Delhi District Court
State vs 1 Pradeep @ Machhender (A-1) on 18 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI
DELHI
Old Sessions Case No. 26/1/14
New Sessions Case No. 51981/16
FIR No. 244/2014
PS Sultan Puri
U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC
& u/s 25/27 Arms Act
State Versus 1 Pradeep @ Machhender (A-1)
Son of Sh. Ram Singh,
Resident of 814, Balmiki Basti,
Karala, Delhi.
2 Amit Kumar (A-2)
Son of Sh. Jagdish,
Resident of A-61, Jwalapuri
Camp No. 4, Sunder Vihar,
Delhi.
3 Arjun (A-3)
Son of Sh. Jeet Ram,
Resident of A-812, Jwalapuri
Camp No. 4, Sunder Vihar,
Delhi.
Date of institution in Sessions Court: 19.07.2014
Date of conclusion of arguments : 04.02.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 18.02.2017
Memo of Appearance:
Sh. A.B. Asthana, learned Addl. P.P. for State
Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, learned Amicus Curiae for A-1
Sh. Himanshu Buttan, learned Amicus Curiae for A-2
Sh. Kundan Kumar, learned defence counsel for A-3
FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 1 of 15
JUDGMENT
1 Special Cell, New Delhi Range, Lodhi Road, New Delhi was in search of a wanted criminal Pradeep @ Machhender (A-1).
2 On 03.03.2014, police team comprising of SI Yogesh Kumar (PW9), SI Bhoop Singh, HC Vinod (PW8), HC Satender, Ct. Ajay, Ct. Dhananjay and Ct. Takdir reached near Sultan Puri nallah (drain) at about 12.30 PM. A secret informer met them and divulged that Pradeep (A-1) along with his accomplices would come near P-3 Block, Koyala Park, Sultan Puri between 1.00 PM & 1.30 PM and if raided, he could be apprehended along with his accomplices. Information was got verified and as per the directions of senior police officers, raiding party geared itself up. Few public persons were requested to join the raiding party but none was found willing.
3 All the aforesaid police officials, without wasting anytime, reached the spot and laid trap. At about 1.25 PM, one white colour Innova Taxi No. DL-1YC- 2327 was found coming. It halted near the garbage-dump of Dharam Market, Krishan Vihar.
4 Accused Pradeep (A-1) alighted down from the aforesaid Innova and stood near its rear side. SI Yogesh identified him. Immediately when the police team moved forward in order to nab him, accused Pradeep got the wind and took out pistol from left dub of his wearing pants and fired at the police party. Despite being informed that he was surrounded by police and to surrender himself, accused Pradeep kept on firing. In self-defence, SI Yogesh and SI Bhoop Singh also retaliated by firing. They both were, eventually, able to nab him. Accused Pradeep, when searched later, was found in possession of one loaded pistol, two magazines and live cartridges.
5 There was firing from the moving Innova as well. In retaliation and self- defence, HC Vinod also fired towards Innova. He took aim of its tyre. One such bullet pierced the tyre and, therefore, such Innova came to halt. However, the two FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 2 of 15 accomplices of A-1 alighted down and were able to run away.
6 Inderjeet Singh (PW1), who was on steering wheel of said Innova, was, however, nabbed. Subsequent investigation though revealed that he had no role to play in the incident in question as the accused persons had simply used his taxi. Therefore, no action was proposed against him. He was rather made a witness.
7 On 15.04.2014, such other two accomplices i.e. Amit Kumar (A-2) and Arjun (A-3) were also arrested. HC Vinod identified them as well.
8 It is in these circumstances that all the three accused persons have been charge-sheeted for offences u/s186/353/307/34 IPC & u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
9 Charge-sheet was laid before the concerned Magisterial Court on 03/07/2014. Since offence u/s 307 IPC was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed. Case was received on allocation by this Court on 18/07/2014. All the three accused were ordered to be charged u/s 186/353/307/34 IPC and accused Pradeep @ Machhender was also directed to be charged for offence u/s 27 of Arms Act. Charge u/s 25(I-B) (a) Arms Act was also added on receipt of mandatory sanction u/s39 Arms Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence has examined 12 witnesses vis PW1 Inderjeet (driver of Innova taxi who was all along present at the spot when the incident of firing had taken place), PW2 Ct Dhan Singh, PW3 Ct Kamal (Photographer, crime team), PW4 SI Mukesh Kumar (second IO), PW5 HC Om Prakash Rana (Duty Officer), PW6 ASI Ajeet Singh (in-charge, crime team), PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar (official of Special Staff/spot witness), PW8 HC Vinod Kumar (official of Special Staff/spot witness), PW9 Ct Mohan Lal, PW10 SI Jagdish Nara (First IO), PW11 Dr. N.P. Waghmare (FSL expert) and PW12 SI Ravi Kumar (Part IO).
FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 3 of 1511 Accused, in their respective statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded innocence and claimed that they had been falsely implicated. A-1 desired to lead evidence in defence and examined DW1 Mukesh Verma in order to show that he had been illegally lifted from one office situated in Krishan Vihar on 03/03/2014. Other two accused did not choose to lead any evidence.
12 Learned Addl. PP has contended that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. It has been claimed that there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the statement of Sh. Inderjeet who, for no fault of his, had to undergo trauma because his taxi had been used by the accused persons when the firing incident had taken place. He has also contended that on the basis of tip- off, the officials of Special Staff had laid trap and apprehended accused Pradeep @ Machhender at the spot. It has been stressed that there is no material contradiction appearing in the testimony of two crucial spot witnesses i.e. PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar and PW8 HC Vinod Kumar. According to Sh. Asthana, the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly goes on to indicate that the accused not only obstructed the police party in discharge of their officials duties but also fired upon them with intention to resist such arrest as well as to kill them.
13 All such contentions have been refuted.
14 Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, learned Amicus Curiae for A1 has contended that a false case has been made and story of encounter has been fabricated. According to her, accused had been lifted from somewhere else and an attempt has been made to show that there was some secret information pursuant to which A-1 was apprehended on 03/03/2014 from a place situated within the jurisdiction of PS Sultan Puri. She has also claimed that even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that accused had any intention to kill anyone. According to her, even the pistol has been planted upon accused Pradeep @ Machhender.
15 Sh. Kundan Kumar, learned counsel has defended A2 Amit Kumar and Sh. Himanshu Buttan, learned Amicus Curiae has defended A3 Arjun.
FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 4 of 1516 According to them also, no such incident had taken place. They have out-rightly denied that Amit Kumar and Arjun were ever present inside the Innova much less that they had fired upon the police party. They have claimed that none of the police officials of Special Staff had any occasion to see them and testimony of PW1 Inderjeet is not believable because he was forced, threatened and coerced by the police to sing to their tunes.
17 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
18 Prosecution could examine only three spot witnesses. Naturally, they are in the best position to throw light about spot-occurrence. They are PW1 Inderjeet, PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar and PW8 HC Vinod Kumar. Let me first evaluate their testimony.
19 PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar has deposed that on 03/03/2014, he along with SI Bhoop Singh, HC Vinod, HC Surender, Ct Ajay, Ct Dhananjay and Ct Takdir was present at Sultan Puri nallah to apprehend accused Pradeep @ Machhender along with his associates who were wanted in case FIR No.39/14, u/s 392/395/397/34 IPC, PS Lajpat Nagar and at about 12.30 p.m., one secret informer met them and gave information that wanted accused Pradeep @ Machhender along with his associates would come at P3 block, near Koyala Park, Sultan Puri, in between 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. He shared such information with his seniors through mobile and then prepared a raiding party. He asked 3-4 public persons to join investigation but none agreed. Then, they all proceeded towards the place of information in two vehicles and after reaching there, they laid trap while hiding themselves. At about 1.25 p.m., one white Innova car No. DL-1YC-2327 came from Dharma Market, Krishna Vihar side and stopped opposite Kudaghar (garbage dump), Koyala Park. Accused Pradeep came out from the conductor side of the said vehicle and stood on the rear said of vehicle. He (PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar) and SI Bhoop Singh moved towards accused Pradeep to apprehend him. Accused Pradeep saw them proceeding towards him and took out one pistol from his left dub of wearing pants and started firing upon them. They shouted informing him that they were police officials and FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 5 of 15 instructed him to surrender himself but he kept on firing on them. They also fired in retaliation and ultimately succeeded in apprehending him.
20 PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar further deposed that the associates of accused Pradeep, who were in the said Innova car, moved their car towards Sultan Puri road. PW6 HC Vinod, Ct Dhananjay and Ct Ajay who were standing at the corner of Koyala Park near Balaji Mandir tried to stop said Innova car but the occupants of Innova fired on the above-said police officials. Those police officials also fired in retaliation. The Innova car moved further and HC Satender and Ct Taqdir followed the same. HC Vinod took correct aim of the back tyre of the said Innova car which got burst and Innova came to halt opposite mother dairy. Two persons got down from said Innova and succeeded in fleeing away from the spot.
21 PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar further deposed that since he could not see their faces, he could not identify them. PW6 HC Vinod and other police officials had, however, succeeded in apprehending the driver of Innova. PCR was informed and SI Jagdeep Nara along with other police officials came from PS Sultan Puri accused Pradeep @ Machhender and driver were handed over to them.
22 PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar further deposed that IO checked the pistol recovered from the possession of accused Pradeep and found one live cartridge in the barrel of the said pistol and one live cartridge in the magazine of the said pistol. On formal search, one magazine was also recovered from his right pocket of wearing pants which was containing four live cartridges. Statement of PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar was recorded by the IO. Said articles were also taken into possession. PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar further deposed that crime team also reached the spot and took photographs and also lifted 7 empty cartridges lying scattered at the spot. IO checked the Innova car and found one purse at the back cover seat of the driver seat. On opening the purse, one DL, PAN card, ID card of High-tech Institute in the name of Amit son of Jagdish, election identity card in the name of Anil and some visiting cards were also found in the said purse along with some cash, photographs etc. IO prepared the pullanda of said purse and took the same into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW7/G. Innova car No. DL-1YC-2327 was FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 6 of 15 seized vide memo Ex. PW7/H. Site plan was prepared by the IO at his instance. SI Vinay Pal, who was the IO of case FIR No. 39/14, PS Lajpat Nagar, also came at the spot. PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar identified accused Pradeep as well as recovered fire-arm, cartridges, the photographs of the spot.
23 PW8 HC Vinod has also corroborated him.
24 He deposed that at about 1.25 p.m., they saw one white Innova bearing registration No. DL-1YC-2327 coming from Dharam Market. It came to halt near a garbage-dump of Koyla Market, Sultan Puri. One person alighted down from said Innova whom PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar identified as Pradeep @ Machhender and indicated them (police party) to surround the vehicle. Albeit, interestingly, when PW8 HC Vinod Kumar was asked to identify, he pointed out towards accused Amit Kumar as the one who had alighted down from Innova. Such identification was erroneous. Fact, however, remains that in the later part of his examination-in-chief, PW8 HC Vinod Kumar corrected himself and claimed that due to some confusion, he had pointed out wrongly and then went on to identify Pradeep @ Machhender correctly as the one who had alighted down from Innova.
25 PW8 HC Vinod Kumar deposed that SI Yogesh Kumar and SI Bhoop Singh rushed towards accused Pradeep who rather fired upon them. PW7 SI Yogesh and SI Bhoop Singh revealed their identity and asked him (accused Pradeep @ Machhender) to surrender and also retaliated by firing upon him. PW8 HC Vinod Kumar further deposed that no one got injured in such firing and when that Innova started moving, someone from inside the Innova fired upon him. Such fire did not hit him. Thereafter, they all ran after said Innova and he (PW8 HC Vinod Kumar) fired while taking aim of right side rear tyre of Innova. Due to such gunshot, Innova car came to halt near Mother Dairy Booth. Before they could reach near Innova, two persons alighted down and fled. However, the driver of Innova was apprehended. Said driver was brought to PW7 SI Yogesh and then SI Yogesh informed senior officers as well as PCR about the incident and carried out further investigation.
FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 7 of 1526 PW1 Inderjeet is also a key witness.
27 He was down on luck. He had to undergo trauma merely being the driver of said Innova. He was running taxi for M/s. Guruji Tours & Travels and on the basis of one call received from his employer Ravi Chauhan, he had taken the book- ing.
28 As per his earlier part of his deposition, PW1 Inderjeet had taken four persons in his Innova No. DL-1YC-2327 to Haridwar on 28/02/2014 and returned Delhi on 02/03/2014. Same evening i.e. in the evening of 02/03/2014, he received call from one of those persons. Such caller i.e. Arjun made request that they wanted to go to Kolkata. PW1 Inderjeet then talked to his employer and when his employed confirmed such booking, he confirmed caller also. On 03/03/2014, he came at Mohammad Pur Village at about 9.30 a.m. and same four persons boarded his taxi and told him to first go to Sultan Puri from where, they wanted to take someone who was also to accompany them to Kolkata. He also identified all the three accused persons i.e. Pradeep @ Machhender, Amit and Arjun claiming that those three persons were part of the group of same four persons who had earlier gone to Haridwar and who had again boarded his Innova on 03/03/2014 for going to Kolkata.
29 PW1 Inderjeet further deposed that one of them alighted down near PS Sultan Puri and did not return for quite some time. Thereafter, the remaining three occupants i.e. all the three accused asked him to take U-turn. He did so and stopped the vehicle near a park within the area of Sultan Puri. One of those three persons alighted down. He indicated towards accused Pradeep @ Machhender as the one who had alighted down, while the other two accused i.e. Amit and Arjun remained seated in Innova for half an hour. Thereafter, PW1 Inderjeet felt some movement and heard noise. He could see the same from rear view mirror and when he wanted to reverse, he was told by other two occupants i.e. Amit and Arjun not to see here and there. Accused Arjun was sitting on the front seat adjacent to the driver seat and accused Amit was in the second row. They both were armed with pistols and the person on rear i.e. accused Amit put pistol on his neck. Arjun FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 8 of 15 put pistol on his left side near belly region and asked him to accelerate the taxi. When he came on the main road, he could see that occupants of one Fortuner were firing at their vehicle and even the occupants of Innova i.e. Amit and Arjun were returning fire. One bullet fired by the occupants of Fortuner hit right side tyre of his Innova due to which Innova came to halt. Thereafter, those two occupants i.e. Amit and Arjun fled from there but since he himself was in a shocked state, he remained seated on the driver seat. When the occupants of Fortuner came towards him, he learnt that they were police officials in plain clothes. They beat him and covered his face and took him to PS Sultan Puri where he was interrogated.
30 Since PW1 Inderjeet could not reveal certain facts related to recovery of articles from his taxi, prosecution sought permission to cross-examine him and when cross-examined, he admitted that the police had searched the taxi and one purse was recovered from the rear pocket of the driver seat which was seized by the police. He also admitted that accused Pradeep, who had already alighted down from the Innova, had also fired upon two such police officials who were coming towards the taxi. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the place of incident was surrounded by houses and shops and was a thoroughfare. He also claimed that he was taken to PS in a Fortuner car. He, however, asserted that no firearm or cartridge was recovered by the police from accused Pradeep in his presence and that he learnt about the same later on at PS. He also claimed that they had shown the booking slip to the police but did not know whether such booking slip was seized by the police or not. He also revealed his own mobile number as 9899962318. He also claimed that when he was shown pistol by the two occupants inside the Innova, he drove his taxi for 10-15 minutes at high speed.
31 PW10 SI Jagdeep Nara was the one who had been assigned the investigation. On receipt of DD No. 52B (Ex. PW10/A), he along with other police officials reached the place of occurrence. He met SI Yogesh along with other staff officials besides accused Pradeep @ Machhender. SI Yogesh handed over said accused to him as well as one pistol, two magazines and six live cartridges which had been allegedly recovered from accused Pradeep. He recorded statement of SI Yogesh Kumar. Such statement has been proved as Ex. PW7/A. He then prepared FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 9 of 15 sketch of pistol, two magazines and six live cartridges. Such sketch has been proved as Ex. PW7/B. Thereafter, those were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW7/C. 32 Crime team officials also arrived at the spot and inspected the spot. Photographs of the spot were also taken. In this regard, reference may be made to the testimony of PW6 ASI Ajeet Singh (in-charge crime team) and PW3 Ct Kamal (Photographer, crime team). During inspection of the crime scene, seven fired cartridges were also found lying scattered on the ground. Those were also seized. Sketch memo of said empty cartridges has been proved as Ex. PW7/D and these were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW7/E. Thereafter, rukka was prepared and was sent to PS Sultan Puri through Ct Dhan Singh.
33 Since accused Pradeep @ Machhender was wanted by Special Cell, SI Vinay of Special Cell, who was IO of case FIR No. 39/14, PS Lajpat Nagar, came at the spot and PW10 SI Jagdeep Nara handed over the custody of accused Pradeep @ Machhender to him.
34 As per deposition of PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar, Innova car was also checked and the articles recovered from said Innova car were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/G and thereafter, Innova was also seized vide memo Ex. PW7/H. Site plan has also been proved as Ex. PW10/C. Service revolver of SI Bhoop Singh, SI Yogesh and HC Vinod were taken into possession by PW10 SI Jagdeep Nara. FSL team had also come at PS on 05/03/2014 and inspected the Innova car and lifted exhibits from said car vide memo Ex. PW10/E. These included swab and control swab which were lifted by Assistant Director (Ballistic), FSL Rohini after thorough examination of said Innova taxi.
35 Learned defence counsels have contended that a false story has been projected by the prosecution and there was never any such incident. According to them, a fake scenario has been constructed and it has been attempted to be shown that there was some kind of encounter in which accused Pradeep @ Machhender was apprehended. It has been argued that there is no evidence on record which FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 10 of 15 may support or corroborate the story of alleged encounter as even otherwise, no public witness has been joined in the investigation despite the fact that incident had taken place in a busy and crowded area. According to them, as per case of police, there was firing and cross-firing but surprisingly, no window pane, either of alleged Innova or of Fortuner got shattered. It is also surprising as to how, no one, either from the side of accused or from the side of police, got any injury when the alleged firing was from a close distance. It has also been argued that there is nothing on record which may suggest that there was any attempt to kill any police official. According to defence counsels, even if, prosecution case is believed in its entirety, it would merely indicate towards the act of obstruction and fleeing away and there is nothing on record which may show that there was any intention to kill any police official.
36 I have carefully perused the entire material available on record in the backdrop of said defence contentions and I would not hesitate in holding that prosecution story does not seem to be artificial at all. Merely because the public persons did not come forward or did not join the investigation would not mean that the entire case is false. Public persons normally keep themselves away and aloof from such type of investigation, more so, when their personal interest is not at stake. It is not proper to doubt the evidence of police officers. Judicial approach must not be to distrust and suspect their evidence on oath without good and sufficient grounds. In Karamjit Singh vs. State AIR 2003 SC 1311, it has been held by the Apex Court that the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. Moreover, it is for the defence to explain as to why both the said police officials of Special Staff and taxi driver Inderjeet would depose against them particularly when no animosity has been suggested. In Ali Sher Vs. State 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12175, the accused had fired at the police party when he was asked to surrender. He was nabbed and a pistol was recovered from him. In that case also, no corroboration was there from independent corner and no police official got any injury. However, the conviction u/s 186/353/307 IPC was maintained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court while holding that though all the witnesses were police FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 11 of 15 personnel and there was no public witnesses but that may not be a sufficient ground for not sustaining the conviction of the appellant if the evidence was reliable and trustworthy. Here, whereas, there is corroboration from a neutral source i.e. taxi driver Inderjeet. I have already observed above that PW1 Inderjeet was unfortunate. For no fault of his, he too was apprehended, brought to PS for extensive interrogation and allegedly beaten-up by the police. There was firing from his taxi and, naturally, initially, even the police suspected his involvement and, therefore, police was justified in making interrogation from him. However, once the thorough interrogation was made, the police was convinced that he had no role to play and, therefore, he was let off and merely cited as witness. There is no reason to believe that his deposition is artificial or motivated. Defence has completely failed to explain as to why PW1 Inderjeet, with whom accused persons have no enmity, would depose against them.
37 Coming to the role of accused Pradeep @ Machhender, PW1 Inderjeet claimed that he had alighted down from the vehicle and thereafter, he saw some movement and noise from rear view mirror. He could also see firing and cross-firing. He also supplemented that accused Pradeep @ Machhender had also fired upon the two persons (police officials) who were coming towards the taxi. He did claim in his cross-examination that accused Pradeep @ Machhender was not taken to PS with him but that would not suggest any doubt regarding his presence at the spot or about his involvement. Undoubtedly, Inderjeet pleaded his ignorance about the recovery of firearm and cartridges but that seems quite understandable because immediately after the incident, even he was under sustained interrogation and needle of suspicion was also pointing towards him.
38 Be that as it may, the recovery was effected immediately from the possession of accused Pradeep @ Machhender and the pistol, magazine and live cartridges recovered from him were taken into possession. I have seen sketch memo Ex. PW7/B as well as seizure memo Ex. PW7/C and I have no reason to disbelieve or discard such recovery from the possession of accused Pradeep @ Machhender in view of the overwhelming evidence appearing on record.
FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 12 of 1539 Undoubtedly, all the raiding team members of Special Staff have not graced the witness box but the testimony of PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar and PW8 HC Vinod Kumar is found to be sufficient in itself and defence has not been able to dislodge their version despite exhaustive grilling.
40 PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar has specifically claimed that accused Pradeep could see the police team and on seeing them, accused Pradeep took out one pistol from his right dub of wearing pants and started firing upon them. They even shouted and revealed their identity and told him to surrender but even that did not deter accused who kept on firing on them. Merely because no police official was hurt or received gunshot injury would not mean that there was no firing by him. PW8 HC Vinod Kumar has also deposed that SI Yogesh Kumar had identified said accused and indicated them to surround the vehicle but that person (A-1) fired upon PW7 SI Yogesh and SI Bhoop Singh who were rushing to catch him. Thus, the entire sequence of the events clearly signify that accused Pradeep @ Machhender was having clear knowledge that by such act of firing, he could have easily killed those police officials. It is not a case of mere obstruction and resistance. He fired at the police party despite the fact that he was fully aware that he had been surrounded by the police team. Instead of surrendering, he indulged into unprovoked firing which reveals his guilty mind and culpable intention. What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge making him liable u/s 307 IPC. His intention and knowledge of consequences of his act are quite comprehensible. Story propounded by solitary defence witness does not seem credible enough. Falsity in his version stood exposed in cross-examination as he failed to produce any record to prove that he was having any office or that accused had come to his office for preparation of any Voter ID Card. His testimony is too hollow to be believed.
41 However, as regards the other two accomplices, who were found sitting inside the Innova, their complicity though seems to be there but not of that severe and grave magnitude. They both were able to gauge and realize that they had been surrounded by the police team. Instead of surrendering, they threatened the hapless taxi driver and made him drive at high speed. PW1 Inderjeet has categorically FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 13 of 15 claimed that he was shown pistols by both the said accomplices i.e. Amit and Arjun and I do not find any reason to disbelieve him. If such pistols were pointed towards him all along, then it was not possible for them to have simultaneously fired upon chasing police team. Such Innova kept on running for 15-20 minutes and by the time, the police team could reach Innova, those two occupants i.e. Amit and Arjun were able to alight down and were able to run away. This also means that there was quite a distance between the Innova and the vehicle in which the police officials were chasing. No firearm has either been recovered from the possession of accused Amit and Arjun. Reference in this regard be made to the testimony of PW2 Ct Dhan Singh and PW4 SI Mukesh Kumar. If A-2 and A-3 had fired from Innova, logically speaking, the empty cases should have found from the Innova taxi. Despite thorough forensic examination of Innova, nothing could be recovered or found from Innova which may even remotely corroborate the theory of firing from inside Innova. It is not conceivable that while fleeing, they would have carried with them any such left-over cartridge case when police was in hot pursuit and they had virtually no time with them.
42 I have seen report of ballistic expert Ex. PW11/A as well as various seizure memos. Pistol (Ex. F1) belonged to PW7 SI Yogesh Kumar, pistol (Ex. F2) belonged to SI Bhoop Singh and pistol (Ex. F3) belonged to PW8 HC Vinod. All these three pistols were found to be firearms as defined in Arms Act and were standard pistols capable of chambering and firing standard 9mm ammunition. All these three firearms were found in normal working order. Two 7.65mm empty cartridge cases (EC1 and EC2) and five 9mm cartridge cases (EC3 to EC7) were also sent to FSL. These seven cartridges had been picked-up from the spot and were seized vide memo Ex. PW7/D. It was opined that EC3 and EC4 empty cartridge cases had been fired through standard pistol Mark F3 and EC5 and EC6 through pistol Ex. F2 and EC7 through pistol Ex. F1. Thus, five cartridges were found fired from the said three pistols of said three police officials. As far as EC1 and EC2 were concerned, these were found fired through pistol Mark F4 which allegedly was recovered from the possession of accused Pradeep @ Machhender. No other cartridge or cartridge case was recovered from the spot. This also strengthens my view-point that there was no firing was made from inside the Innova FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 14 of 15 Taxi.
43 Albeit, accused Amit and Arjun did obstruct the police team which was discharging its public function and used criminal force to deter them in such discharge of their official duties. They made Inderjeet to accelerate so that police was not able to catch him. They also threatened him by showing pistols which fact, in itself, suggests use of criminal force.
44 Other investigational aspects do not seem to be in much dispute. I have perused the testimony of other police officials as well as various other aspects related to investigation which are found to have been duly proved. Crime-team officials have graced the witness box and proved report and photographs. Photographs Ex PW 3/A-21 and 22 depict the deflated tyre of Innova. Concerned IOs have also entered into witness box and made reference to the aspects dealt with by them. Consequent to FSL report, sanction was given by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Additional DCP, Outer District, Delhi. Such sanction has been proved as Ex. PW12/A. During the investigation stage itself, investigating agency had obtained complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. which has been proved as Ex. PW4/D. Such complaint was also annexed with the challan and the cognizance was accordingly taken by the Court on the basis of such challan as well as such complaint.
45 In view of my foregoing discussion, I hereby hold all the three accused guilty for offences u/s 186/353/34 IPC. Accused Pradeep @ Machhender is also held guilty under section 307 IPC, u/s 25(1-B) (a) Arms Act and u/s 27 Arms Act.
Announced in the open Court (MANOJ JAIN)
On 18th February, 2017 Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC)
North-West District: Rohini: Delhi
Digitally signed
MANOJ by MANOJ JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2017.02.21
15:43:24 +0530
FIR No. 244/2014 PS Sultan Puri Page 15 of 15