Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh@Deepak@Kanastar on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 28327/2016)
FIR No. 74/2015
Police Station Crime Branch (Central)
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 186/353/307/332/506/34
IPC & Sec. 25/27/54/59
Arms Act.
Charges framed against accused 186/34 IPC, 332/34 IPC,
Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar 353/34 IPC, 506/34 IPC &
under Sections. Sec. 307/34 IPC & Sec. 25
& 27 Arms Act.
Charges framed against accused 186/34 IPC, 332/34 IPC,
persons namely Dheer Singh @ 353/34 IPC, 506/34 IPC &
Dhiraj @ Kala, Ashok Kumar @ Sec. 307/34 IPC & Sec. 25
Pahalwan & Ravi Tomar under Arms Act.
Sections.
State Versus 1. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o H. No. 1007, T-Block,
Mangolpuri, Delhi.
2. Dheer Singh @ Dhiraj @ Kala,
S/o Sh. Late Sh. Virender Malik,
R/o Village Laank, PO Shamli,
District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Ravi Tomar,
S/o Sh. Tejvir Tomar,
R/o Village Goonga Khedi,
PS: Ramala, Tehsil Baraut,
District Bagpat, Uttar Pradesh.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 1 of 67
State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
4. Ashok Kumar @ Pahlwan,
S/o Sh. Dalchand,
R/o H. No. A-2/13, Budh Vihar,
Phase-I, Near 30 Feet Road,
Delhi.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 14.07.2015
Date of Arguments 17.01.2026 & previous dates.
Judgment reserved on 17.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on 24.01.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar, Dheer Singh @ Dhiraj @ Kala, Ashok Kumar @ Pahalwan & Ravi Tomar are facing trial for the offences punishable under 186/34 IPC, 332/34 IPC, 353/34 IPC, 506/34 IPC & Sec. 307/34 IPC & Sec. 25 Arms Act. Additionally accused Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar is also facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 27 Arms Act. The story of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2015, between 02:10-02:15 pm, at near Yamuna Marg, Service Road, Civil Lines, Delhi all the aforesaid four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed the public servants i.e. Police Team comprising Inspector Atul Tyagi, HC Virender, HC Sandeep, Ct. Hamender, Ct. Rakesh & Ct. Brij Pal in the discharge of their public functions. Further on the abovesaid date, time and place all the aforesaid four accused persons in furtherance of their common FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 2 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
intention voluntarily caused simple hurt to public servants namely Inspector Atul Tyagi & Ct. Hamender while they were discharging their duties. Further, on the aforesaid date, time and place all the four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted and used criminal force against the public servants/aforesaid police officials who were performing their public duty and intentionally deterred them from exercising their duty. Further on the abovesaid date, time and place all the aforesaid four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, criminally intimidated the abovesaid police officials by extending threat to kill them, if they tried to apprehend them. Further on the abovesaid date, time and place, all the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, attempted to commit the murder of HC Virender by firing on him with pistol. Further on the abovesaid date, time and place accused Dheer Singh was found in possession of pistol and four live cartridges with magazine without license, accused Ravi Tomar was found in possession of country made pistol and two live cartridges without license, accused Ashok Kumar @ Pahalwan was found in possession of country made pistol and two live cartridges without license and accused Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar was found in possession of pistol and four live cartridges with magazine without license which was used by him to deter the police officials.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 16.05.2015 at about 12:15 pm, one secret FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 3 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
informer came to the office of Crime Branch, R. K. Puram and met PW-6 HC Hamender (then Ct.) and informed that one Rajesh @ Rinku @ Kanastar, who was BC of Mangolpuri area would come to Civil Lines between 02:00-03:00 pm along with his associates by Maruti car having registration no. 7044 and they would commit robbery with weapons. Thereafter, PW-5 HC Hamender (then Ct.) produced the said informer before PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi, who reduced the said information into writing vide DD No. 14, Ex. PW-6/A and conveyed the said information to concerned ACP, who directed him to take necessary action. Thereafter, PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi constituted a raiding party consisting of himself, HC Sandeep, HC Virender, Ct. Brijpal, Ct. Rakesh & Ct. Hamender. Thereafter at about 01:25 pm, raiding team along with secret informer reached near Masonic Club, Yamuna Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi where Nakabandi was done at the road by raiding team. PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi also requested four public persons to join the raiding team but none agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter, at about 02:10 pm, one mouse colour Maruti Celerio car bearing registration no. DL-4CAS-7044 was seen coming from Ring Road side and on pointing out by secret informer, the signal was given to stop the said car but the driver of said car immediately reversed the vehicle towards Ring Road and said car came on slip/service road at the end of Yamuna Marg. Thereafter the car had taken left and moved fast ahead and raiding team also boarded the government gypsy and started chasing the said car. After some FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 4 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
distance, the said service road on which the said car was being driven fast to flee away, was closed and raiding team reached near the said car and de-boarded from gypsy and found that four persons were found sitting in the said car. Thereafter PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi introduced himself to the occupiers of the said car and asked them to come out of the car but in the meantime, one person who was sitting at the driver seat, whose name later on revealed as accused Dheeraj @ Dheer Singh had shouted 'maaro saalo ko goli' and all of sudden, they drove the car in reverse in a manner in which PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi come in between the wall which was behind him and the said car. Ct. Hamender also tried to stop the vehicle, however, he was also hit by the driver side portion of the said car. After causing injuries to raiding team, the driver of the said car moved the same in its reverse direction, however, the car got struck with the wall and in the meantime, raiding team surrounded the said car. In the meanwhile, the person who was sitting on the adjoining seat of driver fired a weapon aiming towards HC Virender, however, somehow, HC Virender saved himself by sitting on the ground and in retaliation and self defence, HC Sandeep had fired by his service weapon towards the direction from where the firing was done and his bullet hit on the bonnet of car towards conductor side. In the meanwhile, Ct. Brijpal had given stick blow on the front glass of the said car and Ct. Hamender had given blow from the butt of his service AK-47 on the back glass of the said car due to that the front and back glass of the car were broken. Thereafter all the four occupants of the car started waiving their respective FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 5 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
weapons towards them and threatened that if they tried to catch them, they would kill them. However, the raiding team had overpowered and apprehended all the four occupants of the car/accused persons along with their respective weapons. PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi along with Ct. Brijpal apprehended the driver of car whose name disclosed as Dheeraj @ Dhir Singh along with loaded pistol. Ct. Hamender and HC Sandeep apprehended the person who was sitting on the adjoining seat of the driver, whose name disclosed as Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar along with one loaded pistol. Ct. Rakesh apprehended the person who was sitting on the left side rear seat of the car whose name disclosed as Ashok @ Pahalwan along with loaded countrymade pistol. HC Virender apprehended the person who was sitting on the right side rear seat of the car whose name disclosed as Ravi Tomar along with loaded country made pistol.
3. During proceedings, PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi prepared sketch of pistol and four live cartridges recovered from possession of accused Dheer Singh, Ex. PW-6/B and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/C. He also prepared sketch of pistol, four live cartridges and magazine recovered from possession of accused Rajesh @ Kanastar, Ex. PW-5/A and seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-5/B. He also prepared sketch of country made pistol and two live cartridges recovered from possession of accused Ravi Tomar, Ex. PW-4/B and seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-4/A. He also prepared sketch of country made pistol and two live cartridges FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 6 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
recovered from possession of accused Ashok @ Pahalwan, Ex. PW-6/D and seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-6/E. Thereafter, PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi prepared rukka, Ex. PW-6/F and got the present FIR registered through Ct. Brijpal at PS Crime Branch. After registration of FIR, on instructions of senior police officials, further investigation of the present case was entrusted to PW-7 Inspector Nagender (then SI).
4. Thereafter, PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh came to the spot of incident vide DD No. 24/SWR Crime Branch, Ex. PW-7/A and PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi handed over handed over sealed case properties, documents prepared by him and custody of accused persons to him. Thereafter IO prepared site plan at instance of PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi exhibited as Ex. PW-7/B, seized vehicle bearing registration no. DL-4CAS-7044 vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/C, seized broken pieces of glass of said car from scene of crime vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/D, seized one used cartridge of 7.65 mm vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/E, seized one bullet lead from the aforesaid car vide seizure memo Ex. PW-7/F and seized some implements/apparatus from aforesaid car vide seizure memo Ex. PW-7/G. During investigation, IO/Inspector Narender Singh also seized one government pistol of 9 mm from HC Sandeep and one used cartridge of 9 mm from the spot vide seizure memos Ex. PW-7/H & Ex. PW-7/I. IO also arrested accused persons namely Dheeraj @ Dheer Singh, Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar, Ravi Tomar and Ashok @ Pahalwan vide arrest memos, Ex. PW-7/J, Ex. PW-5/C, FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 7 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
Ex. PW-4/D & Ex. PW-7/K, conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW-7/J-1, Ex. PW-5/D, Ex. PW-7/L & Ex. PW-7/K-1 and recorded their disclosure statements exhibited as Ex. PW-7/J-2, Ex. PW-5/E, Ex. PW-4/C & Ex. PW-7/K-2. During investigation, IO also obtained PC remand of accused persons and during PC remand, accused persons led the police party to Meerut for apprehension of source of illegal weapons recovered from their possession but no such source could be traced. During investigation, IO sent the case property to FSL for expert opinion, recorded statement of one eyewitness namely Jogender, examied registered owner of seized car bearing registration no. DL-4CAS-7044 and got inspected the seized car. During investigation, IO also obtained sanction under Sec. 39 Arms Act and complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C was filed by the concerned ACP. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court by the IO through SHO. After receiving of FSL report, supplementary charge-sheet was also filed before the Court.
5. Vide order dated 1 4 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 5 , copy of the charge- sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C was supplied to a l l the accused p e r s o n s and v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 2 0 . 0 8 . 2 0 1 5 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
6. Vide order dated 22.02.2016, the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under 186/34 IPC, 332/34 IPC, 353/34 IPC, 506/34 IPC & Sec. 307/34 IPC against all the accused FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 8 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
persons. Additional Charge under Sec. 25 Arms Act was also framed against accused persons namely Dheer Singh @ Dhiraj @ Kala, Ashok Kumar @ Pahalwan & Ravi Tomar and additional charges under Sec. 25 & 27 Arms Act was framed against accused Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
8. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar was an independent eyewitness of the alleged incident in the present case. He deposed that he did not remember the exact date, however, in the month of May, 2015 at noon time, he went to Monastery near ISBT to purchase the clothes, jeans etc. He further deposed that at about 01:30/01:45 pm, he heard the noise of blast and saw that some persons were running towards the service road and he also ran towards service road. He further deposed that in the meantime, he saw one police gypsy of white colour the registration number of which he did not remember was chasing another vehicle i.e. car in which four persons were present having pistols in their hands. He further deposed that as soon as the said car went ahead on service road, the said car suddenly drove in reverse gear in fast speed towards the police gypsy and stopped the said car. He further deposed that police officials who were in the abovesaid gypsy reached to the above said car and they took out the said persons from the said car and apprehended them along with their FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 9 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
pistols after breaking the glasses of the said car. He further deposed that police official were also having pistols and one of them was having weapon like machine gun. He also deposed that when the abovesaid gypsy was chasing the abovesaid car, one person out of the said four persons said that 'maar saalo ko goli' and thereafter the driver of the said car suddenly drove the said car in fast speed in reverse gear and collided with the wall and one of them who was sitting on the front left side seat fired with his pistol on the police gypsy but the bullet hit the bonnet of their car as the shot was fired by the said person while sitting inside the said car. This witness correctly identified the case properties during his deposition before the court. However, he did not identify the accused persons during his deposition. He further deposed that he was not sure if the accused persons present in the court were the same person who were in the abovesaid car and had fired on the police team as the above said police team had taken the abovesaid four persons inside the cabin of police picket and he was outside the cabin of police. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he deposed that he was not sure if the said accused persons were the same due to lapse of the time. He denied the suggestion that he was not identifying the accused persons intentionally and deliberately as he had been won over by the accused persons. In his cross- examination on behalf of accused persons, he deposed that he did not remember the name of police official who had recorded his statement at the spot on the same day after about one hour of incident. He also deposed that he was not sure if the accused FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 10 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
present in the court were the accused involved in the incident but it was possible that the accused may be the same person. He also deposed that he had seen 7-8 public persons who had reached at the spot after hearing firing. He also deposed that he had signed only one document and the abovesaid recovered pistols were not sealed in his presence. He denied the suggestion that no weapon was recovered from accused Ravi and Ashok or that accused Ravi and Ashok had not caused any injury to the police team. He also denied the suggestion that he was a pocket witness of the police.
9. PW-2 SI Rajpal was the Duty Officer at PS Crime Branch. He proved copy of present FIR, his endorsement on rukka and certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/C. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
10. PW-3 Ct. Surjit Singh, deposed that on 16.05.2015 he was posted at PS Civil Lines and on that day, he was on duty at Budh Vihar Police Picket, opposite Monestry market. He further deposed that at about 02:15 pm, he heard the noise of firing and on hearing the said noise, he went on service road at the side of flyover and saw the police officials of Crime Branch who had apprehended four accused persons and from the possession of the aforesaid four accused persons, one country made pistol from each accused persons (total 4 country made pistols) had been recovered from all abovesaid accused persons. He further deposed that he also saw a car bearing registration no.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 11 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
DL-4CAS-7044 in damaged condition and the bonnet of aforesaid car was also damaged as the bullet had hit the bonnet of aforesaid car. He also deposed that he came to know that the accused persons had fired on the abovesaid Crime Branch officials and in reply, one police official had also fired one round. This witness correctly identified all the four accused persons during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his statement was recorded by IO on the same day i.e. 16.05.2015. He also deposed that he had not seen the incident of firing by the accused persons. He also deposed that arrest memos were prepared in his presence but he had not signed the same. He also deposed that the signature of one public person was obtained on the arrest memos of accused Ashok and Ravi. He denied the suggestion that the abovesaid pistols and firearms were planted upon the accused persons.
11. PW-4 HC Virender Kumar, was one of the member of raiding team constituted at Crime Branch. He deposed that on 16.05.2015 at about 12:30 pm, a secret informer visited their office and informed Ct. Himender about the secret information. He further deposed that Ct. Himender took the secret informer to Inspector Atul Tyagi and informed him about the secret information. He further deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi shared the secret information that some miscreants would come in the Civil Lines area to commit robbery etc. He further deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi joined him, HC Sandeep, Ct. Brijpal and Ct. Rakesh and thereafter they all left their office for Civil Lines FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 12 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
area. He further deposed that as soon as they came out from their office, Inspector Atul Tyagi requested some passersby to join them after telling that information but none agreed and thereafter they all left for Civil Lines Area in government gypsy bearing registration no. DL-1CM-4232. He further deposed that HC Himender was driving the abovesaid gypsy and they all reached at Yamuna Marg near Masonic Club, Civil Lines at about 01:45 pm. He further deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi made Nakabandi at Yamuna Marg near Masonic Club and started waiting for the abovesaid miscreants. He further deposed that at about 02:10 pm, one mouse colour Maruti Celerio car bearing registration no. DL-4CAS-7044 was seen coming from Ring Road side towards Masonic Club and secret informer pointed out towards the said car by telling that the abovesaid miscreants were in the said car. He further deposed that when the said car came near to them, Inspector Atul Tyagi gave signal to stop the car but the driver of the said car did not stop the said car and he drove the said car at fast speed in reverse side after taking turn and started moving on the service road besides the flyover. He further deposed that they chased the said car with their gypsy. He also deposed that the abovesaid service road was closed that is why the said car stopped. He further deposed that the they also stopped their gypsy and came down from their gypsy and Inspector Atul Tyagi went to the abovesaid car towards conductor side and he along with HC Sandeep, Ct. Brijpal and Ct. Himender moved towards the car from its driver side. He further deposed that Ct. Rakesh was at the back of the said car. He FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 13 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
further deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi introduced the team as police officials to the abovesaid miscreants present inside the abovesaid car and asked them to surrender before them. He further deposed that in the meantime, the driver of the said car drove the said car in reverse gear by saying 'maaro saalo ko' and in the meantime, the person who was sitting at the left side seat of the driver of the said car, fired with his pistol on him by aiming him. He further deposed that he saved himself from the said fire. He also deposed that when the said car was being driven in reverse gear, back gate of the car was opened which hit Inspector Atul Tyagi and caused injury to him and also hit the said car to Ct. Hemender who was at its back and caused injury to Ct. Hemender. He further deposed that in the meantime, Ct. Brijpal broke the wind front glass of the said car with his danda and Ct. Hemender broke the back wind glass of the said car with his AK-47 service rifle. He further deposed that seeing themselves surrounded by the police, the abovesaid four persons who were present inside the car, waived their weapons in the air by saying 'humko pakroge to maar denge'. He further deposed that the back portion of the said car hit with the wall as the same was driven in the reverse gear by its driver and thereafter Inspector Atul Tyagi and Ct. Brijpal apprehended the driver/accused Dheeraj of the said car and he apprehended accused Ravi Tomar who was sitting on the back right side seat of the said car. He further deposed that Ct. Hamender and HC Sandeep apprehended accused Rajesh who was on the conductor seat (left seat of driver). He further deposed that Ct. Surjeet who FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 14 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
was on duty at picket near the spot, from PS Civil Lines reached there. He further deposed that one pistol each along with live cartridges were recovered from accused Rajesh and accused Dheeraj separately. He further deposed that one desi katta along with live cartridges were recovered from accused Ashok. He proved seizure memo of the pistol and cartridges and its sketch recovered from accused Ravi Tomar as Ex. PW-4/A & Ex. PW-4/B. He also deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi prepared rukka, Mark PW-4/1 and sent the same through Ct. Brijpal to PS Crime Branch for recording of FIR. He further deposed that SI Nagender came to the spot as the investigation was assigned to him. He narrated about proceedings conducted by IO/SI Nagender at the spot of incident viz. preparation of site plan, Ex. PW-4/2 at instance of Inspector Atul Tyagi, seizure of service pistol of HC Sanjeev, seizure of empty shell of 9 mm from the spot, seizure of abovesaid car of accused persons, seizure of one empty shell of 7.65 mm from the floor mat of abovesaid car of accused persons and seizure of broken pieces of glasses and wheel cap of the said car and tools kept in the diggy of the abovesaid car of accused persons and proved their seizure memos as Ex. PW-4/3 to Ex. PW-4/9. He also narrated about interrogation of accused persons and their arrest by IO. He proved arrest memo and disclosure statement of accused Ravi Tomar as Ex. PW-4/D & Ex. PW-4/C respectively. He also deposed that one public person was also present at the spot at that time and IO recorded statement of that public person. This witness correctly identified all the four accused persons as well FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 15 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
as case properties during his deposition in the court. In his cross- examination, he deposed that IO/SI Nagender had recorded his statement on 16.05.2015 at the spot. He also deposed that the secret informer had not told the name of the accused persons in secret information, however, he had informed that the abovesaid miscreants will come along with weapons. He also deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi had not requested the passerby in writing to join them. He also deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi had received the injury on his right side chest and right shoulder and arm in the abovesaid incident. He also deposed that the name of abovesaid public witness was Yogender. He also deposed that Ct. Brijpal had taken the rukka at about 07:30 pm and he returned back at the spot at about 10:35 pm. He denied the suggestion that no weapon/cartridges were recovered from accused Ravi and Ashok @ Pehlwan or that the abovesaid weapons and cartridges were planted.
12. PW-5 HC Hamender, was also one of the member of raiding team constituted at office of Crime Branch. He narrated about constitution of raiding team on receiving secret information, interception of accused persons near Masonic Club, Civil Lines, Delhi, arrest of accused persons, recovery of pistol, countrymade pistol and live cartridges from possession of accused persons and seizure of exhibits as well car of accused persons from the spot of incident on the lines of PW-4 HC Virender. Additionally, he deposed that when accused fired on HC Virender, HC Sandeep had also fired by his service pistol in FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 16 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
self defence. He proved sketch and seizure memo of pistol recovered from accused Rajesh as Ex. PW-5/A & Ex. PW-5/B. He also proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Rajesh as Ex. PW-5/C to Ex. PW-5/E. He also deposed that he was medically examined in Safdarjung Hospital vide MLC, Ex. PW-5/F. This witness correctly identified all the four accused persons as well as case properties during his deposition in the court. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he did not remember the entry number by which arms and bullet proof jackets had been provided to him. He also deposed that no written notice was served upon the person who refused to join the investigation. He also deposed that he had received injuries in his hands and palms. He also deposed that his statement was recorded at the spot. He denied the suggestion that no weapon was recovered from the possession of accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that accused persons had come to Tis Hazari Court on the day of incident for getting the marriage registered and when thy left Tis Hazari Court, somehow, some heated arguments took place between the team member of Crime Branch and accused persons and that is why the accused persons had been falsely implicated in the present case.
13. PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi was leading the Raiding Team in the present case. He deposed that on 16.05.2015 at about 12:15 pm, one secret informer came to the office of Crime Branch, R. K. Puram and met Ct. Hamender. He further deposed that Ct.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 17 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
Hamender produced the said informer before him and informer informed that one Rajesh @ Rinku @ Kanastar, who was BC of Mangolpuri area would come to Civil Lines between 02:00-03:00 pm along with his associates by Maruti car having registration no. 7044 and they would commit robbery with weapons. He further deposed that he reduced the said information into writing vide DD No. 14, Ex. PW-6/A and conveyed the said information to concerned ACP, who directed him to take necessary action. He further deposed that a raiding party was constituted consisting of himself, HC Sandeep, HC Virender, Ct. Brijpal, Ct. Rakesh & Ct. Hamender. He further deposed that government weapons and bullet proof jackets were got issued to the raiding team members and he had also taken laptop printer etc. and IO kit. He further deposed that at about 12:45 pm, raiding team left their office along with secret informer by government vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CM-4232 and outside their office, he had requested three public persons to join them but none of them agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. He further deposed that at about 01:25 pm, raiding team along with secret informer reached near Masonic Club, Yamuna Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi where Nakabandi was done at the road by raiding team. He further deposed that he also requested four public persons to join the raiding team but none of them agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. He further deposed that at about 02:10 pm, one mouse colour Maruti Celerio car bearing registration no. DL-4CAS-7044 was seen coming from Ring Road side and on FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 18 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
pointing out by secret informer, the signal was given to stop the said car but the driver of said car immediately reversed the vehicle towards Ring Road and said car came on slip/service road at the end of Yamuna Marg. He further deposed that the said car had taken left and moved fast ahead and raiding team also boarded the government gypsy and started chasing the said car. He further deposed that after some distance, the said service road, on which the said car was being driven fast to flee away, was closed and they reached near the said car and de-boarded from gypsy and found that four persons were sitting in the said car, one on driver seat, one on conductor seat and two on the rear seat of car. He further deposed that he introduced himself to the occupiers of the said car and asked them to come out of the car but in the meanwhile, one person who was sitting at the driver seat, whose name later on revealed as accused Dheeraj @ Dheer Singh had shouted 'maaro saalo ko goli' and all of sudden, they drove the car in reverse in which he came in between the wall which was behind him and the said car. He further deposed that Ct. Hamender also tried to stop the vehicle, however, he was also hit by driver side portion of the said car. He further deposed that after causing injuries to raiding team, the driver of the said car moved the same in its reverse direction, however, the car got struck with the wall and in the meantime, raiding team surrounded the said car. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, the person who was sitting on the adjoining seat of driver fired a weapon aiming towards HC Virender, however, somehow, HC Virender saved himself by sitting on the ground FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 19 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
and in retaliation and self defence, HC Sandeep had fired by his service weapon towards the direction from where the firing was done and his bullet hit on the bonnet of car towards conductor side. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, Ct. Brijpal had given stick blow on the front glass of the said car and Ct. Hamender had given blow from the butt of his service weapon i.e. AK-47 on the back glass of the said car due to that the front and back glass of the car were broken. He further deposed that thereafter all the four occupants of the car started waiving their respective weapons towards them and threatened that if they tried to catch them, they would kill them. He further deposed that in the meantime, Ct. Surjeet Singh from PS Civil Lines also reached there to help. He further deposed that all four occupants of the car finding no other option, had tried to flee away from the spot, however, they apprehended all the four occupants of the car along with their respective weapons. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Brijpal apprehended the driver of car whose name disclosed was disclosed as Dheeraj @ Dhir Singh along with loaded pistol, Ct. Hamender and HC Sandeep apprehended the person who was sitting on the adjoining seat of the driver, whose name disclosed as Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar along with one loaded pistol, Ct. Rakesh apprehended the person who was sitting on the left side rear seat of the car whose name disclosed as Ashok @ Pahalwan along with loaded countrymade pistol and HC Virender apprehended the person who was sitting on the right side rear seat of the car whose name was disclosed as Ravi Tomar along with loaded country made pistol. He further deposed that FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 20 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
he prepared sketch of pistol and four live cartridges recovered from possession of accused Dheer Singh, Ex. PW-6/B and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/C. He further deposed that he also prepared sketch of pistol, four live cartridges and magazine recovered from possession of accused Rajesh @ Kanastar, Ex. PW-5/A and seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-5/B. He further deposed that he also prepared sketch of country made pistol and two live cartridges recovered from possession of accused Ravi Tomar, Ex. PW-4/B and seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-4/A. He further deposed that he also prepared sketch of country made pistol and two live cartridges recovered from possession of accused Ashok @ Pahalwan, Ex. PW-6/D and seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-6/E and filled CFSL form. He further deposed that he prepared rukka, Ex. PW-6/F and got the present FIR registered through Ct. Brijpal at PS Crime Branch. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, investigation of case was handed over to SI Nagender as per direction of Senior Officers. He further deposed that SI Nagender came at the spot along with police staff and he had handed over prepared documents to him along with sealed case property and custody of accused persons. He further deposed that IO/SI Nagender prepared site plan, Mark-P4/2 at his instance and IO also took the photographs of spot including the car. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Hamender were medically treated at Safdarjung hospital. He proved his MLC as Ex. PW-6/G. This witness correctly identified all accused persons as well as case properties during his deposition in the court. In FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 21 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
his cross-examination, he deposed that the said barricades were available near Police picket which was situated near the spot. He also deposed that Ct. Surjeet from PS Civil Lines was there, however, he had not informed about the secret information to him. He deposed that the writing work was done at Police Picket and no public persons had joined them. He also deposed that the contents of seizure memo was prepared in writing and it was computerized and no document was prepared in handwriting except sketch memo of the weapons. He also deposed that he had not personally handed over any log book to IO. He also deposed that no written notice was served to those persons, who refused to join the raiding party near Masonic Club, Civil Lines, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that accused Ashok Kumar @ Pahalwan and Ravi Tomar had not attacked on police party. He denied the suggestion that he had obtained signatures of accused persons on some blank papers which were used by him later on to make disclosure statements. He also denied the suggestion that all proceedings were done while sitting in the office of Crime Branch, R. K. Puram. He also denied the suggestion accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case due their previous involvement.
14. PW-7 Inspector Nagender Singh was the Investigating Officer in the present case. He deposed that on 16.05.2015, on receiving information from PS Crime Branch, he departed to the place of occurrence i.e. Yamuna Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi at about 08:50 pm vide DD No. 24 SWR-Crime Branch, Ex.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 22 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
PW-7/A. He further deposed that he came to the spot of incident and PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi handed over handed over sealed case properties, documents prepared by him and custody of accused persons to him. He narrated about proceedings conducted by him at the spot of incident viz., photography of spot of incident along with car of accused persons, preparation of site plan at instance of PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi exhibited as Ex. PW-7/B, seizure of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-4CAS-7044 vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/C, seizure of broken pieces of glass of the said car from scene of crime vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/D, seizure of one used cartridge of 7.65 mm vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/E, seizure of one bullet lead from the aforesaid car vide seizure memo Ex. PW-7/F and seizure of some implements/apparatus from aforesaid car vide seizure memo Ex. PW-7/G. He also seized one government pistol of 9 mm from HC Sandeep and one used cartridge of 9 mm from the spot vide seizure memos Ex. PW-7/H & Ex. PW-7/I. He also narrated about arrest of accused persons namely Dheeraj @ Dheer Singh, Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar, Ravi Tomar and Ashok @ Pahalwan and proved their arrest memos, Ex. PW-7/J, Ex. PW-5/C, Ex. PW-4/D & Ex. PW-7/K, personal search memos Ex. PW-7/J-1, Ex. PW-5/D, Ex. PW-7/L & Ex. PW-7/K-1 and their disclosure statements exhibited as Ex. PW-7/J-2, Ex. PW-5/E, Ex. PW-4/C & Ex. PW-7/K-2. He also deposed that he obtained PC remand of accused persons and during PC remand, accused persons led the police party to Meerut for apprehension of source of illegal weapons recovered from the possession of FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 23 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
accused persons but no such source could be traced. He also deposed that he sent the case property to FSL for expert opinion, recorded statement of one eyewitness namely Jogender, examined registered owner of seized car bearing registration no. DL-4CAS-7044 and got inspected the seized car. During investigation, he also obtained sanction under Sec. 39 Arms Act and complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C was filed by concerned the ACP. This witness correctly identified accused persons as well as case properties during his deposition in the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he reached the spot at about 09:30 pm along with HC Yashpal and HC Ravinder by private car but he did not remember its number. He also deposed that he recorded statement of public witness Joginder at the spot and statements of police personnel in the office. He also deposed that one statement of Ct. Surjeet was recorded at the Budh Vihar, Picket. He also deposed that personal search of accused Rajesh was conducted and signature of Ct. Brij Pal was also obtained on his personal search memo and same was his answer with respect to his arrest. He also deposed that there was no gathering of public persons at the spot. He also deposed that he did not notice or check CCTV cameras installed near the spot, covering the incident. He denied the suggestion that there was CCTV cameras as well as large number of public persons present at the spot. He admitted that no witness had been mentioned on site plan. He also deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi and Ct. Hamender proceeded to hospital after about one and half hours of his reaching at the spot. He also deposed that they went to hospital FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 24 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
by official gypsy and HC Yashpal accompanied them to hospital by driving gypsy and he also returned from the hospital by same gypsy. He also deposed that HC Ravinder, HC Sandeep, Ct. Rakesh were also present at the spot when he recorded statement of public witness Joginder. He also deposed that accused persons were arrested at the spot and public witness Joginder was not made witness to the arrest memo. He also deposed that he had not snapped the photographs of injured police personnel capturing injuries marks. He admitted that he had not obtained CDR or CAF of mobile phones recovered in personal search of accused persons to show their presence at the spot. He also admitted that many government hospitals were near to the spot and injured police personnel could have gone to those nearby hospitals. He denied the suggestion that abovementioned alleged injured police personnel did not come to spot or that they had not sustained injuries or that they had allegedly visited Safdarjung Hospital since it was situated near Crime Branch office or that they got manipulated their MLCs. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had not been arrested in the manner deposed by him or that they had been falsely implicated in the present matter or that they were lifted from Tis Hazari Court complex since they had come to the court.
15. PW-8 Sh. Kailash Chandra, was ACP at Crime Branch. He deposed that on 16.05.2015, he was posted as ACP, SWR/Crime Branch. He further deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi informed him telephonically about secret information that criminal Rajesh FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 25 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
@ Deepak @ Kanastar along with his associates would come at Yamuna Marg, Civil Lines to commit crime. He further deposed that he directed him to take action as per law. He also deposed that later on, he came to know that four accused persons had committed offence against the police officials. He proved his complaint under Sec. 195 Cr.PC as Ex. PW-7/N. In his cross- examination, he deposed he did not visit the spot on receiving call. He also deposed that he did not remember the number of car, however, it was Maruti Celerio. He also deposed that he did not remember right now which specific weapon/cartridge was recovered from which accused. He denied the suggestion that he moved complaint, Ex. PW-7/N in mechanical manner.
16. PW-9 SI Brij Pal Singh, was also one of the member of raiding team. He narrated about constitution of raiding team on receiving secret information, interception of accused persons near Masonic Club, Civil Lines, Delhi, arrest of accused persons, recovery of pistol, countrymade pistol and live cartridges from possession of accused persons and seizure of exhibits as well car of accused persons from the spot of incident on the lines of PW-4 HC Virender & PW-5 HC Hamender. Additionally, he deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi prepared rukka and sent him at about 07:30 pm to PS Crime Branch for registration of FIR and he returned at around 10:35 pm after registration of FIR and handed over copy of the same with original rukka to SI Nagender to whom further investigation was assigned. He narrated about proceedings conducted by IO/SI Nagender Singh at the spot of FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 26 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
incident and proved the seizure memos of case properties seized by the IO at the spot. This witness correctly identified accused persons as well as case properties during his deposition in the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that accused Rajesh and Dheeraj were armed with pistol and remaining two were armed with country made pistol. He also deposed that SI Nagender prepared site plan and he had signed the same as witness. He also deposed that written proceedings were conducted at the spot under lamp post. He also deposed that secret informer accompanied them and distance between their office and the spot was about 14-15 km. He also deposed that service pistols were got issued but he did not remember serial number vide which entry was made. He also deposed that he did not remember exact number of documents which he had signed, however, he signed all the seizure memos. He also deposed that disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded in his presence. He also deposed that he did not know if chance prints were lifted from the weapons recovered from accused persons. He also deposed that injured police officials were not present at the spot when he returned there after registration of FIR. He also deposed that he did not remember if any person from Monastery parking was called to join proceedings. He also deposed that his statement was recorded on same night.
17. PW-10 Sh. N. B. Bardhan, Retd. Director, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi proved his detailed report as Ex. PW-7/O-5. He also deposed that on 31.07.2015, he along with Sh. R. Chauhan, FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 27 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
Scientific Assistant (Ballistics) & Sh. Rishikesh Meena, Laboratory Assistant (Photo) visited PS Crime Branch, R. K. Puram and examined one vehicle of grey colour Maruti Celerio car bearing registration no. DL-4CAS-7044. He also proved detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW-7/O. In his cross- examination, he deposed that after inspection of vehicle, he concluded that entry holes and exist holes were observed on the car, holes were corresponding to each other and could have been caused due to passage of bullet fired from front side of the vehicle in downward direction. He admitted that duration of firing a bullet on the vehicle could not be ascertained. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited PS Crime Branch, R. K. Puram or that vehicle was not examined or that the reports with respect to exhibits or inspection of car were false and fabricated at the instance of the police officials.
18. PW-11 Sh. Bhisham Singh, DCP, Crime Branch (HQs), Delhi proved sanction under Sec. 39 Arms Act accorded by him as Ex. PW-7/P. In his cross-examination, he deposed that IO had not produced weapons before him. He also deposed that accused were also not produced before him. He denied the suggestion that he had given the sanction mechanically or that he did not peruse the file or that he did not apply his mind before according sanction.
19. PW-12 SI Dheeraj Singh, was MHC(M) at PS Crime Branch. He deposed that as per record, on 17.05.2015, SI Nagender Singh deposited four sealed plastic containers, six FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 28 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
sealed parcels, personal search belongings of accused persons and one car bearing registration no. DL-4CAS-7044 and entry was made by then MHC(M) at serial no. 2291. He proved copy thereof as Ex. PW-12/A. He also proved copies of RC numbers 138/21/15 & 142/21/15 as Ex. PW-12/B & Ex. PW-12/C respectively regarding deposit of case properties at CFSL. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-12/A to Ex. PW-12/C did not bear signature of the then MHC(M) or that entries are ante dated and ante timed.
20. PW-13 Dr. Gaurav Dubey, MS Surgery deposed that in May 2015, he was posted in Safdarjung Hospital as JR Casualty. He further deposed that two police officials i.e. one Inspector and one Constable came to the hospital with alleged history of assault. He further deposed that he examined Inspector vide MLC Ex. PW-6/G and on local examination, multiple abrasion over right arm, left dorsum little finger or right dorsum of hand, right shoulder, mild tenderness over right chest lateral to nipple was found. He further deposed that the nature of injury was opined as 'simple'. He further deposed that Constable was examined vide MLC, Ex. PW-5/F and on local examination, abrasion over right palm liner, left palm scratch mark bleeding, left elbow scratch mark and bleeding and pain was found. He further deposed that nature of injury was opined as 'simple'. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge of fact of the case. He also deposed that patients were not admitted in hospital and they were discharged after FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 29 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
examination and giving medical treatment. He denied the suggestion that the injuries on the person of both the injured were self inflicted or that no patient came to the hospital or that no one was examined by him as per MLCs.
21. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate statements of all the four accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. All the four accused persons claimed themselves innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. They further claimed that police officials had filed false case against them just to solve their unsolved cases.
22. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Shreyas Pragyanan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused persons namely Ashok Kumar @ Pahalwan, Ravi Tomar & Dheer Singh @ Dhiraj @ Kala and Sh. Jaswant Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar.
23. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that the testimony of independent eyewitness i.e. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar is natural one and same has been corroborated by the testimonies of the members of raiding team. He further argued that there is complete consistency in the testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, PW-3 Ct. Surjeet, PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hemender, FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 30 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi, PW-7 Inspector Nagender & PW-9 SI Brij Pal. He also argued that injuries on the persons of PW-5 HC Hamender and PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi have been duly proved by PW-13 Dr. Gaurav Dubey. He also argued that accused persons were found in possession of illegal weapons. He also argued that accused persons attempted to commit murder of PW-4 HC Virender. He further argued that FSL Report with respect to weapons of offence and the car recovered from possession of accused persons has been duly proved by PW-10 Sh. N. B. Bardhan. He also argued that PW-11 Sh. Bhisham Singh has proved the sanction for prosecution of accused persons under Sec. 39 Arms Act. He further argued that PW-8 Sh. Kailash Chander has proved the complaint filed by him under Sec. 195 Cr.PC. He further argued that the IO as well as the other police officials have duly proved the proceedings conducted by them. He also argued that since the prosecution has proved its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, all the accused persons should be convicted for the offences under which charges have been framed against them.
24. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsels argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. They argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case by concocting a false story. To substantiate their submissions, they argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. They argued that PW-1 Sh.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 31 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
Joginder Kumar has turned hostile on the identity of accused persons. They further argued that PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that accused persons fired on the gypsy of police and it hit the bonnet of the gypsy while other members of raiding party have deposed otherwise. They further argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, PW-3 Ct. Surjeet, PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hemender, PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi, PW-7 Inspector Nagender & PW-9 SI Brij Pal. They further argued that no independent eyewitness was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of weapons of offence from possession of accused persons. They also argued that no CCTV footage of the area where the alleged incident took place has been collected by the IO. They further argued that PW-3 Ct. Surjeet deposed that his statement was recorded on the date of incident itself but the date mentioned on his statement is 20.05.2015. They further argued that the name of public witness was Joginder Kumar but PW-4 HC Virender deposed that his name was Yogender Kumar. They further argued that weapon issuing register was not produced during the trial. They further argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt, all the accused persons should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which charges have been framed against them.
25. In the present case, charges under Sec. 186/34 IPC, 332/34 IPC, 353/34 IPC, 506/34 IPC & Sec. 307/34 IPC & Sec. 25 Arms Act were framed against accused persons namely Rajesh @ FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 32 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
Deepak @ Kanastar, Dheer Singh @ Dhiraj @ Kala, Ashok Kumar @ Pahalwan & Ravi Tomar and and Additional charge under Sec. 27 Arms Act was also framed against accused Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar. These Sections have been defined as follows:-
307. Attempt to murder:-
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is cause to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions:-
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or both.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 33 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty:-
"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty:-
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation:-
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;If FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 34 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors. threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 25 Arms Act provides punishment for the possession of arms without any license which has been defined as under:-
(1) Whoever--
(a) [manufactures, obtains, procures], sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm [or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] in contravention of section 6; or FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 35 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term 5 which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
[(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which 7 shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to fourteen years] and shall also be liable to fine.
[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.] [(1AB) Whoever, by using force, takes the firearm from the police or armed forces shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.] (1AA) whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 36 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less 9 than [ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.] [(1AAA)] Whoever has in contravention of a notification issued under section 24A in his possession or in contravention of a notification issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which 11 shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.
(1B) Whoever--
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or
(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturers number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon as required by sub-section (2) of section 8 or does any act in contravention of sub- section (1) of that section; or FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 37 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub- clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section; or
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition in contravention of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9; or
(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 10; or
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 12; or
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by sub-section (2) of section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by rules made under section 44, to maintain a record or account or to make therein all such entries as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the inspection of such record or account or the making of copies of entries therefrom or prevents or obstructs the entry into any premises or other place where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 38 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
where the same are or is manufactured or kept, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term 12 which shall not be less than [two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine] and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 13 less than [two years].] [(1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1B), whoever commits an offence punishable under that sub-section in any disturbed area shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, disturbed area means any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public order, and includes any areas specified by notification under section 24A or section 24B.] (2) Whoever being a person to whom sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 39 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
[(3) Whoever sells or transfers any firearm, ammunition or other arms--
(i) without informing the district magistrate having jurisdiction or the officer in charge of the nearest police station, of the intended sale or transfer of that firearm, ammunition or other arms; or
(ii) before the expiration of the period of forty-five days from the date of giving such information to such district magistrate or the officer in charge of the police station, in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.] (4) Whoever fails to deliver-up a licence when so required by the licensing authority under sub-section (1) of section 17 for the purpose of varying the conditions specified in the licence or fails to surrender a licence to the appropriate authority under sub-section (10) of that section on its suspension or revocation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(5) Whoever, when required under section 19 to give his name and address, refuses to give such name and address or gives a name or address which subsequently transpires to be false shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 40 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
[(6) If any member of an organised crime syndicate or any person on its behalf has at any time has in his possession or carries any arms or ammunition in contravention of any provision of Chapter II shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) Whoever on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate or a person on its behalf, -
(i) manufactures, obtains, procures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(ii) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a fire arm or converts from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms in contravention of section 6; or
(iii) brings into, or takes out of India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-sections (6) and (7),--
(a) organised crime means any continuing unlawful activity by any person, singly or collectively, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 41 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any person;
(b) organised crime syndicate means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organised crime.
(8) Whoever involves in or aids in the illicit trafficking of firearms and ammunition in contravention of sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, illicit trafficking means the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or transfer of firearms and ammunition into, from or within the territory of India, if the firearms and ammunition are not marked in accordance with the provisions of this Act or are being trafficked in contravention of the provisions of this Act including smuggled firearms of foreign make or prohibited arms and prohibited ammunition.
(9) Whoever uses firearm in a rash or negligent manner or in celebratory gunfire so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh, or with both.
27. Arms Act Punishment for using arms, etc:-
(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 42 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, 2[shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.
26. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
27. PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi is the complainant in the present case as well as he was leading the raiding team which apprehended the accused persons along with illegal weapons. PW-3 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender & PW-9 SI Brijpal were the members of the raiding team. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar is an independent eyewitness of the incident. Thus, the abovesaid witnesses are the witnesses of the alleged incident and hence this court before reaching to any conclusion has to appreciate the testimonies of these witnesses as per the established principles of law pertaining to the appreciation of evidence.
28. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that he did not FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 43 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
remember the date of incident but the incident took place in month of May, 2015 at noon time. He further deposed that at about 01:30/01:45 pm, he came out of Monastery and after crossing the road, he reached on the other side of the road and in the meantime, he heard the noise of blast and saw that some persons were running towards service road. Thus, as per the version of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, the alleged incident took place at about 01:30/01:45 pm. As per the rukka, Ex. PW-6/F prepared by PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi, the alleged incident took place on 16.05.2015 between 02:10-02:15 pm. PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi deposed that at about 02:10 pm, one mouse colour Matruti Celerio car was seen coming from the side of Ring Road having number plate DL-4CAS-7044. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender & PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh who were members of raiding team have corroborated the version of PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi by deposing that the abovesaid car came to the spot at about 02:10 pm. As per the prosecution story, the incident lasted for five minutes only. Thus, there is material difference of about 30 minutes with respect to the occurrence of the incident in the testimony of independent public witness i.e. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar and the testimonies of police officials i.e. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal. This raises serious doubts with respect to the exact time of incident as well as on the veracity of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6 Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 44 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
29. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that when he reached on the other side of road, he heard a noise of blast (dhamaka) and saw that some persons were running towards the service road and he also ran towards the service road. He further deposed that in the meantime, one police gypsy of white colour was chasing another vehicle i.e. car in which four persons were present having pistol in their hands. In his cross-examination, PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar has explained the noise of blast (dhamaka) by deposing that after hearing the firing, he had reached at the spot. Thus, as per version of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, he reached the spot of incident only after hearing the firing and after the incident of firing, he had seen the police gypsy chasing another car. PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi deposed that the driver of the car after seeing the raiding party, immediately reversed the vehicle towards Ring Road and said car came on slip/service road at the end of Yamuna Marg. He further deposed that they boarded their government gypsy and started chasing the said car and after some distance, the car stopped as the road was closed. He further deposed that they reached near the said car by their gypsy. He further deposed that he introduced himself to the accused persons and asked them to come out of the car and in the meanwhile, one of the person who was sitting on the driver seat, whose name later on disclosed as accused Dheeraj @ Dheere shouted 'maar saalo ko goli' and all of sudden they drove the car in reverse manner and he came between the car and wall. He further deposed that after causing injury to them, the driver of said car moved the same in its reverse direction but the car got FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 45 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
struck with the wall and the said car was surrounded by the police officials and in the meantime, the person who was sitting on the adjoining seat of driver fired by a weapon aiming towards HC Virender. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender & PW-9 SI Brijpal have corroborated the version of PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi in this regard. Thus, as per versions of HC Virender. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal, the incident of first firing took place after the car of accused persons and the gypsy of police were stopped. In these circumstances, if the versions of HC Virender. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal is accepted, seeing of the chasing of car of accused persons by the gypsy of police officials by PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar after the incident of firing is not possible. Thus, there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, HC Virender. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal with respect to the timing of firing. This raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, HC Virender. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal as well as on prosecution story.
30. As per the charge-sheet filed by the PW-7 IO/SI Nagender, there was a film on the glasses of the car of accused persons and after the car was stopped, the back side door of the car was opened through which four persons were seen sitting in the said FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 46 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
car. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that after hearing the noise of blast, he ran towards service road and saw that one police gypsy of white colour was chasing another vehicle i.e. car in which four persons were present having pistols in their hands. Thus, PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar saw the four accused persons having pistols in their hands while their car was being chased by the gypsy of the police. None of the police witnesses i.e. HC Virender. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal have deposed that they had seen any of the accused persons at the time when their car was got stopped by PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi or during the time when the car of accused persons was being chased by their gypsy. The abovesaid police witnesses have also not deposed that they had seen the weapons in the hands of all the four accused persons while their car was being chased. PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi deposed that signal was given to stop the car of accused persons and the driver after seeing the raiding party immediately reversed the vehicle towards Ring Road and the said car came on slip/service road at the end of Yamuna Marg. He also deposed that they boarded their government gypsy and started chasing the said car and after some distance, the car was stopped as the service road was closed. He further deposed that he introduced himself to the occupiers of said car and the members of raiding team took their position near the car. He also deposed that rear conductor side gate of the car was slightly opened and four persons were found sitting in the said car. He further deposed that he again introduced himself to FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 47 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
them and asked them to come outside the car. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender & PW-9 SI Brijpal have also deposed on the lines of PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi. Thus, PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal saw the four accused persons in the car for the first time through the back door of the car which was slightly opened, after it was stopped and they had not seen the accused persons before that. Even till that stage, PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal had not seen any weapon in the hands of accused persons. In these circumstances, while there was a film on the glasses of the car and the raiding party which was at a less distance from the car as compared to distance of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar (30-40 foot as stated by PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar), seeing the accused persons in said running car with weapons in their hands, does not seem to be plausible and same is in contradiction with the testimonies of PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal. This raises serious doubts on the veracity of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal as well as on the prosecution story.
31. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that the abovesaid gypsy (gypsy of the police) was chasing the abovesaid car (car of accused persons), one person out of the said four persons said 'maar saale ko goli'. Thus, as per version of PW-1 Sh. Joginder FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 48 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
Kumar, the abovesaid threat was extended to the police officials while the accused persons were running in their car and they were being chased by the police gypsy. However, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi deposed that after the car of accused persons was stopped due to closure of service road, the police officials deboarded from their gypsy and he introduced himself to the occupiers of the car. He further deposed that he again introduced himself to them and asked them to come out of the car and in the meanwhile one of the person who was sitting at the driver seat whose name was later on disclosed as accused Dheeraj @ Dheere shouted 'maar saalo ko goli'. Thus, as per version of PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi, the said threat was extended only after the car of accused persons was stopped and surrounded by the police officials and at that time PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi was interacting with them. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender & PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh have supported the version of PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi. If the versions of PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi, HC Hamender & PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh are accepted, the version of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar will become false. Thus, there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar and the testimonies of police officials i.e. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi, HC Hamender & PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh, which raises serious doubts on the veracity of abovesaid witnesses as well as on the prosecution story.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 49 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
32. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that the driver of the said car (car of accused persons) suddenly drove the said car in fast speed in reverse gear and collided with the wall. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar in his examination-in-chief has not deposed that PW-5 HC Hamender or PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi had sustained any injury due to hitting by the car of accused persons, though, he accepted the same in the cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and hence the evidentiary value of this version of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar has been reduced. PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi deposed that he introduced himself to the occupiers of the said car by standing towards the conductor side seat of said car. He further deposed that all of sudden they drove the car in reverse in a manner in which he came in between the wall which was behind him and the said car. He also deposed that Ct. Hamender tried to stop the vehicle, however, he was also hit by the driver side portion of the said car. However, PW-4 HC Virender deposed that when the said car was being driven in reverse gear, back gate of the car was opened which hit inspector Atul Tyagi and caused injury to him and also hit the said car to Ct. Hamender who was its back and caused injury to Ct. Hamender. PW-5 HC Hamender deposed that when the car was being driven in reverse, he was struck from driver side due to which he fell on road and sustained injury on his hand and leg. He also deposed that while reversing the car, they got struck with the wall. PW-5 Ct. Hamender has not deposed that PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi also sustained injuries in the incident or that he came between the car FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 50 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
and the wall. PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh deposed that occupants also reverse the car and dashed against the wall. He did not depose anything about any kind of injury caused to PW-5 HC Hamender & PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi by the hitting of the car. Since PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi was standing near the front gate of conductor side and the car was driven in reverse, it is not possible that he could come between the wall and the back side of the car. All the abovesaid four witnesses have given different versions with respect to injury caused to PW-5 HC Hamender & PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi, which raises serious doubts on their veracity as well as on the prosecution story.
33. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that one of the accused who was sitting on the front left side seat of car, fired with his pistol on the police gypsy but the bullet hit the bonnet of their car as the shot was fired by the said person while sitting inside the said car. In his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar specifically denied the suggestion that he has stated in his statement that the bullet fired by the police on the abovesaid person, hit the bonnet of said car. Thus, PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar has completely denied the hitting of bonnet of car of the accused persons by the bullet of the police. It is not clear from the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar as to which car's bonnet (car of accused persons or police gypsy) was hit by the bullet fired by the accused sitting on the front left side seat of car. As per the case of prosecution, the FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 51 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
bullet fired by HC Sandeep had hit the bonnet of the car of accused persons and the bonnet of the gypsy of police was not hit by any bullet. PW-4 HC Virender PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh have deposed that accused had fired from his pistol by aiming at HC Virender, which is contrary to the version of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar. This raises serious doubt on the prosecution story.
34. Accused persons have taken the defence that PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar is a planted witness. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar has denied the suggestion that he is a pocket witness of the police. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that he did not remember the name of the police official, who recorded his statement at the spot after about one hour of the incident. As per prosecution story, the incident in the present case took place between 02:10-02:15 pm on 16.05.2015. Thus, as per version of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, his statement was recorded by the IO at the spot at about 03:15 pm at the spot of incident. PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh deposed that he reached at the spot at about 09:30 pm. PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi deposed that he left the spot at about 11:00 pm. He again said that he finally left the spot at about 11:15 pm. PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh deposed that Inspector Atul Tyagi and Ct. Hamender had sustained injuries and they were sent to Safdarjung Hospital for medical treatment with HC Yashpal and thereafter he arrested accused persons. He further deposed that FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 52 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
thereafter he recorded statement of one public witness namely Joginder at the spot. Accused Ashok Kumar @ Pahalwan was arrested at about 11:45 pm which means that the statement of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar was recorded by PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh after 11:45 pm. Thus, as per version of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar his statement was recorded at about 03:15 pm but as per version of PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh, the statement of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar was recorded only after 11:45 pm i.e. after more that nine and half hours of the incident. It is pertinent to mention that none of the members of raiding team i.e. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh have deposed that any such public person was present at the spot with them from 02:10 pm to 11:15 pm. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar has also not deposed that he remained at the spot for about ten hours. This raises serious doubts about the presence of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar at the spot of incident at the time of incident as well as till 11:45 pm.
35. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar has turned hostile on the identity of accused persons. He has specifically deposed that he could not see the faces of abovesaid four persons properly so he cannot confirm their identity. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but he did not identity the accused persons. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that he was not sure that the accused persons were same due to lapse of time. The alleged incident took place on 16.05.2015 and FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 53 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar was recorded on 07.04.2016 i.e. after about only eleven months of the incident. As per the version of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, he remained at the spot for about one hour. The accused persons were present at the spot for about ten hours. In these circumstances, PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar had the opportunity to see the faces of accused persons properly. Turning of hostile of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar on the identity of accused persons has weakened the case of the prosecution.
36. Though, PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar has turned hostile on identity of accused persons but he has identified the weapons recovered from possession of accused persons. PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi had not joined any public person including PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar in the investigation at the time of seizure of weapons of offence. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar deposed that he was at a distance of 30-40 feet from the spot. It is not possible for any person to see the weapons properly from a distance of 30-40 feet in such a manner that he can identify the same after eleven months. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar was not present with the police officials when the recovered weapons were inspected, sealed and seized by PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi and in these circumstances, identifying the weapons in the court by PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar raises serious doubts on his veracity.
37. The alleged incident took place at a public place. IO has not collected any CCTV footage of the spot of incident or the FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 54 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
area through which the car of accused persons was chased by gypsy of the police. PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Kumar in his cross-examination deposed that he did not notice or check CCTV cameras installed near the spot covering the incident. This is a lacuna in investigation conducted by the IO.
38. PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi and PW-5 HC Hamender deposed that they had sustained injuries in the incident. PW-13 Dr. Gaurav Dubey has proved the MLCs of PW-5 HC Hamender & PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi, exhibited as Ex. PW-5/F & Ex. PW-6/G. He also deposed that nature of injury was opined as 'simple'. Accused persons have taken the defence that if PW-5 HC Hamender & PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi had sustained injuries, they could have taken the treatment in the nearby hospitals situated in Civil Lines but they had chosen to go to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment of simple injuries which is situated near their office and is situated about 18-20 kilometers from the spot of incident. PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh has also deposed that injured police personnel could have gone to the nearby hospitals. PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh deposed that he had clicked the photographs of the car of accused persons but he had not clicked the photographs of the injured police officials capturing their injury marks. PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi deposed that he left the spot at about 11:15 pm. On the perusal of MLCs of PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi and PW-5 HC Hamender exhibited as Ex. PW-6/G & Ex. PW-5/F, it FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 55 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
revealed that they reached the hospital at about 11:30 pm and 11:31 pm respectively. The distance between the spot of incident and Safdarjung hospital is very long which may not be covered in 15 minutes and getting prepared the MLC may also take some time. In these circumstances, it raises serious doubts on the prosecution story.
39. As per the prosecution story, after hearing the firing at the spot, PW-3 Ct. Surjeet of PS Civil Lines came to the spot and helped the raiding team. However, IO has not placed any DD entry vide which PW-3 Ct. Surjeet was performing his duties near the spot of incident to prove his presence at the spot. PW-3 Ct. Surjeet deposed that arrest memo of accused persons were prepared in his presence but he has not signed the same. He also deposed that the signature of one public person were obtained on the arrest memos of accused Ashok and Ravi. On the perusal of arrest memos of accused Ashok and Ravi, exhibited as Ex. PW-7/K & Ex. PW-4/D, it is revealed that the same have not been signed by any public person. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar has also not deposed that he had signed arrest memo of any accused. PW-3 Ct. Surjeet deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO on the same day i.e. 16.05.2015. PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh also deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Surjeet at Budh Vihar picket. On the perusal of statement of PW-3 Ct. Surjeet, recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, it is revealed that it was recorded on 20.05.2015 and not on 16.05.2015. This raises FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 56 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
serious doubts on the veracity of PW-3 Ct. Surjeet and PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh.
40. As per prosecution story, pistol along with four live cartridges were recovered from possession of accused Dheer Singh, which was seized by PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/C. One pistol, four live cartridges and magazine were recovered from possession of accused Rajesh @ Kanastar, which were seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-5/B. One country made pistol and two live cartridges recovered from possession of accused Ravi Tomar, which were seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-4/A. One country made pistol and two live cartridges recovered from possession of accused Ashok @ Pahalwan, which were seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-6/E. The recovery of the case property has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in compliance with the law laid down in this regard by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
41. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as Mohammad Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, cited as 'MANU/DE/3131/2017' has held that:-
"joining of independent public witness is not mere a formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid false implication of individual. In number of cases either no independent public witnesses are associated on the pretext that none of them is available; in some FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 57 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
cases only passerbyes are requested to join the investigation. Non-examination of independent public witness in the instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding them.
42. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Ramanand@Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh cited as 2022 SCC online SC 1396 has observed as under:-"52. Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:-
'27 How much of information received from the accused may be proved-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information, received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.
If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 58 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire, in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of that independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two particular place anything like the weapon of offence of blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then the part of the entire process expects the investigating officer FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 59 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter."
43. PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi has admitted that no independent witness was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of weapons from the possession of accused persons. Other members of raiding party have also deposed that no independent public person was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery. No notice was served upon the public persons who refused to join the investigation. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar has deposed that he was present at the spot of incident but surprisingly, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi and other members of raiding team could not observe his presence at the spot of incident, which shows that no efforts were made to join any independent public person in the investigation at the time of recovery/seizure of recovered illegal weapons. Accused persons have taken the defence that PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar was not present at the spot of incident and hence it does not bear his signatures on the seizure memos of the weapons and arrest memos of accused persons. The Investigating Agency has also failed to trace the source of weapons allegedly found in possession of accused persons. Non-joining of any independent public person at the the recovery of weapons of offence and the defence taken by accused persons has put a serious dent on the prosecution story. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Burhan (Supra) and Ramanand@Nand Lal Bharti (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that due to non-
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 60 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
joining of independent public person at the time of recovery of case properties, the recovery of case properties has become doubtful. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of case properties from the possession of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
44. PW-10 Sh. N. B. Bardhan has proved the FSL Reports with respect to the weapons of offence and the car exhibited as Ex. PW-7/O to Ex. PW-7/O-5. PW-11 Sh. Bhisham Singh has also proved the sanction under Sec. 39 Arms Act, Ex. PW-7/P. Since the recoveries of case property has become doubtful and the incident has also become doubtful, the proving of FSL Report and Sanction under Sec. 39 Arms Act do not have much evidentiary value.
45. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
46. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that :
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 61 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness"
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 62 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
47. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 63 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
48. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
49. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi, PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh & PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh are not witnesses of sterling quality as their versions are not natural and they have also failed to withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar, PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi, PW-7 IO/Inspector Nagender Singh & PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh are not clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and same have not been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses and circumstances.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 64 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
50. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
51. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:-
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
52. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 65 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
53. In the present case, due to material contradictions in testi- monies of independent eyewitness i.e. PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar and the members of raiding team i.e. PW-4 HC Virender, PW-5 HC Hamender, PW-6/complainant Inspector Atul Tyagi & PW-9 SI Brijpal Singh, turning of hostile of PW-1 Sh. Joginder Kumar on the identity of accused persons, non-joining of any independent witness at the time of recovery of case properties i.e. weapons and non-collection of CCTV footage of the area, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons. Things appears to have not happened in the manner these have been projected.
54. The prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of offences punishable under Sec. 186/34 IPC, 332/34 IPC, 353/34 IPC, 506/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC & Sec. 25 & 27 Arms beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 66 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.
55. Accordingly, accused persons namely Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar, Dheer Singh @ Dhiraj @ Kala, Ashok Kumar @ Pahalwan & Ravi Tomar are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under 186/34 IPC, 332/34 IPC, 353/34 IPC, 506/34 IPC & Sec. 307/34 IPC & Sec. 25 Arms Act. Accused Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar is also hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 27 Arms Act.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Date: 2026.01.24 on 24th day of January, 2026 15:54:28 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:24.01.2026 FIR No. 74/2015, PS: Crime Branch (Central), Page No. 67 of 67 State Vs. Rajesh @ Deepak @ Kanastar & Ors.