Delhi District Court
State vs . Pradeep Solanki & Anr. on 24 March, 2018
FIR No. 102/16, PS BHD Nagar
U/s. 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act
State Vs. Pradeep Solanki & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MS MANU GOEL KHARB
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DWARKA COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 102/16
U/s 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act
PS: BHD Nagar
State vs. Pradeep Solanki & Anr.
Date of Institution of case:02.12.2016
Date of Judgment reserved: 24.03.2018
Date on which Judgment pronounced:24.03.2018
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 273/16
Date of Commission of offence : 16.03.2016
Name of the complainant : Sh. Rambir, S/o Late Sh. Mohan
Lal, R/o RZ17B, ABlock,
Jharoda Road, Gali no.2, Subzi
Mandi, Najafgarh, Delhi.
Name and address of the accused : 1. Pradeep Solanki
persons S/o Sh. Jeet Singh
R/o RZ68B, Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
2. Pradeep @ Tota,
S/o Sh. Virender Singh,
R/o RZ40, Gupta Market,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms
Act
Page 1 of 6
FIR No. 102/16, PS BHD Nagar
U/s. 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act
State Vs. Pradeep Solanki & Anr.
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of order : 24.03.2018
Final Order : ACQUITTED
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.03.2016 at about 11.20 pm, at RZ17B, ABlock, Jharoda Road, Gali no.2, Subzi Mandi, Najafgarh, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS BHD Nagar, accused Pradeep Solanki & Pradeep @ Tota alongwith another associates (not arrested) in furtherance of their common intention damaged the shutter and window of the house of the complainant Rambir by firing Gun shots and on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the present case FIR No. 102/16, P.S. BHD Nagar was lodged against the accused Pradeep Solanki & Anr. for the offences under Section 440/34 IPC and 25/27 & 54/59 Arms Act.
2. After the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court on 02.102.2016 against the accused Pradeep Solanki & Pradeep @ Tota for the offences under Section 440/34 IPC & Section 25/27 &54/59 Arms Act.
Vide order dated 28.02.2017, charge was framed against both the accused Pradeep Solanki & Pradeep @ Tota for the offences under Section 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act, to which they pleaded not Page 2 of 6 FIR No. 102/16, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act State Vs. Pradeep Solanki & Anr.
guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case prosecution has examined only 2 witnesses.
4. PW1 is the complainant Rambir Singh. He deposed that on 16.03.2016 at about 11.20 pm, he was sleeping at his house and woke up due to the noise made by someone hitting his shutter. Complainant went to the third floor and saw a long white car with three persons. Two of the persons alighted from the car out of which, one started abusing the complainant and the other fired two gun shots1 shot towards the shutter and another shot towards the first floor. Thereafter, they all ran away alongwith the car. PW1 proved his statement given to the police as Ex. PW1/A and site plan as Ex. PW1/B. Police collected two bullet leads from the spot and seized the same. Crime team was called and spot was photographed. Police got conducted the TIP of both the accused persons but PW1 could not identify them. Witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP and thereafter, cross examined. PW1 also failed to identify the accused persons in the Court. Witness was duly crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
5. PW2 Pandav deposed that on 16.03.2016 at about 11.00 pm, he was working in Subzi Mandi and at that time, 23 persons came in the lane in a car and one of them slapped him. Somebody told PW2 that these 23 persons had fired at Rambir's house. He further deposed Page 3 of 6 FIR No. 102/16, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act State Vs. Pradeep Solanki & Anr.
that he had not seen those 23 persons firing and cannot identified those persons or the offending vehicle.
Witness was duly crossexamined by Ld. APP for the state as he was resiling from his earlier statement. He denied all the suggestions given by Ld. APP and failed to identify both the accused persons before the Court. He admitted that he was taken to Rohini Jail for identification of the accused persons but he could not identify them as he had not seen them properly on the date of incident due to darkness.
6. Hence, keeping in view the fact that both the public witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, remaining prosecution witnesses were dropped as they were all formal witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed vide order dt. 24.03.2018. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused persons namely Pradeep Solanki and Pradeep @ Tota, statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with on the same date.
7. Both accused stated that they do not want to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and final arguments were heard.
8. In order to prove the offence under Section 440/34 IPC and Page 4 of 6 FIR No. 102/16, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act State Vs. Pradeep Solanki & Anr.
Section 27 Arms Act, prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons namely Pradeep Solanki & Pradeep Tota in furtherance of their common intention had fired Gun shots and damaged the window and shutter of the house of the complainant.
9. It is noteworthy that PW1 and PW2 both were star witnesses of the prosecution, on whose statements prosecution was relying but both of them did not support the case of the prosecution and completely turned hostile. Both of them even failed to identify the accused Pradeep Solanki & Pradeep @ Tota as well as the offending vehicle in the court. Therefore, the most important testimony that could connect the accused persons with the offence in question got lost rather their testimony has completely exonerated the accused from all the allegations levelled in present case. It was the testimony of PW1 and PW2 only which could have proved crucial in sustaining the conviction of accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the alleged incident and all other witnesses are formal in nature whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to conviction of the accused.
10. Hence, in the absence of any incriminating / inculpatory evidence against the accused in testimony of the eyewitnesses, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the Page 5 of 6 FIR No. 102/16, PS BHD Nagar U/s. 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act State Vs. Pradeep Solanki & Anr.
accused and hence, the accused Pradeep Solanki & Pradeep @ Tota is hereby acquitted from offences u/s 440/34 IPC & Section 27 Arms Act.
11. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open court today on 24th of March, 2018. (Manu Goel Kharb) Metropolitan Magistrate07 Dwarka District Court/Delhi Digitally signed by MANU MANU GOEL KHARB GOEL Date:
KHARB 2018.03.24
17:24:35
+0530
Page 6 of 6