Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay @ Nanu Etc. on 25 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.R. SETHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 : NORTH WEST:
ROHINI COURTS : NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE VS. SANJAY @ NANU ETC.
Sessions Case No. 63/15
Case ID No. : 02404R0141352015
FIR NO. : 33/15
PS : Mangol Puri
Under Sec. : 147/148/149/195A/
307/211/323/341/506/
120B/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
1) Sanjay @ Nanu
S/o Ranjit Singh
R/o C993, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
2) Lalit Kumar @ Lucky
S/o Bansi Lal
R/o E371, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
3) Rahul @ Chandan
S/o Sh. Nand Kishore
R/o F817, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 1 of 16
4) Angraj
S/o Sukhbir Singh
R/o A85, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
5) Sandeep @ Jodi
S/o Sh. Sher Singh
R/o A79, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
6) Joginder @ Chapri
S/o Raj Kumar
R/o B220, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
7) Kuldeep @ Kallu
S/o Sh. Brijpal
R/o A44, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
[.... Accused]
Date of Committal of the case : 04.12.2015
Date of Institution of the case in Sessions Court : 18.12.2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 25.10.2017
Date of Order : 25.10.2017
J U D G M E N T
1.It had been alleged against the accused persons that sometime prior to 04.01.15, they all (along with one Manoj who subsequently expired) had entered into a conspiracy to falsely Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 2 of 16 implicate one Himanshu in a case u/s 307 IPC in order to pressurize him not to depose against accused Jogender and Kuldeep in case FIR 464/12 PS Mangol Puri. It was further alleged that the accused persons had conspired that accused Sandeep would inflict a gun shot injury on person of one Sanjay who then would falsely implicate Himanshu for the said offence. It was further alleged that the accused persons in furtherance to the said conspiracy constituted an unlawful assembly to achieve common object of the assembly and had also caused simple injuries on Himanshu and had threatened him not to depose in case FIR 464/12. On basis of aforesaid allegations, charges were interalia framed against accused persons for having committed offences punishable u/s 120B IPC; 148 r/w 149 IPC; 341 r/w 149 IPC; 323 r/w 149 IPC; 195A r/w 149 IPC & 307 r/w 211/149 IPC.
As on 07.03.15 accused Sandeep was found in possession of a countrymade pistol which allegedly had been used at the time of incident on 04.1.15, separate charges were framed against him for having committed offences punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
2. In order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Thereafter statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. As during course of trial accused Manoj had expired, after verification was got done, proceedings against him were abated vide order dtd.
Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 3 of 1619.04.17 passed by my ld. Predecessor.
3. PW1 Dr. Pankaj Shah proved on record MLC of patient Himanshu as Ex.PW1/A. He also identified writing and signature of Dr. Shikha and Dr. Sachin on the same.
During course crossexamination witness claimed that MLC was not prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he could not identify handwriting of Dr. Shikha and Dr. Sachin.
4. PW2 HC Narender Singh was the duty officer who had registered the FIR. He claimed having received rukka from SI Robin and claimed having made his endorsement thereupon at point Ex.PW2/A. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/B and the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW2/C. During course of crossexamination, he claimed that he did not remember name of the operator through whom contents were got typed on the computer.
5. PW3 Dr. Rajesh proved on record MLC of Sanjay as Ex.PW3/A.
6. PW4 Dr. Sachin proved his handwriting and signature on MLC Ex.PW1/A. Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 4 of 16
7. PW5 Dr. Saiyad identified his writing and signature on MLC Ex.PW1/A.
8. PW6 Dr. Pankaj identified writing and signature of Dr. Mohnish on MLC Ex.PW3/A. During course of crossexamination he denied the suggestion that he had not worked with Dr. Mohnish or could not identify his writing and signature.
9. PW7 Dr. Manoj identified his writing and signature on MLC of Sanjay at portion Ex.PW7/A. During course of crossexamination he denied the suggestion of having given the opinion at instance of the IO to suit case of prosecution.
10. PW8 Hukminder proved on record copies of DD no. 39A, 40A and 41A dtd. 04.01.15 PS Mangol Puri as Ex.PW8/A, B & C and photocopies thereof as Ex.PW8/A1, B1 & C1. During course of crossexamination he denied the suggestion that all DD entries were subsequently manipulated in connivance with IO and the complainant.
11. PW9 Kuldeep was father of victim Himanshu. He claimed that on 04.01.15 his son Himanshu came running to the house and informed him that Sanjay @ Nanu and Sandeep and Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 5 of 16 others had beaten him. Witness claimed that he asked Himanshu to immediately call no. 100. He claimed that when he came out in the street, he found public gathered there. He claimed that police came to the spot and took his son to the PS and then to the hospital. He claimed that subsequently he came to know that Sandeep and Sanjay along with others in order to falsely implicate Himanshu had picked up a quarrel and in the process, bullet was fired on hand of Sanjay with intention to falsely implicate Himanshu.
During course of crossexamination witness claimed that no criminal case was pending against Himanshu. He admitted that he was not present at the spot when dispute took place between his son and others and had not witnessed the incident.
12. PW10 Santosh claimed that on 04.01.15 when she came back home for work, she saw the accused persons. She claimed that when she came near her house, her nephew Himanshu came and shouted, "mujhe gher liya hai aur mujhe mar rahe hai" and then he went inside the house. She claimed that she went towards the accused persons who were standing in the gali and saw that accused Sandeep caused injury to Sanjay with some weapon. She claimed that she could not see by which weapon he caused injury to Sanjay. She claimed that while Sanjay remained at the spot, others fled away.
During course of crossexamination, she claimed that Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 6 of 16 the accused persons were standing at some distance from her house and that she had not noticed if Himanshu was present near them. She denied the suggestion that no incident had taken place in her presence or that she was deposing falsely. While claiming that she knew the accused who resided in the same colony, she claimed that she did not know the accused persons by their name. She claimed that there was no dispute between accused Lalit and either Himanshu or any other member of her family. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at instance of police and Himanshu or had not seen any incident.
13. The victim Himanshu was examined as PW11. He claimed that on 04.01.15 while returning back home, he was stopped by some persons who took out key of his motorcycle and threatened him. He claimed that they were around 1015 boys and when some of them rushed towards him, as he became apprehensive, he left his motorcycle and ran back home. He claimed that while running, someone hit him from his backside with a danda and he was also hit with a brick. He claimed that his sister Kanupriya was complainant in case FIR 464/12 PS Mangol Puri and after he had called no. 100, culprits of that case along with their family and friends collected outside his house. He claimed that they were shouting, "ye Nanu ko goli mar ke bhaga hai". He claimed that police reached after sometime. Witness specifically claimed that as it was dark at the time of incident, he Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 7 of 16 could not see the culprits who had attacked him and would not be in a position to identify any culprit.
After seeking permission from the court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP and during course of such cross examination, he denied all the allegations of prosecution against accused persons. He claimed that he had signed some documents at instance of police officials who claimed that the persons in respect of whom documents were prepared, were the boys who had attacked him. He specifically claimed that none of the culprits who had attacked were present in court. He denied the suggestion that accused had caused injury to him on 04.01.15 or that he was deposing falsely.
14. PW 12 HC Dinesh claimed having joined investigation of the case on 07.03.15 with SI Robin Tyagi. He claimed that they had gone to house no. A79 Mangol Puri, where accused Sandeep was seen coming out of his house. Witness rightly identified accused Sandeep. It was claimed that a katta was recovered from possession of Sandeep. Sketch of Katta was claimed to have been prepared and was proved as Ex.PW12/1. Katta was claimed to have been converted into a pullanda and seized vide memo Ex.PW12/2. Witness identified his signatures on the same. He also identified his signatures on arrest documents Ex.PW12/3, 4 & 5. He claimed that on 30.03.15 he had taken the katta pullanda along with three cartridges for being test fired, to FSL Rohini. He also identified the Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 8 of 16 katta taken out of a pullanda which had broken seals. Katta was identified as Ex.P1.
During course of crossexamination witness could not tell DD number of his departure entry. He admitted that Sandeep resided in a residential area. He claimed that some neighbours were requested by SI Robin to join proceedings but none agreed. He claimed that their names or particulars had not been recorded. Witness claimed that as they had not gone inside house of Sandeep, he could not say as to who was present in the house. Sandeep was claimed to have been apprehended at about 33.30 pm. He claimed that no other independent public person signed the arrest memo as a witness and that none came out from the house while proceedings were being conducted. He denied the suggestion that Sandeep was not apprehended in the manner stated by him or that no katta had been recovered from possession of accused Sandeep. He denied the suggestion that all proceedings had been conducted in the PS or that he had merely signed documents at instance of the IO.
15. PW13 SI Robin Tyagi was the investigating officer of the case. He deposed about facts in consonance with case of prosecution. He proved his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW13/1 and proved the site plan Ex.PW13/2. Shirt of Sanjay was claimed to have been seized in the hospital vide memo Ex.PW13/3. He further stated about arrest of accused persons and identified his Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 9 of 16 signatures on arrest documents in this regard. He also stated about arrest of accused Sandeep on 07.03.15 and about recovery of katta from left side pocket of his pant. He also claimed having obtained sanction order Ex.PW13/12 from competent authority for prosecution of Sandeep under Arms Act.
During course of crossexamination witness claimed having approached office of sanctioning authority through proper channel. He could not tell the date when he applied for grant of sanction. He could not tell DD number of departure entries in respect of the sanction order. Witness claimed that he had not recorded names or particulars of public persons who claimed ignorance about any gun shot incident when he went to the spot. He claimed that as those persons did not disclose their names or particulars, no action was taken against them in that regard. He could not tell DD number of his departure entry on the day Sandeep came to be arrested. He claimed having gone with staff to house of accused in a car and claimed that he had not taken with him any public witness to join proceedings. He claimed that he did request some public persons near house of Sandeep to join proceedings, but claimed that none agreed. He claimed that no action was taken against them regarding their refusal. He claimed that some family member of Sandeep was present in the house and attempt was made to get his signature on arrest memo but he did not sign. He denied the suggestion that Sandeep had himself come to the PS when he was apprehended. He denied the suggestion Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 10 of 16 that no katta was recovered from possession of Sandeep or that the same was planted upon him or that it was for this reason that no public person was joined at any stage in the case. He denied the suggestion that all accused had been falsely implicated in this case or that he had not conducted proper investigation.
16. PW14 Ct. Gaurav was dropped by Ld. PP for State.
17. No other PW was examined on behalf of prosecution. PW W/SI Suman had been dropped on 22.12.16. After prosecution evidence was closed, statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein they all claimed that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated. None of the accused sought to lead any defence evidence.
18. The victim / complainant in this case namely Himanshu has not supported case of prosecution. During course of his examination as PW11, he specifically claimed that none of the culprits who had attacked him were present in court and specifically denied the suggestion that the accused had caused injuries to him on 04.01.15. Himanshu had not claimed having stated anything regarding the incident to his father. In that view of matter, testimony of PW9 Kuldeep regarding Himanshu having informed him about Sanjay, Sandeep and others having beaten him is apparently hearsay evidence and as such is inadmissible in Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 11 of 16 eyes of law. No credence can be given to testimony of PW9 in this regard.
19. Apparently there was not other eye witness to the incident.
20. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated even a word regarding any of the accused having entered into any conspiracy as had been alleged by the prosecution. None has deposed about any of the accused having wrongfully restrained the complainant or having caused injury to him or having threatened or pressurized Himanshu not to give evidence in any case. There is not even an iota of incriminating evidence on record regarding accused Sandeep having inflicted gun shot injury to accused Sanjay with intention to falsely implicate the complainant Himanshu in a case punishable u/s 307 IPC. In fact, there is no legally admissible evidence on record against any of the accused persons in that regard. As such, there is no incriminating evidence whatsoever against any of the accused persons regarding their having entered into any conspiracy or having formed an unlawful assembly or having restrained anyone or having caused injury to anyone in pursuance to common object of the unlawful assembly nor is there any material to give a finding that any of the accused had threatened Himanshu not to depose in case FIR 464/12 or had caused injury to anyone else to falsely implicate Himanshu in that Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 12 of 16 case. Consequently all the accused persons stand acquitted in respect of offence punishable u/s 120B IPC; 148 r/w 149 IPC; 341 r/w 149 IPC; 323 r/w 149 IPC; 195A r/w 149 IPC and 307 r/w 211/149 IPC.
21. As regards accused Sandeep, additional charge had been framed against him for having committed offences punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act. The said fire arm had allegedly been used by him in inflicting gun shot wound on person of Sanjay to falsely implicate Himanshu for the said offence. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the said allegation.
22. None of the witnesses has claimed that Sandeep caused injury to Sanjay with intent to falsely implicate Himanshu for the same. The only witness examined in this regard by prosecution was PW10 Mrs. Santosh. Even she had claimed that when she went near accused persons, she saw Sandeep had inflicted some injury to Sanjay with some weapon. She specifically claimed that she could not see by which weapon injury had been caused to Sanjay. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention that as per allegation Sandeep had fired a gun shot on Sanjay. When the witness claims that she could not see by which weapon injury had been caused, in considered opinion of this court, the only inference that can be drawn is that she was not present at the spot at the alleged time of incident.
Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 13 of 16Be that as it may, fact remains that there is no material on record to form an opinion that the said injury had been caused with intent to falsely implicate Himanshu for the said offence.
23. In view thereof being no incriminating evidence on record regarding Sandeep having fired gun shot or having used any fire arm in this case, no offence punishable u/s 27 Arms Act can be said to have been made out against accused Sandeep.
24. As regards charge framed against Sandeep for having committed an offence punishable u/s 25 Arms act, PW Ct. Dinesh (PW12) and SI Robin Tyagi (PW13) were the lone witnesses of recovery cited and examined by the prosecution. PW12 HC Dinesh during course of his crossexamination had claimed that Sandeep resided in a residential area and there were houses near his place of residence. He further claimed that after Sandeep was apprehended and before search was conducted, SI Robin had requested some neighbours to join proceedings but none agreed. It may be mentioned that Sandeep was allegedly apprehended at about 33.30 pm.
25. SI Robin Tyagi in this regard had claimed that the katta was recovered from left side pocket of pant of Sandeep. As per seizure memo Ex.PW12/2, the same had been recovered from Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 14 of 16 the inner left side dub of pant of accused and not from the left pocket. As regards visit to house of Sandeep, he claimed that he had not taken with him any public witness to join proceedings but had requested some public persons near house of Sandeep to join proceedings, but none agreed. He claimed that no action was taken against them regarding their refusal. The witness further claimed that some family member of Sandeep was present in the house and attempt was made to get his signature but he did not sign. In this regard PW12 HC Dinesh had claimed that they had not gone inside house of accused as he was apprehended from outside the house.
26. It is not a legal requirement that public person must be joined during course of proceedings. However it is a rule of caution and a settled principle of law that in case public persons, if available, are not joined in proceedings, bald testimonies of police officials have to be looked into with great care and caution and no implicit reliance should be placed on their testimonies. In the present case, house of Sandeep was reportedly in a residential colony and some of his family members were present in the house. Still, no genuine effort appears to have been made by the police officials to associate any independent public person in the proceedings conducted.
27. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this court is of considered opinion that allegations of prosecution regarding Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 15 of 16 recovery of katta from possession of accused Sandeep does not travel beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
28. Consequently, in view of facts and circumstances enumerated herein above and observations made thereupon, this court is of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of accused persons. As such no order of conviction can be passed against any of the accused and consequently all accused are ordered to acquitted in this case.
Announced in open court of 25th day of October 2017.
(M.R. SETHI) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE 03 NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Sessions case no. 63/15 Page No. 16 of 16