Delhi District Court
State vs . Deepak Rana Page No. 1 Of 14 on 1 June, 2019
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02, NORTH
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
STATE CASE No..........................298/17
FIR No. 70/14
PS KNK Marg
U/s: 307 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
State
Versus
Deepak Rana
S/o Sh. Rai Singh Rana
R/o H. No. 85, Pocket12, 1st Floor,
Sector24, Rohini, Delhi.
Date of institution : 27.05.2017
Judgment reserved on : 22.05.2019
Judgment delivered on: 01.06.2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT: The accused stands acquitted of
the offence(s) u/S 307 IPC &
25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
JUDGMENT
1. In brief, the prosecution story as emerged from the chargesheet is that on 20.01.2014, on receipt of DD No. 33A, SI Devender Singh alongwith Ct. Satbir Singh went to the place of occurrence i.e. at H. No. F5/154, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. Crime team was called and the crime team officials got the spot inspected and the photographs were SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 1 of 14 -2- taken. One bullet was found entangled over the inner side door of the room, which was made of copper type metal. SI Devender Singh kept them in a plastic container and said container was kept in a cloth pulanda and said pulanda was sealed with the seal of DSD and was seized vide seizure memo. SI Devender Singh recorded the statement of complainant Deepak Chopra, which reads as under: "That he runs a cloth shop at D2/175, Sector11, Rohini, Delhi and he is knowing Deepak Rana since last 45 years, who most of the times sits in the office of Sh. Sudesh situated at F5/154, Ground Floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi with whom he also develops friendship. Around 15 days ago, he alongwith Deepak Rana went to Pitampura for playing the cards, in which Deepak Rana, in his partnership played the cards and lost Rs.3.56 lakhs. He assured and made commitment to give his part of loss i.e. Rs.1.78 lakhs to Deepak Rana within 15 days and he had paid Rs.60,000/ to him.
On 20.01.2014, he could not repay the balance amount to Deepak Rana as per his commitment and on asking of some more time to repay the same, Deepak Rana abused him and disconnected the phone. He again telephonically called him and asked him to come at the office of Sudesh Gupta situated at the aforesaid office.
SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 2 of 14 -3- At about 8:30 pm, when he reached at the office of Sudesh Gupta alongwith his friend Sunil Sehgal, he found Deepak Rana was sitting on the bed. When they reached there, Sudesh Gupta and his other associate went outside and closed the door. During the conversation, Deepak Rana took out a pistol from his right dub and asked him to return the amount and fired from that pistol towards him, but the round hit on the door. Thereafter, he rushed out after opening the gate, but returned to the spot on the asking of his friend, who called him telephonically. Thereafter, he called the police at number 100.
2. On the basis of said statement, an FIR u/s 336 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act was registered at PS KNK Marg and investigations were taken up by SI Devender Singh.
During the course of investigations, site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and offence u/s 307 IPC was incorporated. During investigation, accused Deepak Rana was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. During investigation, PC remand of accused Deepak Rana was obtained and during PC remand, accused got recovered one country made katta from inside the bushes near the patri of West Yamuna river. The said country made katta was seized after sealing through a SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 3 of 14 -4- seizure memo.
During investigation, the exhibits were sent to FSL and upon receipt of FSL result, sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was obtained and upon completion of investigation, charge(s) for offence(s) punishable u/s 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act was filed.
3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide detailed order dated 24.08.2017, a charge(s) for offence(s) punishable u/s 307 IPC & and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case has examined 12 witnesses :
a) PW1 is Sh. V. R. Anand, Assistant Director, Ballistic, FSL, who deposed to have examined the exhibits and prepared FSL report Ex. PW1/A.
b) PW2 is SI Ramesh Kumar i.e. duty officer, who deposed to have recorded FIR Ex. PW2/A, made endorsement Ex. PW2/B over rukka and also issued certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW2/C.
c) PW3 is Ct. Manoj, who deposed that on 04.06.2014, he collected the exhibits in sealed condition from MHCM vide RC No. 45/21/14 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini.
SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 4 of 14 -5-
d) PW4 is ASI Ram Bharose i.e. MHCM, who has produced original register no. 19 and exhibited entry at serial no. 672/14 as Ex. PW4/A, entry at serial no. 673/14 as Ex. PW4/B, entry at serial no. 914/14 as Ex. PW4/C. He also produced original register no. 21 and exhibited copy of RC No. 45/21/14 as Ex. PW4/D.
e) PW5 is HC Ved Prakash, who conducted further investigation and collected FSL result.
f) PW6 is Sh. Deepak Chopra i.e. complainant, but this witness has given a different version in respect of the manner of occurrence and has deposed that when he alongwith Sudesh Gupta and accused Deepak Rana were present at H. no. F5/154, Sector16, Rohini, he heard gunshot sound and immediately opened the door.
He specifically deposed that accused Deepak Rana had not done anything wrong with him and had not fired towards him at any point of time. Since this witness turned hostile, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite cross examination, he failed to support the statement mark PW6/A. He also denied to have made statement mark PW6/A. He also denied the contents of seizure memo mark PW6/B.
g) PW7 is Sh. Sunil Sehgal i.e. eye witness, but this witness has given a different version in respect of the manner of occurrence and has deposed that when he alongwith Deepak Chopra and SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 5 of 14 -6- accused Deepak Rana were present at H. no. F5/154, Sector16, Rohini, he heard gunshot sound and immediately opened the door.
He specifically deposed that accused Deepak Rana had not done anything wrong and had not fired towards Deepak Chopra at any point of time. Since this witness turned hostile, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite cross examination, he failed to support the statement mark PW7/A.
h) PW8 is retired SI Devender Dahiya, who had deposed regarding the investigations carried out by him. He also exhibited the seizure memo of sikka / lid of the bullet as Ex. PW6/B. He also exhibited the rukka as Ex. PW8/A, the site plan as Ex. PW8/B, the arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW8/C, his personal search memo as Ex. PW8/D and the disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW8/E, the sketch of katta as Ex. PW8/F, seizure memo of the said katta as Ex. PW8/G, rough site plan of place of recovery of katta as Ex. PW8/H as well as pointing out memo of place of commission of offence as Ex. PW8/J.
i) PW9 is Ct. Satyavir, who deposed to have joined the investigation alongwith SI Devender Dahiya. He also deposed to have exhibited the seizure memo of sikka / lid of bullet as Ex. PW6/B. He also deposed to have taken rukka Ex. PW8/A and got the FIR registered.
j) PW10 is SI Gurjant Singh, who deposed to have conducted SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 6 of 14 -7- further investigation of the present case. He also deposed to have prepared draft chargesheet.
k) PW11 is Ct. Majid Khan, who deposed to have joined the investigation alongwith SI Devender Dahiya. He also deposed to have exhibited the sketch of katta as Ex. PW8/F. He also exhibited the seizure memo of said katta as Ex. PW8/G, site plan of place of recovery of said katta as Ex. PW8/H, pointing out memo of place of commission of offence as Ex. PW8/J.
l) PW12 is HC Manjeet, who deposed that he alongwith IO SI Devender Dahiya had apprehended accused Deepak Rana. He also exhibited the arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW8/C, personal search memo as Ex. PW8/D as well as disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW8/E. During trial, the accused had made a separate statement to the effect that he does not want to crossexamine Sh. Pankaj Singh i.e. the concerned DCP. He also submitted that he has no objection, if the sanction u/s 39 Arms Act be exhibited and read in evidence. During trial, vide separate statement, Ld. Addl. PP had tendered and exhibited the sanction u/s 39 Arms Act accorded by Sh. Pankaj Singh i.e. concerned DCP as Ex. PX.
5. Vide order dated 02.05.2019, the prosecution evidence was closed.
SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 7 of 14 -8-
6. Thereafter, statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him, in which the defence of the accused was that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and no such recovery of katta was effected at his instance. However, he chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
7. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Sanjeev Lakra, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that in the present case, the complainant PW6 Deepak Chopra has turned hostile with regard to the identity of the accused and despite crossexamination, he has not supported the prosecution story at all. It is further stated that same is the testimony of PW7 Sunil Sehgal, who has also not supported the prosecution story.
Regarding the recovery aspect, he submits that in the said recovery, no public witness(s) were joined nor any videography or photographs of the said recovery proceedings were done and even as per the FSL / Ballistic report Ex. PW1/A, the alleged bullet particle / lead seized from the spot was not found discharged from the katta allegedly got recovered by the accused and thus, he prayed SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 8 of 14 -9- that the aforesaid accused may be acquitted in respect of the charges(s) framed against him.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has argued that no doubt both the material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, however, with regard to the recovery aspect, the prosecution story is duly supported by the testimonies of PW8 Retd. SI Devender Dahiya, IO, as also the recovery witness PW11 Ct. Majid Khan and the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement, got the country made pistol recovered, which is admissible piece of evidence against the accused u/S. 27 of Evidence Act.
It is further stated that even if the accused was not found to be in constructive possession of the said country made pistol, without any licence or permit, still he can be said to be in constructive possession of the country made pistol, therefore, he is liable to be convicted u/S. 25/27 Arms Act.
10. I have gone through the rival contentions.
11. In the present case PW6 Deepak Chopra has turned totally hostile with regard to the identity of the accused. He has failed to identify the accused, who had fired upon him. Despite lengthy cross examination, he has not supported the prosecution case at all.
SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 9 of 14 -10- Similar is the testimony of PW7 Sunil Seghal, who was the alleged eye witness to the incident dated 20.01.2014, he has also turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case at all with regard to the identity of the accused, who had fired bullet on PW6 on 20.01.2014.
In absence of any cogent evidence, the prosecution case flounders with regard to the charge(s) u/S. 307 IPC, as the prosecution has failed to fix the identity of the accused, who had allegedly fired upon PW6.
12. With regard to the charge u/S. 25 Arms Act, the testimony of PW8 Retd. SI Devender Dahiya with regard to the recovery aspect is reproduced as under :
"On 23.01.2014, while I alongwith Ct. Manjeet Singh were in investigation of the present case, on the basis of secret information, we managed to apprehend accused Deepak Rana from G Block, main road, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. I had effected the arrest of accused Deepak Rana, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.
SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 10 of 14 -11- PW8/D. Accused Deepak Rana also made disclosure statement Ex. PW8/E. Thereafter,
accused Deepak Rana was produced before the court and I had obtained his one PC remand.
During PC remand, pursuant to disclosure statement, accused led us i.e. me and Ct. Majid Khan to West Yamuna river near Dariyapur Jhal and from inside the bushes near the patri of said river, accused picked up one country made katta and stated to us that the said katta was used by him in the commission of offence. He also stated that he had thrown the empty cartridge in flowing river. I had prepared the sketch Ex. PW8/F of said katta and also measured it and mentioned its measurement on sketch itself.
Thereafter, I had kept the said katta in a cloth pulanda and said pulanda was sealed with the seal of DS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/G. I had also prepared the rough site plan of the place of recovery of said katta which is now exhibited as Ex. PW8/H Accused had also pointed the place of commission of offence vide memo Ex.
SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 11 of 14 -12- PW8/J. All the aforesaid memos bears my signatures at point X. I had recorded the statement of witnesses."
13. The testimony of PW8 IO with regard to the recovery aspect is also corroborated by the recovery witness PW11 Ct. Majid Khan. Their testimonies converges with each other on the aspect of recovery. However, it is admitted by them, in their crossexamination that at the place of recovery, many public persons were present, however, no public person was joined in the recovery proceedings. It is further admitted by them that they were carrying their mobile phones, but yet neither of them had prepared any videography or obtained the photographs of the said recovery proceedings.
The IO PW8 has also admitted that the place of recovery falls within the jurisdiction of PS Narela, but he had not contacted the police officials of PS Narela to join in the investigations. In the absence of any independent public witness to corroborate the recovery of the alleged katta on the instance of the accused, the said recovery proceedings does not inspire confidence. Even otherwise, the alleged recovery has been made from a public place accessible to the public at large. Therefore, it is also quite probable that the accused might have the knowledge that somebody had kept the said katta concealed there, or he had seen somebody SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 12 of 14 -13- putting the said katta there, or he may be the person who had actually done so.
The probability of each such event is 1/3 rd or 33% individually. This probability aspect is butterest by the fact that as per the FSL report, the bullet seized from the spot i.e. evidence bullet Ex. EB1 when compared with the katta allegedly got recovered by the accused, no definite opinion was given that the same has been discharged from the said country made pistol.
14. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution story on the recovery aspect is also quite weak and the probability of the innocence of the accused is more than his culpability. The probability is loaded in favour of the defence in the ratio of 2/ 3 rd - 1/ 3rd.
Accordingly, the probative force of the defence version is much higher side on this aspect than the probative force of the prosecution story. Consequently, the accused Deepak Rana also deserves to be acquitted for the charge(s) u/S. 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
To sum up :
15. From the aforesaid analysis of evidence, the probative force of the prosecution evidence as a whole is touching the point of uncertainty on the scales, where probability of happening of any SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 13 of 14 -14- event is assessed or measured, whereas the defence version is having higher probative force, which is much greater than that of the prosecution evidence. On such kind of inconclusive evidence, accused cannot be convicted. As a consequence, the accused Deepak Rana is acquitted of the charge(s) u/S. 307 IPC and u/S. 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
His previous bail bonds are cancelled. Previous surety stands discharged. Original document(s), if any be returned after cancelling the endorsement(s), if any on the same, if the same are not resubmitted while furnishing bail bonds u/S. 437A CrPC.
16. The accused has already furnished his bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C, which will remain valid for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section 437A CrPC.
File on completion be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2019.06.06
16:09:46 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Sanjeev Aggarwal)
st
on 01 June, 2019 Addl. Sessions Judge02,North
Rohini Courts, Delhi
01.06.2019
SC No. 298/17; FIR No.70/14; PS KNK Marg
State Vs. Deepak Rana Page No. 14 of 14