found to be a juvenile and was prosecuted before juvenile court.
6. Accused Furkan S/o Babu Khan R/o House 1680, gali no.17, S.C. No.91/09 Page 4/23 5 New Mustafabad, Delhi was finally apprehended on 23.02.2009 in some other criminal case. His interrogation also led to his confession/ disclosure which was recorded as Ex.PW5/B. Accused Furkan was made to participate in a TIP. That TIP application was moved by ASI Hari Ram on 04.03.2009 which was taken up by ld. Magistrate on 06.03.2009. Since accused Furkan was in judicial custody, the TIP proceedings were taken up by ld. M.M. PW8 in Tihar Jail premises. Accused Furkan appeared before ld. M.M. in the TIP proceedings which were conducted inside Central jail no.8. Accused Furkan as per these proceedings Ex.PW8/A after being informed the purpose of the TIP and the manner in which it was to be conducted came forward to take part in TIP. Undertrial prisoners of age group matching the age of accused were selected and brought by accused. In all 11 persons joined the TIP and accused sought his identity through TIP. Witness Suresh when called inside jail he correctly identified accused amongst 11 TIP participants and accordingly on completion of investigation that accused Furkan was chargesheeted.
7. In this trial in all 24 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The most material star witness of the prosecution is PW9 Suresh. This witness supported the prosecution charge, identified accused as one of those three boys who had traveled in the rickshaw of this witness from Shiv Vihar puliya to tripal factory near Old Mustafabad on 26.01.2009. He also supported the case that S.C. No.91/09 Page 5/23 6 when he demanded fare accused persons gave a threat to him by aiming a country firearm on his head. Out of fear he ran away and went inside garage of Akram and narrated the incident to 23 persons present inside the garage. Those 23 persons then went outside the garage and one of them was Ashok. Accused carrying country made firearm then fired a shot in the head of Ashok. Witness identified accused Furkan as the same person who had earlier threatened this witness when witness had demanded fare and later on this accused Furkan had fired a shot in the head of the victim Ashok.
8. This witness was examined twice by the prosecution. On the first occasion he was examined on 21.12.2009 when his examination in chief was recorded and cross examination on that testimony was recorded on 09.03.2010. Second time this witness was examined on 15.10.2011 after the charge had been amended and charge of murder had been put on trial in this case. Rest all witnesses are only supporting witnesses and police officials and brief account of that evidence will be described in the following paragraphs. Another material prosecution witness is PW12, doctor in GTB Hospital and according to this witness he attended upon victim of this case and had prepared MLC as Ex.PW12/A. Victim had been brought to GTB Hospital by CATS ambulance as a case of assault by gunshot. Doctor stated that general condition of the patient was very poor and the patient was unfit for statement. PW14, PW17 and PW18 are S.C. No.91/09 Page 6/23 7 close relatives of deceased Ashok @ Pappu. According to these witnesses, victim Ashok expired in his native village Bachgama, Distrist Lakhimpur, Khiri, U.P. on 26.05.2009. PW17 being pradhan in the village had got that death recorded and he proved the fact as Ex.PW17/A. Witness further deposed that victim/deceased Ashok @ Pappu had been brought to the village by his brother Guddu (PW14) from hospital in Delhi in injured condition and the victim had remained very weak and had not been in a position to speak. Similar is the testimony of PW18.
9. Another material witness is PW15 who was an assistant ambulance officer CATS. Witness deposed that on 26.01.2009 at around 7.48 pm on receiving a call from CATS control room he reached near tripal factory, Mustafabad and information was that a person had been caused gunshot injury. As the witness reached with his ambulance, PCR had already reached and this witness then took victim to GTB Hospital in his ambulance. Victim was unconscious.
10. PW1 and PW6 are police officials who are part of the crime team which had reached the spot soon after the incident. These witnesses noticed a lot of blood on the road in front of plot of Kedarnath. PW1 took photographs of that scene and he exhibited those photographs. A look at these photographs reveals that a lot of blood is lying on the scene of the crime and it provides a due corroboration to the prosecution story that such a huge quantity of blood was there possibly on account of a firearm bullet injury. PW6 S.C. No.91/09 Page 7/23 8 had prepared his report and exhibited it as Ex.PW6/A. PW2 is a duty constable in GTB Hospital and according to this witness victim was brought to hospital by CATS ambulance. PW3 is a constable who had accompanied PW11 ASI Hari Ram when they proceeded for inquiry of DD recorded regarding incident of this case. PW3 is also a witness to the lifting of samples like blood, blood stained concrete and concrete and earth control from the scene of the crime. He had also taken tehrir and had got FIR registered. In cross examination, witness admitted that place of occurrence was a well habitated and populated area. PW4 is a HC who was on a patrolling and deposed that at around 7.00 pm on the date of incident while he was in a patrolling near ganda naala, Brijpuri, he was informed by passersby that a person had suffered a bullet injury near tripal factory. This witness reached that spot and found injured lying. CATS ambulance arrived and took injured to GTB Hospital. He further deposed that meanwhile ASI Hari Ram and Ct. Rajesh also arrived there.
11. This witness PW4 is also a witness of the fact that on 30.01.2009 coaccused Sagir (juvenile) had been apprehended by ASI Hari Ram pursuant to a secret information from Shiv Vihar area at around 6.45 pm. Accused Sagir when interrogated he came out with a disclosure which was recorded as Ex.PW4/A and then Sagir was arrested. Witness further deposed that accused Sagir disclosed the involvement of present accused Furkan in this incident and S.C. No.91/09 Page 8/23 9 disclosed address of accused Furkan house no.1680, gali no.17, New Mustafabad, Delhi. He further deposed that they visited that house but found accused absent. PW5 a Constable is a witness of the fact that present accused Furkan was formally arrested in Karkardooma court on 23.02.2009. PW7 is a constable who had been in the company of PW4 during patrolling and has repeated facts in his deposition which PW4 had also deposed. PW8 is Ld. M.M. Sanjay Khanagwal who had conducted test identification parade on 06.03.2009 and accused Furkan participated in that parade. Accused was duly identified by witness Suresh and ld. M.M. recorded those TIP proceedings and proved it as Ex.PW8/A. PW10 is the duty officer who had recorded FIR of this case as well had recorded daily diary and he exhibited both these documents. PW13 is the police official who had filed charge sheet for an offence of murder against accused. PW16 is a police official who prepared site plan on scale.
12. PW19 is a senior police official who had forwarded charge sheet when it was u/S 307 IPC. Witness states that injured/ victim Ashok was unfit for statement when challan was filed in court. During trial it revealed that victim/injured had expired because of injuries suffered in the incident and as directed by the court further investigation was taken up and information was collected from his village. Medical reports were also collected from GTB Hospital and those reports revealed that during the period injured/victim remained S.C. No.91/09 Page 9/23 10 admitted in the hospital he was unfit for statement. Witness further deposed that despite efforts third accused Irfan could not be arrested and finally supplementary chargesheet for offence u/S 302 IPC was filed in court. PW20 is a police official who had collected medical reports of injured from GTB Hospital. PW21 is doctor from Department of Neurosurgery GTB Hospital and the witness stated on the basis of medical reports concerning patient Ashok @ Pappu that from 26.03.2009 to 20.04.2009 patient remained unfit for statement till the time of his discharge. Witness had recorded an endorsement as Ex.PW21/A on those medical reports. In cross examination witness admitted that he had not personally examined the victim and had recorded his report on the basis of medical reports. PW22 is a police official from PCR and she had recorded information in PCR which she proved as Ex.PW19/A. According to this witness, information was received when a call was made from a telephone no. 9313023864. She passed on this information to concerned police station.
13. Finally PW24 had conducted further investigation when victim/ deceased Ashok was reported to have died in the village. This witness had recorded statement of persons like Bharat, Guddu, Jagannath which evidence had already been referred to in this judgment. This is in all the prosecution evidence.
14. Accused when examined u/S 313 CrPC to explain evidence against him particularly evidence deposed by PW9, his response S.C. No.91/09 Page 10/23 11 was a complete denial. He denied to have traveled in the rickshaw of PW9 or that on demand of fare he showed him a country firearm. He denied entire prosecution case. He denied to have given any disclosure before the police and pleaded that infact he was picked up from his house and was falsely implicated. As regards accused having joined TIP and identified by witness, accused came out with a plea that witness identified accused at the instance of police when police had already shown his photographs to the witness and witness was under police pressure. No defence evidence has been examined.
15. Counsel Sh. Mohd. Hasan appointed Amicus for accused has argued the case. Counsel submitted that injured/ victim Ashok has not been even cited a witness in the charge sheet though it was filed u/S 307 IPC. Counsel submitted that if it was on account of negligence on the part of the police or callousness but then it is a fact that till victim had been discharged from GTB Hospital, except an endorsement recorded by PW21 that victim remained unfit for statement till his discharge there is no other evidence that victim was unable to speak. PW21 has admitted in cross examination that he himself had not examined the patient and recorded that endorsement only on the basis of medical reports . Counsel argued that such a report might have been got manipulated by police only to save its skin. Counsel submitted that victim Ashok could have been a best witness to narrate the incident and to disclose the identity of S.C. No.91/09 Page 11/23 12 accused.
16. Counsel further argued that PW9 when cross examined on 09.03.2010 admitted in cross examination that many other persons had also witnessed the occurrence when accused Furkan had aimed country firearm on the temple of this witness. Counsel submitted that some person ought to have been joined as a witness. Witness further states in cross examination that he did not raise any alarm or call anyone and counsel argued that it was an unnatural human conduct. Counsel then referred to further cross examination where witness states that there were around 10 to 12 persons in the garage. Counsel submitted that victim/ injured alone could not have come out of the garage when 10 to 12 persons were present there and at least those persons who have come out of the garage if victim had been caused firearm injury. Witness then deposed in cross examination that there was darkness and he could not see the face of anyone. Counsel submitted that this creates all doubt in the testimony of the witness if he had been able to identify accused. Witness also admits in cross examination that he had been shown photographs of accused by police before he took part in TIP. Counsel argued that TIP was of no value in such circumstances. Witness also deposed in cross examination that he had been confined and detained for 8 days in the police station and only after test identification parade that he left Delhi. Counsel submits that if police suspected this witness initially then joining him as a S.C. No.91/09 Page 12/23 13 prosecution witness and that too a witness of occurrence was all suspicious. Finally, counsel referred to cross examination of this witness which had been conducted on 15.10.2011. This witness PW9 was recalled and further examined as the charge had been amended to offence u/S 302/34 IPC. In this cross examination, witness states that after initial incident when the present accused is stated to have given a threat to this witness and witness ran towards garage of Akram, witness deposed in cross examination that having entered inside the garage, he did not come out and he did not know what happened thereafter. Counsel submits that such a testimony of witness belies the prosecution case that he was eye witness of the occurrence where accused fired gunshot upon victim. Counsel argued that charge could not be held to have been found proved on the testimony of this witness.
17. Ld. APP on the other hand pressed upon this court that PW9 had no motive to get accused falsely implicated. His testimony was completely reliable and even if some deficiencies had been pointed out by ld. defence counsel referable from cross examination of this witness that charge could be held to have been proved when soon before the incident of victim Ashok caused gunshot injury, accused Furkan armed with a country made firearm had threatened this witness. I have appreciated both sides contentions.
18. To what extent testimony of PW9 can be held and found believable and whether this evidence and other incriminating S.C. No.91/09 Page 13/23 14 material can be held sufficient to find the charge proved against accused. There was a little controversy that victim Ashok as an unknown person had been brought to GTB Hospital as a victim having suffered gunshot injury. It was again an uncontroverted fact that incident did occur in front of plot of Kedarnath and Akram garage was also situated nearby, this situation has been depicted in the site plan Ex.PW11/B. A lot of blood found lying on the road as it appears from the photographs which crime team had recorded on the scene of the crime and as has been deposed by crime team police officials that victim was caused a gunshot injury can be accepted. Victim/ injured as per MLC Ex.PW12/A was found to have a lacerated wound on the left side of scalp (temporal region). Further medical reports collectively proved as Ex.PW23/A shows that on the date of incident itself it came to be recorded in the medical report that bullet was present in the left temporal region towards occipital side. Further medical reports show that patient was operated on 27.01.2009 and as recorded on 09.02.2009 he was found to be case of discharge from scalp wound. All these medical reports show that he was being treated as a case of gunshot injury. This evidence suggests that incident of victim Ashok @ Pappu having suffered gunshot injury on the scene of the crime as is the prosecution case is also duly proved. Question then arises if accused was the culprit who caused this gunshot injury.
19. It is a matter of record that statement of PW9 Suresh u/S 161 S.C. No.91/09 Page 14/23 15 CrPC had been recorded by ASI Hari Ram on 26.01.2009 itself. In this 161 CrPC statement witness had not named any of the three culprits who had boarded his rickshaw to reach Mustafabad, tripal factory. It is further prosecution case that on 30.01.2009 that police party on the basis of a secret information apprehended accused of this case a juvenile Sagir and interrogation of Sagir revealed involvement of the present accused as well third culprit who could not be apprehended by the police so far. It is a matter of record that present accused was apprehended on 23.02.2009 in another criminal case from PS Bhajanpura and then he was formally arrested in the present case. He was made to join TIP which was held on 06.03.2009 . Accused did join TIP which was held in Tihar jail premises. Accused participated in the proceedings by joining under trial prisoners of his choice. He was duly identified by PW9 in that TIP proceedings and this TIP proceedings are Ex.PW8/A.
20. PW9 in evidence in this trial has deposed that as a rickshaw puller on 26.01.2009 at around 7.00/7.30 pm he carried three persons who had boarded his rickshaw from Shiv Vihar pulia and he brought them to tripal factory. When this witness asked for fare which had been settled at Rs.10/, culprits gave a threat to this witness to shot him. He further deposed that person held a country made pistol against the head of this witness and asked this witness to run away till that culprit counted 1 to 3 and he started counting. Witness leaving behind his rickshaw reached garage of Akram and S.C. No.91/09 Page 15/23 16 narrated incident to 2 3 persons who were present inside the garage. He remained inside the garage and those 2 3 persons came out and one of them was Ashok. Witness further deposed that accused fired a shot in the head of victim and accused persons then ran away taking benefit of the darkness. Witness specifically identified accused as the person who had put country made pistol on the head of this witness and then had fired a gunshot upon deceased. As regards this witness having carried three accused persons in his rickshaw and having brought them to tripal factory site there is no cross examination on the witness. Witness states in cross examination that many rickshaws were there when he demanded fare from accused persons and this witness did not protest to any rickshaw puller present around when accused were not paying the amount. He further admits that other persons had witnessed that occurrence but none intervened or uttered a word. Ld. defence counsel argued that as a natural human conduct other rickshaw pullers would have intervened and absence of any such intervention by other rickshaw puller or any such fact coming before the court, the narration by witness be considered suspicious. I could not convince myself. If a rickshaw puller had been given a threat and the culprit was armed with a country made pistol then other rickshaw pullers if present around when did not react by any overt act it could not suggest a reason or ground to hold the witness unbelievable or unreliable. PW9 having not raised any hue and cry or alarm would S.C. No.91/09 Page 16/23 17 also be not a circumstance to suggest that witness was telling a lie.
21. Another argument of ld. counsel was that when 10 to 12 persons were inside the garage then victim/ deceased Ashok @ Pappu alone being caused gunshot injury appeared to be an abnormal situation. PW9 being a rickshaw puller when had called other rickshaw pullers that would have invited all persons present in the garage to come out together. This argument also did not appear to be sound wherefrom the only logical inference was to be inferred that only victim/ injured could not have come out alone and would not have been caused any such gunshot injury.
22. Testimony of PW9 has remained unchallenged on the point that he had brought three culprit accused to the scene of the crime and when he demanded fare he was scared away and soon after the victim Ashok @ Pappu was caused a gunshot injury. Counsel argued that TIP in this case was of no value when witness admitted in cross examination he had been shown photographs of accused by the police before he participated in TIP. TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence. TIP is held only to ascertain that fair investigation was in a right direction. In a situation where the witness had a close encounter with accused and had a sufficient opportunity to see and observe the face of accused, his evidence with or without TIP proceedings will have to be appreciated in those peculiar facts and circumstances where though the accused was not previously known to the witness but the witness identified him in dock and deposed S.C. No.91/09 Page 17/23 18 against him. In the present case, accused did participate in TIP proceedings. It is none of the plea of accused that after being arrested in another criminal case on 23.02.2009 till 06.03.2009 when he joined test identification parade he had been shown to the witness. In these circumstances, even if witness admits in cross examination that he had been shown photograph of accused and then he identified accused in TIP, such an evidence is to be appreciated in the fact situation that witness as a rickshaw puller had transported present accused with other two accused persons to the scene of the crime. When the witness demanded fare he was scared away. Facts and circumstances suggest that witness had enough sufficient opportunity to see the accused and he would have identified accused with or without having seen his photographs. Witness identifying accused in court in such circumstance is an evidence which cannot be disbelieved by any deficiency being pointed out in TIP proceedings.
23. Counsel submitted and argued that PW9 could not be said to be a witness of the incident where victim was caused gunshot injury. It is a fact that witness when cross examined on 09.03.2010 when the charge u/S 307/34 IPC was on a trial against accused, deposed that other person who came out of the garage had also seen accused persons besides this witness meaning thereby witness claimed to be the witness to the incident. When examined in chief he specifically had deposed that it was accused who caused gunshot S.C. No.91/09 Page 18/23 19 injury to the victim and he specifically identified accused as the same person who earlier had scared away this witness holding a country made firearm towards him when witness had demanded the fare. This witness when examined further as recalled on 15.10.2011 after the charge had been amended to u/S 302/34 IPC, witness deposed in cross examination that he remained inside the garage and did not know what happened thereafter. Site plan shows that place of incident was very close to garage. Witness in his examination in chief specifically deposed that accused facing trial in this case had kept country pistol on his head and had then caused gunshot injury on the person of victim Ashok. I do not find his testimony stands discredited or shattered on that point from the above referred cross examination. Counsel then argued that witness had been detained for 78 days in the police station. This point could have been answered and clarified by the IO as to in what requirement and need PW9 was required to be kept in the police station. Was it on account of this witness himself found suspect or was it on account of some other reason. In absence of any cross examination on that point on the IO, the issue leads nowhere to discredit witness or to disbelieve him.
24. Court should be conscious and well aware that where a conviction for a serious charge for attempt to murder is to be considered the sole eye witness testimony has to be completely a reliable evidence. I have considered this point and I find PW9 is S.C. No.91/09 Page 19/23 20 wholly reliable. It came at the earliest in 161 CrPC statement of this witness that incident had occurred in a manner that three persons boarded his rickshaw and when witness demanded fare accused scared him away by showing a country pistol and this incident of firearm shot caused to victim had occurred in a quick succession on the same place of occurrence. Some inconsistencies as pointed out by ld. defence counsel did not go to a root of the case, I find evidence of PW9 is completely reliable. This witness had not named any of the culprits and had merely described the incident to the police. His evidence gets support from the medical evidence as the victim was found to have suffered a gunshot injury. To my considered view, evidence produced by the prosecution proves the charge u/S 307 IPC against accused Furkan.
25. As regards charge u/S 302 IPC, we do not have any evidence if gunshot suffered by the victim was a ultimate cause for his death as came to be referred from medical reports Ex.PW23/A after the victim had been operated his condition had been recorded as (vital stable and victim started accepting orally). None of the medical reports suggest that condition of the victim had became vulnerable. All these medical reports are upto the period 16.02.2009. Witness PW14, PW17 and PW18 have deposed that victim having been brought to his village in U.P. had expired on 25.05.2009 and his last rights were performed in the village itself. Admittedly there was no postmortem to ascertain the cause of death. Charge of murder in S.C. No.91/09 Page 20/23 21 these circumstances cannot be considered proved.
26. Accused Furkan is accordingly convicted u/S 307 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (J.R. Aryan) On this 16th day of October, 2012. District Judge-cum-ASJ(I/C), NE, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
S.C. No.91/09 Page 21/23 22 IN THE COURT OF SH. J R ARYAN, DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, INCHARGE (NE), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI S C no.91/09 Unique ID no.02402R012952009 State vs. Furkan @ Furki s/o Babu Khan, r/o H. No.1680, Gali no.17, New Mustafabad, Delhi.
FIR no.24/09 PS Gokalpuri u/Sec. 302/307/34 IPC & 27 Arms Act Date of institution of case:- 08.06.2009 Date of reserving for order on sentence:- 17.10.2012 Date of passing of order on sentence:- 20.10.2012 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Accused has been convicted under Section 307 IPC i.e an offence of attempt to murder. Counsel prayed for a lenient view on a plea that accused is a young boy and is not a previous convict. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand submitted that a country made firearm has been used by accused in causing injury to the victim and though prosecution could not prove its charge of murder but then victim did died probably because of firearm bullet injury caused by accused in the head of the victim. I have considered both sides submissions.
2. Victim in the present case was a rickshaw puller and firearm bullet injury was caused to him by accused when victim demanded S.C. No.91/09 Page 22/23 23 the rickshaw fare for having carried accused and other two boys in his rickshaw. Accused was armed with weapon. Offence is grave and circumstances in which it is committed also suggest a depraved brain committed to criminal activity. In the set of facts and circumstances a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months is awarded to accused. Period undergone in this case including investigation, inquiry and trial shall be given a set off benefit.
Announced in the open Court on (J R Aryan)
20.10.2012 District Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge,
In-Charge( NE Distt. ),Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi
S.C. No.91/09 Page 23/23