Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Manjeet Singh S/O Jaswant Singh on 28 July, 2012
Page No. 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. YOGESH KHANNA,
ASJ02 : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Date of Institution : 14.12.2007
Judgment reserved for orders on : 19.07.2012
Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2012
SC No. : 104/09
FIR No. : 404/2007
U/s. : 302 IPC and 27/30/35/54/59 Arm Act
PS : R.K. Puram
State V/s. 1. Manjeet Singh S/o Jaswant Singh
R/o : Armour Security India (P) Ltd.
B105, Defence Colony, New Delhi.
2. Sripal Singh S/o Sardar Singh
R/o :C71/1A, Najafgarh Park,
Najafgarh, New Delhi110043.
J U D G M E N T :
1. Brief facts are that on 19.7.07 at about 8.52PM, an information regarding inflicting of a gun shot injury to a person in office of Haryana Motors, Somdutt Chambers, Page No. 2 Bhimaji Cama Place, New Delhi , was received in PS R. K.Puram. DD No. 11A was recorded in this regard and it was handed over to ASI Prakash Chand who reached the spot. SI Parveen Kumar also reached at the spot. On the spot they found blood scattered on the floor in Hundai showroom and that the injured was already taken to S. J. Hospital by a PCR van. SI Parveen left for the hospital leaving ASI Parkash Chand and Ct. Garib Chand at the spot. SI Parveen Kumar received MLC No. 142576/07 of Subhash Tiwari from S. J. Hospital , wherein it was mentioned, a patient brought dead with alleged history of gun shot injury. SI Parveen Kumar then recorded the statement of Vinesh Kumar, an eye witness, who stated as under:-
" That I am working as a sweeper in Hundai showroom. Today at 8.30AM when I came to the office it was closed. Manjeet Singh, a security guard of showroom, came there within few minutes and opened the office. I along with Manjeet Singh and Subhash Tiwari, a guard of WSP Company and Vikas entered the office . Subhash Tiwari sat on a chair and was reading a pocket Page No. 3 book Amrit Vani. I was changing the uniform nearby. Gunman Shripal had left his gun .315 inch bore in the room of Gagan Chug, Manager while leaving the office. Manjeet Singh picked up the said gun and pointed it at Subash Tiwari and pulled the trigger. The bullet pierced the chest of the Subhash Tiwari who fell down with blood. The bullet hit the chair, table and then the tile on the floor. I raised noise and closed the shutter so that Manjeet Singh could not escape. One Niranjan of WSP company called the police though his mobile phone. PCR van came there and took Subhash Tiwari to hospital. Now I am handing over Manjeet and the gun to you.
The gun with 2 live cartridges & 1 empty fired cartridge was seized. "
2. On this complaint, a rukka was prepared by SI Parveen. FIR No. 404/2007 under section 302IPC was then registered at PS R. K. Puram, New Delhi. During investigation, co- accused ShriPal was also arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Session's Court, as it was a Session's triable case.
Page No. 43. On 24.08.2009, a charge u/s. 302 IPC was framed against accused Manjeet and charge u/s. 30 Arms Act was framed against accused Shripal. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined 28 witnesses and then the statement of accused were recorded u/s. 313 CrPC.
5. Before proceedings further, it would be appropriate, if I state in brief the statements made by the prosecution witnesses.
PW-1, ASI Cecilia, deposed that she recorded DD No. 11A on dated 19.7.2007, Ex. PW-1/A regarding a PCR call about firing at Haryana Motors , Bhikaji Cama Place. She also recorded DD No. 14A, Ex. PW-1/B, regarding registration of FIR and made her endorsement Ex. PW-1/C on the rukka and registered the FIR Ex. PW-1/D. PW-2, HC Rajeev, a photographer with the Crime team, on 19.7.07, had taken photographs Ex. PW-2/A-1 to Ex. PW-2/A-10 of the spot and proved its negatives as Ex. PW-2/B-1 to Ex.
PW-2/B-10.
PW-3, Sadanand Tiwari identified the dead body of the deceased vide his Page No. 5 statement Ex. PW-3/A. PW-4, HC Rajender Prasad delivered the copies of FIR to the office / residence of Ld. MM and senior police officers.
PW-5, Balwant Tiwari , deposed that on 19.07.2007, he parked his car in front of Hundai showroom at Bhikaji Cama Place, Somdutt Chambers, New Delhi, when a safai karamchari Vinesh told him that Subhash Tiwari was shot by accused Manjeet Singh. He informed to the police. The PCR van came there and the shutter was opened. Accused Manjeet was found present inside the showroom along with the dead body of Subhash Tiwari. He identified the deceased vide statement Ex. PW-5/A. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW-5/A wherein the fact that he found accused and deceased inside the showroom was not mentioned. He was working in WSP adjacent to Hundai showroom and he knew accused from last about one and a half month prior to the incident.
Page No. 6PW-6 Balwant Singh, a retired officer of Air Force was working with Armer India Security (P) Ltd., Defence colony, New Delhi. In July 2007 at about 10AM, he reached his office and was informed about the incident.
As he was resiling from his statement, he was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP and he deposed that both the accused persons were deployed in his security agency and that accused Shri Pal, a gunman was having a valid licence of .315 inch bore rifle and he used to carry his gun while performing his duty. He had proved the application, signed by him and Akshay Kumar, given to police as Ex. Pw-6/A, wherein it was mentioned that accused was on duty at the spot at the relevant time and it contain the employment details of both the accused. He admitted that he handed over the documents mark 6/B, 6/C, 6/D and 6/E to the IO. However, he was silent on the aspect of the incident.
PW-7, ASI Mahesh deposed that on 2.8.2007 he had collected the exhibits from the mortuary of S. J. Hospital and gave it to the investigating officer vide memo Ex. PW-7/A. Page No. 7 PW-8, HC Garib Chand, deposed that on 19.7.07 on receipt of DD no.
11A, he had gone to the spot along with ASI Prakash Chand and SI Parveen ;
injured was already removed to hospital in a PCR van and the blood was found lying at the spot ; SI Parveen went to the hospital and after his return to the spot, he prepared a rukka on the statement of Vinesh Kumar and gave it to PW-8 and got the FIR registered. PW-8 returned to the spot and handed over the rukka and FIR to the investigating officer and deposited the pulanda in the malkhana ; both the accused were arrested in his presence by the investigating officer ; Vinesh had handed over the gun to the IO in his presence ; the investigating officer opened the gun and had taken out the cartridges and seized it. He deposed that Vinesh had remained with them throughout the investigation at the spot. PW-8 had not signed any seizure memo or any document.
PW-9 Ct. Chotu Ram deposed that on 08.8.2007 he had taken the exhibits of this case along with sample seal vide RC no. 200/21/07 and deposited it with Page No. 8 FSL, Rohini, New Delhi.
PW-10, HC Ram Niwas , had deposed that on 19.7.07, he was working as MHC(M) at PS R. K. Puram, and on that day, IO Inspector B. P. Yadav had deposit 8 sealed pulandas vide entry no. 3015 Ex. PW-10/A; on 2.8.2007 ASI Mahesh had deposited 3 sealed pulanda along with sample seal of the hospital; recorded vide entry no. 3048 Ex.
PW-10/B. He has also proved the relevant entry vide which all the exhibits of this case with sample seals were sent to the office of FSL through Ct. Chotu Ram vide RC No. 200/21/07 Ex. PW-10/C. PW-11 Dr. Yogesh Tyagi, had proved the postmortem report Ex.
PW-11/A and he gave the cause of death to be hemorrhagic fire arm projectile injury to chest . The postmortem report shows the following injuries ;-
External anterior few injuries :
1. Fire arm entry wound over right side of chest 3.0cm below and to the right of supra sternal notch , Page No. 9 just touching sternal right margin ;
with abraded margins on skin around the entry wound, diameter of wound is 3.0cm, entering into chest cavity fracturing 2nd, 3rd ribs ; going through arch of orta, and right huddle lobe of lung, ;
thoracic cage is full of blood ;
small burn patches of size 0.5 x 0.5 to 0.2 x.2 over left side front of chest left to entry wound .
2. Exit wound - over right side back of chest, 6.0 cm from mid-line, near lower margin of right scapula ; 4th and 5th ribs near spin are fracture by the exited bullet.
3. Fresh lacerated wound in front of right wrist, transverse with, annular margin of size 6x2x1 cm expose tendon and bones.
4. Time since death was 30 hours.
PW-12, Dr. S. K. Chandan , has proved the MLC Ex. PW-12/A of Subhash Tiwari and he observed entry wound in right upper chest just below eternal end of clavicle and one large CLW 5 x 3cm, with tendon exposed on right wrist, Nasal oral bleed was seen.
Page No. 10PW-13, Ct. Prithvi Raj, is a witness of recording of disclosure statement Ex. PW-13/A of accused Shripal.
PW-14, Akshay Kumar deposed that he was working in Armour Security Services, Defence Colony as a field officer. The Samara Hundai showroom at Bhikaji Cama Place was under his supervision. Both the accused were deployed by his security agency and he identified them ; on receipt of information of incident he reached the showroom at about 8.30am/ 8.45am and found accused in the custody of police and the blood was scattered on the floor. He later went to the PS with Balwant (PW5) and gave the record of the company viz documents marked 6/B, 6/C, 6/D and document 6/E regarding attendance of both the accused person. He had given an application Ex. PW-6/A to police along with record.
During cross examination, he admitted that original record must be lying in the office of the company. He deposed that accused Sripal was a gunman. He used to keep his gun in night duty & had licence to use it.
PW-15, Dheeraj deposed that in the year 2007 he was running a security agency Page No. 11 in the name of Force One Security Service at his office at Shahpur Jat, New Delhi. The deceased was deployed in WSP Company at Bhikaji Cama Place near the office of Samara Hundai. He came to know that the deceased was shot dead and he gave in writing regarding posting of deceased vide Ex. PW-15/A and also the attendance record Ex. PW-15/B of the deceased.
PW-16, Sanjeev Singh Negi, deposed that he was working in WSP, an Engineering Consultancy Service. In the year 2007, this company was situated at Bhikaji Cama Place in the neighbourhood of Samara Hundai. He gave a certificate Ex. PW-16/A regarding attendance of Nirajan on the day of incident. He also supplied printout of attendance record Ex. PW-16/B to police, showing that on 19.07.2007, Niranjan had arrived in the office at 8.22am and left his office at 18.55 hours.
PW-17 Ct. Sanjay deposed that on 19.07.2007 the dead body was transferred to mortuary and its postmortem was conducted by the doctor and that it was not tampered with.
PW-18, SI Yogeshwar Singh deposed Page No. 12 that on 19.7.07, he was working as a In- charge of Mobile Crime Team and had inspected the scene of crime , prepared and gave his report Ex. PW-18/A. He got the scene of crime photographed.
PW-19, Inspector Pravin Kumar deposed that on 19.07.2007, he was posted as SI at PS R. K. Puram. On receipt of DD No. 11A he had reached the spot along with ASI Prakash Chand and Ct. Garib Chand.
He saw that blood was lying in the showroom. He met PW Vinesh, who handed over to him accused Manjeet and the gun with which he had shot at the deceased ; the injured had already been shifted to hospital. He reached S.J. Hospital where he found that the injured had died. He collected the MLC and returned to the spot where he recorded the statement of PW Vinesh. He unloaded gun and it contained two live cartridges and one used empty cartridge. He prepared the sketch Ex.PW-19/A of the cartridges and sealed them in a pulanda with the seal of PK and seized it vide memo Ex. PW-19/B ; he prepared rukka Ex. PW-19/C and sent it through Ct. Garib Chand to police station ; he also prepared the pulanda of the gun and sealed it with seal of PK seized it vide Ex.
Page No. 13PW-19/D. In the meanwhile , Inspector B.P.Yadav had reached the spot and the inspector picked up the blood as sample ; the earth control viz., floor tile ; a book of Amrit vani ; one bullet lead from the spot ; chair on which the deceased was sitting , the portion of net of the table ; one table, tile and a piece of POP board vide memos Ex. PW-19/E to Ex. PW-19/K respectively, after converting all of them separately in pulandas and sealing all of them with the seal of BPY. Accused Manjeet was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-19/L and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.
PW-19/M ; accused Shripal was also arrested by the IO vide memo Ex. PW-19/N and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. Pw-19/O. He identified the gun as Ex. P-1 ; live cartridge as Ex. P-2 ; two empty cartridges as Ex. P-3 (colly) ; two pieces of lead as Ex. P-4 ; piece of net of table as Ex. P-5 ; a book Amrit Vani as Ex. P-6 ; table as Ex. P-7, chair as Ex. P-8 and POP board as Ex. P-9 and pieces of ceramic tiles as Ex. P-10.
During cross examination, he deposed that he reached the spot at about 9AM and remained there till 7PM and Inspector B.P.Yadav arrived there at 11.45AM and Page No. 14 PW-19 sent rukka at 11.45am.
PW-20, Rajinder Kumar produced the Arms register of 1981 wherein the arms licence of .315 cm bore rifle was issued to accused Shri Pal for a period of one year, extended from time to time, in the entire territory of India. He produced the photocopy of the extract as Ex. PW-20/A. PW-20 could not identify the photograph of sikh gentleman on licence PW-21, is a public witness.
PW-22 Vinesh Kumar is also an eye witness.
PW-23, Ct. Hardeep Singh , a draftsman , deposed that he prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW-23/A of the spot.
PW-24, Niranjan Admane, deposed that on 19.7.07 at 8/8.30AM, Vinesh, one of the employees of Samara Hundai informed him that accused Manjeet had shot another guard Subhash Tiwari inside the showroom. PW-24 then informed the police by his mobile phone 9868022366 and advised Vinesh to close the shutter till the police arrives.
Page No. 15During cross examination, he deposed that he had not advised Vinesh to down the shutter of the show room but in fact Vinesh told him that he had pulled the shutter down.
PW-25, SI Prakash Chand was the first to reach the spot on 19.7.07 on receipt of DD no. 11A along with PW-19 and Ct. Garib Chand. PW-22 Vinesh was found present. He informed that accused Manjeet had shot Subhash Tiwari. He produced the accused and a rifle; seized by the IO along with two live cartridges and an empty cartridge, after preparing sketch of cartridges; the tehrir was prepared by SI Parveen in his presence and Ct. Garib Chand was sent to PS to register the FIR. Thereafter investigation was transferred to Inspector B.P.Yadav who seized the case property from the spot. He is also a witness to the arrest of accused person. He was there at the spot till 6.30PM.
Nothing material came out in his cross examination.
PW-26, Sh V. Shankar Naryanan, proved the biological reports as Ex. PW-26/A and Ex. PW-26/C and serological reports Ex. PW-26/B and Ex. PW-26/D. Page No. 16 PW-27, Sh. K.C. Varshney of ballistic division, FSL, Rohini, proved his report Ex. PW-27/A and proved that the cartridge case was marked Ex. EC1 fired through the rifle .315 inch caliber and that the rifle was a fire arm and cartridges were ammunition under the Arms Act.
PW-28, ACP - Braham Prakash Yadav is the investigating officer of this case who had lifted the blood, blood sample, bloodstained tile and the tile without bloodstain, book and the case property from the spot; prepared site plan Ex. PW-28/A ; inquest papers as Ex. PW-28/C ; arrested accused persons ; proved the FSL reports; the ballistic report Ex. PW-27/A;
application for conducting postmortem ; brief facts of the case as Ex. PW-28/F. He identified and proved the exhibits. The also proved FSL result Ex. PW-28/G; verification reports mark 28/X1 & 28/X2.
6. On the basis of the above evidence, it was argued by the Ld. Addl. PP that accused Manjeet be convicted for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and whereas accused Shri Pal be convicted u/s. 30 Arms Act. However, it is argued by the accused persons that there are various contradiction in the Page No. 17 statement of witnesses and that accused deserve benefit of doubt and are to be acquitted.
7. I have heard the ld counsel from both sides and perused the material available on record.
8. The important witness, on whom the prosecution is heavily relying is PW-22 Vinesh Kumar, an eye witness, who deposed that on 19.7.07 he was working as a safai karamchari in showroom of Hundai Samara at B-5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, where accused was posted as a guard. On 19/7/2007, in the morning when he reached the showroom, it was locked. He inquired from accused Manjeet , if he had a key. Accused Manjeet then opened the showroom. PW-22 along with Subhash Tiwari, since deceased, a guard with WSP company and accused entered inside the showroom. PW-22 started changing his clothes and whereas Subhash Tiwari sat on a chair. Accused Shri Pal was the night guard & he left. Accused Manjeet Singh brought the gun of accused Sripal and pointed it towards Subash Tiwari and then fired a shot at above the chest of Subhash Tiwari, since deceased. The bullet pierced the chest of the deceased, then hit the chair, a table Page No. 18 and lastly fell on the floor. PW-22 came out of the showroom and closed the shutter so that accused Manjeet Singh may not escape. A phone call to police was made from the adjacent showroom. Police reached the spot and apprehended accused Manjeet. Injured was sent to hospital. Police seized the bullets and gun. PW-22 Vinesh proved his statement Ex. PW-22/A. He signed the arrest documents of the accused.
During his cross examination, PW-22 deposed that he read his statement before signing it and police had also read over to him the documents he had signed. He could not produce his appointment letter of Hundai showroom since he was working under a contractor. He was provided with an identity proof. PW-22 deposed that he used to reach the showroom at 8.30AM every day and used to remain there till 9.30PM. He stated that shutter was automatic and it could be opened only by a key and that the key was with accused Manjeet who was inside the showroom when he pulled the shutter down. He further deposed that when the police arrived, PW-22 called accused Manjeet Singh from the wire- mesh of shutter. Accused then gave him the key from inside Page No. 19 the wiremesh of the shutter. Thereafter police opened the shutter. PW-22 further deposed that he has been working in the showroom for the last about 4-5 months from prior to the incident. He used to mark his attendance on a paper given by the contractor.
PW-21 , Vikas , another public witness, deposed that on 18.07.2007, he was on night duty, as a guard, in the office of WSP at Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. At about 8.30AM, next morning, he heard a gun shot fire noise from the showroom of Hundai car company ; he went there and saw Subhash Tiwari, a guard, was shot at and was lying bleeding on the floor; accused Manjeet Singh was present there with a rifle ; PW- Vinesh was also present there and that accused Shripal was not present at the spot.
As he was resiling from his previous statement, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP and he admitted that he along with PW-Vinesh and accused Manjeet had gone inside the Hundai showroom and that Subhash Tiwari was sitting on a chair, reading a book and that PW-Vinesh was changing the clothes, when accused Shripal had left the office on finishing Page No. 20 his duty and after keeping his gun in the room of Mr. Gagan Chug, the Manager & at that moment accused Manjeet picked up the gun of co accused Shipal and fired a shot on the chest of Subash Tiwari, since deceased, in the presence of PW-21. He stated that due to lapse of time he had forgotten certain details of the case.
During cross examination, he deposed that he cannot say as to who had opened the room of the Manager but it was opened by an employee of the showroom who had come there. During his cross examination, he yet again reiterated that when he reached the spot he found Subhash Tiwari in bleeding condition and accused Manjeet was having a gun in his hands. He could not produce any document showing that he was working in WSP company, adjoining to Hundai showroom.
9. A bare perusal of the statements of PW-22 Vinesh Kumar and PW-21 Vikas would show that the PW-22 Vinesh ; accused Manjeet and Subhash, since deceased were inside the showroom when the incident occurred. Though, Page No. 21 PW-21 Vikash had at one place deposed that he was inside the showroom when the accused had shot the deceased, but in cross examination he deposed that he reached the spot just after the incident and saw deceased lying in the pool of blood and whereas accused Manjeet was having a gun in his hand.
10. The contradiction if PW-21 was present at the time of incident is, though, highlighted by ld. defence counsel saying that PW-21 Vikash was never present at the spot; but suffice is to say that at least PW-21 says that on hearing a gun shot, he rushed to the spot in no time and saw accused Manjeet with a gun in his hand and deceased lying bleeding on floor. What does it shows. It certainly points to the guilt of accused Manjeet. PW-21 do not speak of any other person running from the showroom after shooting the deceased.
On the other hand PW-22 Vinesh confirmed that it was in his presence that accused Manjeet picked up a gun, belonging to co- accused Shripal, lying inside the showroom and then had shot at Subash Tiwari.
No suggestion was put qua the fact if Page No. 22 any of the witnesses viz PW-21 or PW-22 had any enmity with accused or that both had any oblique motive to falsely depose against accused Manjeet in such a heinous crime.
I would also like to point out the depositions of PW-5, Balwant Tiwari, who on 19.7.2007, on being informed of the incident had immediately reached Hundai Samara showroom and in his presence the shutter was opened by police and accused Manjeet was found inside the showroom with dead body of Subhash Tiwari, lying on floor.
PW-6 Balwant Singh and PW-14 Akshay Kumar both working in Armour Security Service , Defence Colony, New Delhi, deposed that both accused Manjeet Singh and accused Shripal were employed with their security agency and that on 18.7.2007 and on 19.7.2007, both accused were deployed as guards at Hundai Samara showroom at Bhikaji Cama Place, B-5, Somdutt Chamber, New Delhi. Both these witnesses had provided the record of service of accused person to police, though photocopies; & deposed that the original record of the employment of accused was never seized by police. However Page No. 23 suffice is to say that accused did not challenge their appointment with the said company; neither do they challenge that they were not deployed at the spot at the time of incident.
MOTIVE
11. Though no apparent motive or any previous enmity between the deceased and accused is proved by the prosecution but it appears from the facts that accused Manjeet knew the place where accused Shripal used to keep his gun after duty hours; accused Manjeet picked up the gun from the said place and had killed Subhash Tiwari, without any provocation given by Subhash Tiwari, since deceased. Rather PW-22 Vinesh Kumar had deposed that Subhash Tiwari, since deceased, was reading a book Amrit Vani when accused had fired a gun shot at his chest. The accused may have nursed an old grudge against Subhash Tiwari, since deceased, as no quarrel took place between them on the day or at the time of incident, but since PW-22 Vinesh confirms that Subhash Tiwari, since deceased, was killed by accused Manjeet Singh by gun fire shot injury given by accused Page No. 24 Manjeet from the gun of accused Sripal; and since PW-21 Vikas also supported the version of PW-22 Vinesh, then there is no reason to disbelieve their version that deceased was killed by accused Manjeet.
MEDICAL
12. The deposition of the eye witness PW-22 Vinesh is duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record viz, MLC Ex. PW-12/A, wherein the following injury was observed on the person of injured :-
"Entry wound in right upper chest just below sternal end of clavicle and one large CLW 5x3cm., with tendon exposed on right wrist. Nasal oral bleed was seen."
Even the postmortem report Ex. PW-1/A show the following injuries on the body of the deceased viz ;-
External anterior few injuries :
1. Fire arm entry wound over right side of chest 3.0cm below and to the right of supra sternal notch , just touching sternal right margin ;
with abraded margins on skin around the entry wound, diameter of wound is 3.0cm, entering into Page No. 25 chest cavity fracturing 2nd, 3rd ribs ; going through arch of orta, and right huddle lobe of lung, ;
thoracic cage is full of blood ;
small burn patches of size 0.5 x 0.5 to 0.2 x.2 over left side front of chest left to entry wound .
2. Exit wound - over right side back of chest, 6.0 cm from mid-line, near lower margin of right scapula ; 4th and 5th ribs near spin are fracture by the exited bullet.
3. Fresh lacerated wound in front of right wrist, transvers with, annullar margin of size 6x2x1 cm expose tendon and bones.
13. Thus, the medical record also speaks about only one gun shot injury. Hence it stands proved that the deceased died due of the gun shot injury inflicted by accused Manjeet and such injury, per PM report Ex. PW-11/A , was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cause of death, as given in the postmortem report, is hemorrhagic fire arm projectile injury to chest. Time since death, per postmortem report, is 30 hours, which also is in proximity with the time of incident.
Page No. 26313 CrPC
14. In his statement u/s. 313 CrPC, accused Manjeet Singh had denied each and every incriminating fact without giving any plausible explanation. Rather he has alleged that he has been falsely implicated by PW-22 Vinesh, PW-21 Vikas & by the investigating officer despite the fact that he had good relations with the deceased Subhash Tiwari. However he did not produce any defence witness to show that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident, which could have given more credence to his explanation recorded u/s. 313 CrPC. The accused even did not allege any motive or enmity with PWs, which could have prompted the public witnesses to depose against him.
RECOVERIES
15. The exhibits lifted from the spot show blood group A i.e., of the deceased, on it, which confirms the deceased died at the spot. The Gun Ex. P1 : the cartridges taken out from the gun, per FSL report Ex. PW-27/A proves that the empty cartridge was fired from Gun Ex. P-1, which is an Arm under Page No. 27 the Arms Act and it was in working order. The empty cartridge found at the spot was also fired by Gun Ex. P1 & that such cartridges are ammunition.
INTENTION
16. Though the prosecution has not been able to show any previous enmity of accused Manjeet Singh with Subhash, since deceased, but regard must be had that accused Menjeet Singh had fired at the chest of deceased from a point blank range and it shows that he had every intention to kill Subhash Tiwari, since deceased. Thus, from the evidence, as discussed above it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Manjit killed the deceased with gun fire shot injury and hence is liable to be convicted u/s. 302 IPC. Thus convicted.
The contradictions qua the timings of reaching / leaving the spot by various witnesses are irrelevant in context of the evidence of an eye witness, whose version is most trustworthy. Hence, such contentions are not tenable.
Page No. 28Co-Accused Sri Pal
17. The prosecution has given him the only role of not keeping his gun safely or under his lock and key. However, it has come on record that accused Sripal used to keep the gun in an almirah in the room of the Manager of such showroom. On the day of incident too, he had left his gun in the office and it was used by accused Manjeet, who brought the gun and had shot the deceased at point blank range. It shows that the gun Ex. P-1 which accused Sripal had left at the office was lying unattended in an unlocked almirah. Since the Gun Ex. P-1 is an arm, per FSL report Ex. PW-27/A, so it was the duty of accused Sripal to keep it safely and under his lock and key. He failed in his duty and hence contravened the condition of his Arm licence.
18. Here, the ld counsel for the accused argued that there exist an identification number on each gun and that it has not been proved by any document that the gun which accused Manjeet used actually belonged to accused Sripal.
I would like to refer to the testimony of PW-14 Akshay Kumar , the supervisor in Armour Security Service, Defence Page No. 29 Colony, New Delhi, who had deposed that both these accused were deployed at the Hundai Showroom and that accused Sripal used to carry gun with him in night duty. It has also come in the testimony of PW-21 & PW-22 that accused Sripal used to keep his gun in Manager's room and that accused Manjeet had used the gun of accused Sripal in committing the crime.
Further the Arms Licence Ex. PW-28/D of accused Sripal has the gun number viz 78/3632, 315 Bore written on its last page. The seizure memo Ex. PW-19/D also refers to gun 315 bore having no. 78/3632 written on its barrel, seized by the police.
Thus all this evidence proves that the gun belonged to accused Sripal and to no one else. The fact accused Manjeet had picked up the gun from office, itself show that it was not lying in lock & key of accused Sripal and hence was lying unattended. There lies the fault of accused Sripal. A deadly firearm has to be kept out of reach of everyone. The person who possess such firearm owes a duty to one and all, to keep his firearm safe and out of reach of others. If he fails, he Page No. 30 contravenes condition of licence qua misusing it, as in this case by co-accused Manjeet Singh. Thus, accused Sripal is also guilty of offence u/s. 30 Arms Act.
Announced in Open Court (Yogesh Khanna)
on 28.07.2012 ASJ02 / South
Saket Courts / New Delhi