Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Narender @ Chotu S/O Om Parkash on 2 July, 2010
THE COURT OF SH.R P PANDEY: ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-
OUTER (II): ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
SC No. : 63/09
FIR NO. : 520/07
PS : Sultan Puri
U/s : 302 IPC
State Vs. 1. Narender @ Chotu S/o Om Parkash
R/o-Village Ghanshana, PS:Baroda
Sonepat, Haryana
2. Sandeep @ Kala S/o Prem Singh
R/o-Village-Bhatgaon, PS:Sadar
Sonepat, Haryana.
Date of Institution (Committal)- 24.10.07
Date on which the case - 02.07.10
was reserved for order
Date of Decision - 02.07.10
JUDGMENT:
1. Accused persons named above have been charge sheeted by Police Station-Sultan Puri to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.1 Of 12
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR was registered on the basis of DD No.90B dated 28.03.07 regarding firing a gun shot to a lady at Sultan Puri Bus Stand no.908. Injured/Jitender was removed to SGM Hospital where he was unfit for statement. Later on, injured was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital where he scummed to his injuries on 01.04.07. Post mortem on the body of deceased was conducted. Crime Team was also called at the scene of crime and evidence were collected from there. Later on, accused persons were arrested and they were charge sheeted by police to face trial under section 302/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
3. Ld.MM complied with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC and committed the case to the court of Sessions which in turn was assigned to the predecessor of this court.
4. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC as also 25/27/54/59 Arms FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.2 Of 12 Act were framed against accused persons, on 30.11.07, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case prosecution examined 17 witnesses.
6. PW-1/Ct.Vinod has deposed that he joined the investigation with SI-Sanjay Nagpal and accused Narender was arrested in this case and he made disclosure statement, Ex.PW-1/A and his statement was recorded by IO.
7. During cross-examination he deposed that accused was arrested in his presence and he was interrogated for about 1 or 1 ½ hours. He further deposed that IO had asked some public persons to join the investigation but none agreed and disclosure statement of accused was recorded in police station.
FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.3 Of 12
8. PW-2/Pappu was the rickshaw puller and material witness. He turned hostile.
9. As the witness was not supporting the prosecution version, he was cross-examined by ld.Public Prosecutor but during cross-examination nothing material came out. His entire statement was confronted to him but he denied having made such statement to the police. However, he admitted that he went to Rohini Jail, on 08.10.07 for TIP proceedings and identified accused Narender in TIP Proceedings but volunteered that he had identified accused Narender as his photograph was shown to him prior to the TIP Proceedings. He further deposed that he again went to Rohini Jail for TIP in respect of accused Sandeep but denied to the suggestion that due to fear of accused he was deposing falsely.
10. PW-3/Satpal has identified the dead body of deceased as Ex.PW-3/A. PW-4/Harnarayan was the father of deceased. He received the FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.4 Of 12 dead body after post mortem vide memo, Ex.PW-4/A.
11. PW-5/Shri Kishan was another public witness. He also turned hostile. He was also cross-examined by ld.Public Prosecutor after taking necessary permission from the court but during cross-examination nothing material came out. He, however, admitted that he had seen the said boy from his back side escaping from spot along with other accused on motorcycle.
12. PW-6/Dr.Brijesh, CMO, SGM Hospital has examined injured/Jitender and proved his detailed report as Ex.PW-6/A. PW- 7/Sh.Manoj Kumar, Ld.MM has proved the TIP proceedings in respect of accused/Narender as Ex.PW-7/A and allowed the copy for SHO as Ex.PW- 7/B. He also proved the TIP proceedings in respect of accused/Sandeep as Ex.PW-7/C and allowed the copy for SHO as Ex.PW-7/D. FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.5 Of 12
13. PW-8/Shyam Sunder is yet another public witness, who has turned hostile and deposed that he does not know anything about this case and nothing was got recovered from any of the accused persons in his presence. He further deposed that accused persons were not the real assailants.
14. As the witness was not supporting the prosecution version, he was allowed to be cross-examined by ld.Public Prosecutor but during cross- examination nothing material came out.
15. During cross-examination at the hand of ld.defence counsel he deposed that he had signed on Ex.PW-17/A to C when they were blank.
16. PW-9/Ms.Babli was the widow of deceased/Jitender. She deposed that she came to know about receiving of gun shot injuries by her husband through police officials and her husband expired on 31.03.07. FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.6 Of 12
17. PW-10/HC-Mahavir Singh has proved the copy of FIR and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW-10/A & B respectively. PW-11/HC-Kali Charan has proved the copy of FIR no.2006/06 u/s 392/397/34 IPC, PS:Sultan Puri as Ex.PW-11/A.
18. PW-12/Dr.Gaurav Vinod Jain, Asstt.Professor, Safdarjung Hospital has proved the autopsy report of deceased Jitender as Ex.PW-12/A.
19. PW-13/HC Raj Singh has recorded and proved the DD No.27A as Ex.PW-13/A.
20. PW-14/SI-Kalander Singh, SIT Staff, Haryana has deposed that accused Sandeep @ Kala was arrested by him in case FIR No.116/06 u/s 341/352 and 25 Arms Act, PS:Rai. He was interrogated by him and he disclosed his involvement along with co-accused Narender in the present FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.7 Of 12 case. He accordingly informed to PS:Sultan Puri. He further deposed that accused Sandeep got recovered two pistols and four live rounds of .315 bore and cash amount of Rs.1.40 lacs. Their sketches were prepared and sealed by him and taken into possession in case FIR No.86/07 u/s 392/397/120-B IPC and 25 Arms Act of PS:Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana. He also proved the original disclosure statement of accused Sandeep as Ex.PW-14/A from the file produced by the Ahlmad of the court of Sh.Lalit Batra, Ld.ASJ, Sonepat, Haryana. He also proved the seizure memo of cash, thaila (bag) and two country made pistols along with 4 cartridges recovered from accused Sandeep as Ex.APW-17/A to C and the original of these documents were in the judicial file of case FIR No.86/06, PS:Kundli.
21. PW-15/HC Ranbir Singh, District Police Office, Sonepat, has proved the entry recorded in register no.19 at sl.no.235 regarding depositing of two pulindas by SI-Kalandar Singh in malkhana as Ex.Pw-15/A. He also proved the copy of receiving of the parcels before the court of Ld.CJM, FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.8 Of 12 Sonepat as Ex.PW-15/B.
22. PW-16/ASI-Hawa Singh, PS:Kundli has proved the copy of FIR No.86/07 as Ex.PW-16/A.
23. PW-17/Sh.Satish Kumar, Record Keeper, Record Room (Sessions Court), Sonepat, Haryana has proved the record of judicial file of case FIR No.86/07, PS:Kundli, whereby accused persons, namely, Sandeep @ Kala, Narender @ Chotu and Rakesh were acquitted on 18.02.10. He also deposed that the judicial file brought by him bears the photocopy of seizure memo of two pistols (.315 bore and cartridge), thaila (bag) and cash amount and sketch of country made pistols as Ex.PW-17/A to C.
24. Since statement of all the material witnesses i.e PW-2/Pappu; PW-5/Kishan and PW-8/Shyam Sunder, who are injured and/or eye witnesses of the incident, have not supported the case of the prosecution at FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.9 Of 12 all and thus it has been submitted by ld.defence counsel present in the court that no useful purpose will be served if statement of other formal witnesses is recorded as the prosecution case is not likely to terminate successfully. He has also tendered in the court the certified copy of the judgment passed by Ld.ASJ, Sonepat, Haryana in FIR No.86/07, PS:Kundli, vide which accused persons have been acquitted.
25. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor has prayed for examining other witnesses i.e FSL Expert and the recovery witnesses of case FIR No.86/07, PS:Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana, who had recovered weapons of offence i.e 2 country made pistols and 4 live cartridges etc., as out of those two weapons, one was found, to be linked with the fired bullet, as per FSL result. Prayer so made by ld.public prosecutor does not carry weight, therefore, his prayer is turned down in view of the fact that both the accused persons have already been acquitted by the court of Sh.Lalit Batra, Ld.ASJ, Sonepat, Haryana in FIR No.86/07, PS:Kundli, Haryana, in which FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.10 Of 12 charge were framed against them u/s 25 Arms Act for recovery of weapons from their possession.
26. I have carefully perused the entire evidence recorded so far in the present case and find that since accused have already been acquitted in Arms Act case and all the eye witnesses including the injured witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution at all for offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and they have even denied presence of accused persons on spot, therefore, even if the witnesses for recovery of the fire arm in another case or the scientific evidence as submitted by ld. Public Prosecutor, is proved in this case, it will not be able to bring home guilt of accused persons. In my considered opinion examination of remaining witnesses of the case, who are only formal witnesses would be a sheer wastage of judicial time as it would not be able to serve any fruitful purpose. Thus, the prayer made by Ld. Public Prosecutor for examining remaining witnesses in this case, who are only FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.11 Of 12 formal witnesses, has been declined.
27. In view of the testimony of witnesses recorded so far, the statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C, is dispensed with.
28. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh.Ram Pyara, Ld.Addl.PP for the State and Sh.Deepak Sharma, ld.counsel for accused persons and carefully gone through the entire records of the case.
29. Under such circumstances, as discussed above, the court finds that prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of accused persons. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the offences charged against them. They are in judicial custody. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open (R P PANDEY)
Court on 02.07.2010 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (O)-II
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No.520 of 07 Page No.12 Of 12