Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder Yadav on 7 December, 2018
State Vs. Ravinder Yadav
FIR No. 117/2013
Police Station : Saraswati Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 297/2017
Unique Case ID: DLNW010046682017
State
Vs.
1. Ravinder Yadav
S/o. Late Sh. Bishan Singh
R/O WZ254A, Village Shakurpur
Delhi
FIR No. : 117/13
Police Station : Saraswati Vihar
Under Section : 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act
Date of Institution in Sessions Court : 08.05.2017
Date when judgment reserved : 07.12.2018
Date when judgment pronounced : 07.12.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This is the case under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 25/27 Arms Act .
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 19/3/2013 an information was received at PS Subhash Place regarding firing at Page No. 1 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar MLA office situated at H.No. 99, Chander Lok, Delhi and in pursuance of the same SI Radhey Shaym along with Ct. Raju reached at the said spot where they met HC Jagmal Singh and SI Lalit Kumar who produced accused Ravinder Yadav along with one pistol to him. He also met one Inder Kaushik and recorded his statement in which he has stated that he is President of Block Congress Committee for the last 10 years and he used to take care of office of Sh. Anil Bhardwaj, the MLA and on the fateful day, the said accused came inside the office while carrying a pistol in his hand and started abusing the MLA and his PA and while he was being taken out, he became angry and fired at him but he saved himself. In the meantime one Brahmanand dialled 100 number and PCR van came at the spot and overpowered the accused. FIR was registered on his statement. Investigation was carried out. Accused was arrested during investigation. The pistol and three live cartridges were taken into possession. Site plan was prepared and exhibits were sent to the FSL Rohini for opinion. Sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was obtained. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court.
3. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the chargesheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM and it was received by this court on 8/5/2017 after committal.
Page No. 2 of 18State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar
4. Charge under Section 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act was framed against the accused vide order dated 07/07/2017, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in total 18 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
6. Complainant Sh. Inder Kaushik and eye witnesses Sh.
Kishan Dikka, Zarina Mausi, Sh. Amandeep and Sh. Brahmanand have been examined as PW4, PW5, PW6, PW11 and PW18 respectively. Their testimony shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
POLICE WITNESSES
7. PW1 ASI Chanchal was the duty officer who proved the DD 20A, copy of FIR No. 117/17, endorsement on rukka and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as ExPW1/A to ExPW1/D respectively.
8. PW2 SI Naresh Pal, Incharge Crime Team has deposed that on receipt of call at about 11:40 a.m. he along with staff Page No. 3 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar reached at the spot and inspected the spot. He proved the report ExPW2/A.
9. PW3 ASI Jagmal has deposed that on 19/3/2013 he was Inchage PCR Van Commander31 and on that day at about 11:25 a.m on receipt of call regarding firing at MLA office situated at 99, Chander Lok, they reached at the spot and found one person with a pistol in his hand aiming towards MLA office. He went close to him and tried to prevail upon him not to fire and with the help of his gunman and driver overpowered him. He snatched the pistol that he was carrying and before snatching it finally, in order to decapacitate it, he pressed the catch of the pistol as a result of which its magazine fell down and in the meantime SI Lalit had also arrived and picked up the magazine that had fallen down. He handed over the said pistol to SI Lalit. He proved the call book, sketch of pistol and three live cartridges as ExPW3/A and ExPW3/B respectively and seizure memo as ExPW3/C.
10. PW7 Ct. Prem Chand has deposed that on the direction of IO he took eight pullandas, out of which two were sealed with the seal of RS and six were sealed with the seal of FSL VRA, Delhi from MHCM vide RC no. 51/21/13 and one pullanda sealed with the seal of BMH NCT Delhi along with sample seal Page No. 4 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar from MHCM vide RC no. 52/21/13 and deposited the same to FSL, Rohini. After depositing the same he handed over the receipt of the same to MHCM.
11. PW8 W/Ct Deepmala has deposed that on 19/3/2013 a call was received from mobile number 9013779890 and she reduced the said call in writing. She proved PCR form and the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act signed by SI Harish Chander Pathak, the Nodal Officer as ExPW8/A and ExPW8/B respectively.
12. PW9 SI Umesh Rana has deposed that on 19/9/2013 he reached at the spot i.e. H.No. 99, Chanderlok, Pitampura, Delhi and as per the instruction of SI Radhey Shyam he took the accused to FSL,Rohini where he met Sh. V.R.Anand, Ballistic Expert and on his request the Ballastic expert had conducted the hand wash of the accused Ravinder Yadav and handed over him six pullandas sealed with the seal of FSL VRA. He proved the seizure memo of six sealed parcels as ExPW9/A.
13. PW13 SI Amit has deposed that on 28/7/2018 the chargesheet containing the seizure memos/recovery memo and all the other necessary documents including the FSL result was received in thr Addl. DCP Office for grant of sanction u/s 39 of Page No. 5 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar Arms Act against accused and the file was put up before Addl. DCP and she after perusing the entire file granted the sanction u/s 39Arms Act. He proved the sanction order as ExPW13/A.
14. PW14 SI Radhey Shyam is the IO of the case. He has deposed that on 19/3/2013 on receipt of DD no. 20A at about 11:30 a.m. he reached at H.No. 99 Chander Lok, Delhi with Ct. Raju where they met HC Jagmal and SI Lalit. They produced one person namely Ravinder Yadav along with one pistol. At the spot he found three fired cartridges. Crime team was called and spot was inspected. He checked the pistol and it was found having three live cartridges, two in its magazine and one in its chamber. He proved sketch of pistol and live cartridges as ExPW3/B, sketch of fired cartridges as ExPW14/A, seizure memo of pistol as ExPW3/C, seizure memo of cartridges as ExPW14/B. He recorded the statement of complainant and made endorsement ExPW14/C on the same and got the FIR registered. He called SI Umesh Rana at the spot and sent the accused with him to FSL for getting his handwash done. He proved site plan ExPW14/D, arrest memo ExPW14/E, personal search memo ExPW14/F, disclosure statement ExPW14/G and seizure memo of exhibits as ExPW14/H.
15. PW15 HC Dinesh Kumar is the photographer Mobile Page No. 6 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar Crime Team. He has deposed that on 19/3/2013 he along with SI Naresh Pal and Ct. Anil went to the H.No. 99, Chander Lok, Pitam Pura, Delhi where he took 18 photographs of the spot. He proved the 18 photographs and CD as ExPW15/1 to ExPW15/19 respectively.
16. PW16 SI Parmod Kumar has deposed that on 19/2/2014 he received the case file for further investigation and during investigation he collected FSL result, obtained sanction u/s 39 Arms Act and recorded the statement of witnesses.
17. PW17 Insp. Lalit Kumar has deposed that on 13/3/2013 his wife was not well and hence he was taking her to doctor in Rani Bagh, Delhi and when they reached Chanderlok he saw certain persons running and on inquiry he was told that some firing had taken place in front of H.No. 99, Chanderlok, Delhi. He went towards that house and in the meantime PCR van also came and he together with Incharge of PCR vehicle overpowered a person who was in possession of pistol in his hand. The pistol was snatched from the hand of accused and he was arrested by the IO.
Page No. 7 of 18State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
18. PW10 Dr. Lingaraj Sahool, Senior Scientific officer, Chemistry, FSL Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 26/3/2013 one sealed parcel was marked to him for examination and after examination he gave his report as ExPW10/A.
19. PW12 Sh. V.R. Anand has deposed that on 19/3/2013 on the instructions of Director FSL, he had taken six swabs regarding the hand wash of the accused. On 26/3/2018 eight sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL out of which six parcels were of swabs of the handwash of the accused which he had taken on 19/3/2018. He examined the said eight parcels and gave his report ExPW12/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
20. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, in which all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in evidence was put to him, which have been denied by him in toto. He has stated that he was not present at the spot. It was a planted case at the behest of the area MLA Sh. Anil Bhardwaj.
Page No. 8 of 18State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES
21. I have heard Sh. Rajat Kalra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Kapil Dagar, Ld. Counsel for accused and I have carefully perused the entire record.
22. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. He has argued that the case of the prosecution was solely built on the statement of PW4 Sh. Inder Kaushik, PW5 Sh. Kishan Dikka. PW6 Smt. Zarina Mausi, PW11 Sh. Amandeep and PW18 Sh.Brahmanand , who allegedly were the eye witness of the incident dated 19.03.2013 but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that nothing incriminatory has come on record against the accused. It is further submitted that the entire story of the prosecution is highly doubtful and does not have any ring of truth.
23. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt. It is contended that PW14 SI Radhey Shyam and PW17 the then SI Lalit Kumar have identified the accused in Page No. 9 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar court as the person who was apprehended at the spot and whose custody was handed over alongwith the pistol and ammunition. It is further argued that although the public witnesses have not identified the accused in court but they have broadly supported the case of the prosecution about the manner of commission of offence. It is further argued that having regard to the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the other evidence on record in the form of investigation conducted by the police, the prosecution has been able to prove its case.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT Ocular evidence
24. Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
25. In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is Page No. 10 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar based upon the eye witness account given by the complainant Sh. Inder Kaushik (PW4) and his other companions i.e. Sh. Kishan Dikka (PW5), Smt. Zarina Mausi (PW6), Sh. Amandeep (PW!1), Sh. Brahmanand (PW18), and on the testimony of other witnesses including SI Radhey Shyam (PW14) and Inspector Lalit Kumar (PW17). Here, I may observe that since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimony of the said witnesses, hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether they have deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent Page No. 11 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
26. As per the case of the prosecution, on the fateful day, accused armed with pistol, entered the office of Sh. Anil Bhardwaj, the then MLA where a number of public persons were waiting to meet the said MLA and he started abusing the MLA and his PA Sh. Pappu and started asking about their whereabouts and he threatened them that he would kill both of them and that Sh. Inder Kaushik tried to pacify him but he was adamant and abusing and he was taken outside the office where he became more agitated and said that he would eliminate the main persons of MLA, if not MLA and his PA and he aimed the pistol towards Sh. Inder Kaushik and fired upon him but he Page No. 12 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar saved himself by sitting on the floor and his friend Sh. Brahmanand informed the police at 100 number.
27. Complainant Sh. Inder Kaushik has been examined as PW4 in which he has deposed that on 19.03.2013, he was sitting in the office of Sh. Anil Bhardwaj, the then MLA and managing the crowd as lot of persons had come to meet the MLA who used to meet public persons to resolve the problems from 10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon on Monday and Tu+esday. He has further deposed that at about 11:00 AM, he heard the noise outside, similar to the noise of fire cracker and he was informed that a person had fired with pistol outside the premises of the said office. He further deposed that he did not see who had fired outside the office and he had not seen the person who had fired. Hence, this witness did not support the case of the prosecution regarding the manner of the commission of the offence, that the offence was committed in his presence or that the accused was apprehended alongwith the pistol and cartridges in his presence.
28. Since, this witness was not supporting the case of the prosecution, he was crossexamined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he denied that the accused came inside the office and he was carrying a pistol in his hand or that he started abusing the MLA and his PA and asked as to where they were or Page No. 13 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar that he threatened that he would kill both of them or that he tried to pacify him but he was adamant or that when he was taken outside the office, he became more angry and started saying that if not the MLA or his PA, he would atleast kill his main persons. He further denied the suggestion that at that moment, the accused aimed at him with pistol and fired upon him or that he saved himself by sitting on the floor or that he went inside the room of the office to save himself or that his friend Brahmanand dialled at 100 number. He further denied the suggestion that the said person was overpowered by the PCR staff and on enquiry, his name was revealed as Ravinder Yadav. He further denied the suggestion of the State that an pistol alongwith three cartridges were recovered from the possession of the said accused in his presence or that the sketch of the said pistol and cartridges was prepared by the police in his presence or that the accused was arrested in his presence or that the recovery memo and arrest memo were prepared in his presence. In the crossexamination by the State, Ld. Addl. PP drew the attention of this witness towards the accused Ravinder Yadav but he stated that he was not able to identify him and he also failed to identify the case property i.e. pistol and three cartridges which are Ex. P1 and three fired cartridges recovered from the spot which are Ex. P2.
Page No. 14 of 18State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar
29. Similarly, other public witnesses i.e. Sh. Kishan Dikka (PW5), Smt. Zarina Mausi (PW6), Sh. Amandeep (PW11) and Sh. Brahmanand (PW18) have also not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the manner of the commission of the offence, that the offence was committed in their presence and about the apprehension of the accused by the police in their presence.
30. Since PW5, PW6 and PW18 were not supporting the case of prosecution, they were cross examined by Ld.Addl. PP for the State in which they had denied that at the relevant time the person namely, Ravinder Yadav came inside the office and he was carrying a pistol or that he was abusing the MLA or that he was saying that he was to kill the MlA and his PA or that some persons took him outside the office where he aimed his pistol towards Inder Kaushik and fired at him. Ld. Addl. PP for the State also drew their attention to the accused but they all failed to identify him.
31. PW11 Sh. Amandeep has gone to the extent of denying his presence at the spot when the firing incident took place and he has deposed that on that fateful day, he had gone to the office of Sh. Anil Bhardwaj, the then MLA to meet him but he had to attend some work at Rani Bagh and hence, he left the said office Page No. 15 of 18 State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar of MLA at about 10:30 AM and when he returned back after about 11 ½ hours there was lot of chaos at the Kotthi of the MLA and large number of public persons had gathered around and he came to know that some incident of firing had took place and he did not want to get embroiled in any controversy and hence, he immediately left the spot.
32. Since, all of them i.e. PW5, PW6, PW11 & PW18 were not supporting the case of the prosecution, they were cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which they denied the suggestion of the State that while they were waiting to meet the MLA in his office, at about 11:00 AM, a person whose name was later on was disclosed as Ravinder Yadav @ Rabbo came inside the office carrying a pistol or that he was abusing the MLA and his PA Pappu or that he was threatening to kill the MLA and his PA or that when he was taken by certain persons outside the office, the said accused aimed his pistol towards Sh, Inder Kaushik and fired upon him but Sh. Kaushik saved himself by sitting on the floor and subsequently Sh. Brahmanand called the police and the said accused was apprehended alongwith, the said pistol with the help of the police. All of them failed to identify the accused, in spite of their attention being drawn towards the accused, by Ld. Addl.PP for the State.
Page No. 16 of 18State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar
33. It is relevant here to state that PW3 ASI Jagmal incharge of PCR van who went at the spot and who allegedly snatched the pistol from the accused has also failed to identify the accused in court. He was not sure about his identity and he merely stated that he might be the same person and he is not sure about his identity. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on this issue, he still maintained the same position that he was not sure about his identity.
34. In these circumstances, this court is only left with the testimony of IO SI Radhey Shyam who has been examined as PW14 who is the witness of the recovery of the pistol and three live cartridges from the accused. When all the other material witnesses including public witnesses have failed to identify the accused in the court, in totality of the circumstances, the testimony of SI Radhey Shyam is also of little help to prosecution in proving its case even in respect of fire arms in question as the overall case becomes very doubtful.
35. In view of the above, in totality of the facts and circumstances, it is held that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and hence, the accused is acquitted from the charge framed against him. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged.
Page No. 17 of 18State Vs. Ravinder Yadav FIR No. 117/2013 Police Station : Saraswati Vihar
36. Requisite bail bond and surety bond under Section 437A Cr. P.C is directed to be furnished on behalf of the accused which has been furnished and accepted.
37. The case property, if any, is confiscated to the State and same be destroyed after the period of appeal, and if appeal is filed, subject to the order of the Ld. Appellate Court.
38. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
th
on this 07 day of December, 2018 DEEPAK by DEEPAK
GARG
GARG Date: 2018.12.07
16:46:30 +0530
(DEEPAK GARG)
ASJII, NORTHWEST
ROHINI: DELHI
Page No. 18 of 18