Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Sulender on 11 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 93/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0076812013
State Vs. 1. Sulender
S/o late Sh. Dharmbir Singh
House No. Y1/12, Budh Vihar
PhaseII, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
2. Ravinder
S/o late Sh. Dharmbir Singh
House No. Y1/12, Budh Vihar
PhaseII, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
3. Chanchal Chaudhary
S/o Ishwar Singh
House No. D1/102, Shyam Vihar
Budh Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
FIR No. : 116/2012
Police Station : Vijay Vihar
Under Section : 307/34 Indian Penal Code.
& 25/27/54 Arms Act.
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 25.4.2013
Date on which orders were reserved : 11.09.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced :11.09.2013
State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Brief Facts:
(1) As per the allegations on 4.4.2012 at about 3:00 PM at House No. D105B, Sharma Colony, Budh ViharII, Delhi, the accused Sulender, Ravinder and Chanchal Chaudhary in furtherance of their common intention along with two three other associates (since not arrested) committed house trespass having made preparation for causing hurt or for wrongfully restraining the victims Avneet, Suman Lata, Yogesh and Gurvender Kumar and also fired gunshots which hit on the stomach of victim Suman Lata and also on the person of Gurvender Kumar.
Brief Case of the Prosecution:
(2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 4.4.2012, on receipt of DD No. 55B SI Anil Bulang along with Ct. Ranjeet reached at the spot i.e. H. No. D105B, Sharma Colony, Budh Vihar, PhaseII, and came to know that there was a quarrel between landlord and tenant wherein gunshots were fired. Police found blood stains at the spot but no eye witness was found. Beat Constable Pawan along with Ct. Sherpal and the SHO also reached at the spot and the Crime Team was also called. Ct.
Ranjeet was sent to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where he collected the MLCs of injured Suman Lata and Gurvender. Statement of Gurvender was recorded who alleged that his father was contesting MCD Elections for Nigam Parsad and he (complainant) was helping his father in election State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 2 of 21 campaign and on 4.4.2012 at about 4:00 PM there was a procession wherein his father, mother and brother were involved since morning at their office at A1/11, Budh Vihar, PhaseII. He further informed the police that at about 2:00 PM his father and mother came home to have lunch and about 3:00 PM his brother Avneet informed that the landlord Sulender had come to his (complainant's) house and was taking electricity from their connection on which there was quarrel. The complainant has informed the police that on coming to know about the quarrel, he along with his brother rushed home and saw that Sulender along with his two to three associates was quarreling with his parents and on which he (complainant) intervened and told Sulender that the electricity bill has increased due to the commercial activities going on at the lower portion of the premises due to which the NDPL officials had also cut the connection and they could restored their (complainant) connection after filing a suit. The complainant further told the police that thereafter Sulender and his associates started beating them (complainant / victims) with lathis / dandas and fist and leg blows and thereafter Ravinder who was having a pistol fired and the pullet hit on the stomach of his mother Suman Lata and when he (complainant) tried to close the door, the accused Ravinder again fired another gunshot which hit on his (complainant's) finger. Thereafter, on hearing the noise, public gathered at the spot after which he and his mother were rushed to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where they were treated for the injuries. State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 3 of 21 (3) On the basis of the statement of Gurvender, a rukka was prepared, FIR was registered and accused persons were arrested and after completion of the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court. CHARGE (4) Charges under Sections 452/307/323/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Sulender, Ravinder and Chanchal Chaudhary. Further, charge under Section 27 Arms Act was also settled against the accused Ravinder. All three accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE (5) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution could examined as many as fourteen witnesses.
Public Witnesses:
(6) PW9 Gurvinder Kumar has deposed that in the year 2012 his father was contesting the Election of MCD Councilor and there was a procession regarding the election of his father where so many persons were present. According to the witness, when it was a lunch time, he told his father and mother to to and take lunch at home and when his father and mother were going home for taking lunch, they were waylaid by 1015 unidentified persons who started beating his father and mother. The State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 4 of 21 witness has deposed that in order to save themselves from those persons, his mother and father rushed to his house but those persons followed / chased them and came to the house. According to the witness, his father made a telephonic calls to him and also to his brother Avneet Kumar on which they immediately reached home but those persons (assailants) also scuffled with them and during the scuffle one of the person from the assailants took out a pistol and fired on his mother on which she received bullet injury on her abdomen. The witness has deposed that when he tried to rescue his mother, the said person also fired upon him and he sustained bullet injury on his middle finger of right hand. The witness has deposed that his father called PCR as well as his younger brother Yogesh after which the assailants flee from the spot. According to the witness, prior to reaching of the PCR, his younger brother Yogesh reached there and he rushed his mother to the hospital and thereafter PCR also came and took them to the SGM Hospital where he was interrogated and his statement was recorded by the police which is Ex.PW9/A bearing his signatures at point A. (7) The witness has deposed that he cannot identify those persons who have assaulted on him i.e. his father, his brother. He has further deposed that he also cannot identify the person who had fired on his mother and him, whether they are present in the court or not. The accused persons who were present in the court were shown to the witness who shows his inability to identified them and stated that there State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 5 of 21 was a huge crowd of procession and has stated that he is not able to identify the assailants.
(8) The witness has deposed that he handed over his blood stained T Shirt and Pant to the police which were seized by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW9/B which bears his signatures at point A. He admits that the site plan Ex.PW9/C was also prepared at his instance which bears his signatures at point A. (9) This witness has been crossexamined by Addl. PP wherein the witness has deposed that he had not stated to the police in his statement that at about 3.00 PM he was informed by his brother Avneet that the landlord accused Sulender had come to their house and was forcefully taking the electricity supply and also quarrelling with his father and mother. The witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW9/A where it was so found recorded form point A to A. The witness has deposed that he had not stated to the police in his statement that on receiving this information, he along with his brother reached the house and noticed that the accused persons were quarreling with his father and mother and when he asked as to why they were quarreling with his parents, the accused Sulender exhorted "yeh mera makan hai, jo mein chahoonga, vahi karoona" and when he asked that the lower portion in their possession in which the commercial activities are being done due to which a heavy bill from the NDPL had been raised. The witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW9/A where it was so found State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 6 of 21 recorded from point B to B. The witness has further stated that he had not stated to the police in his statement that due to the heavy amount of bill, the NDPL had disconnected the electricity and he had to continue the electricity supply after filing a suit in the Hon'ble High Court and hence they will not allow him (accused) to continue taking connection which they had continued with the intervention of Hon'ble High Court. Witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW9/A where it was so found recorded form point C to C. The contents of statement Ex.PW9/A from point D to D were read over to the witness which he denied having made so before the police.
(10) The witness has denied that on 04.04.2012 accused persons namely Sulender, Ravinder and Chanchal along with their 23 associates committed house trespass in their house having made preparation for causing hurt or for wrongfully restraining him, his brother Avneet, Yogesh and his mother Suman Lata and fired a gunshot on the stomach of his mother Suman Lata with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that they or by the act caused the death of his mother and of his and in also in furtherance of their common intention caused the simple hurt on his father and brother Avneet. The witness has further denied that he intentionally did not identify the accused persons as he had been won over by the accused persons or that the accused persons assaulted them when they disallowed them to continue the electricity supply which they had restored after filing the suit in the Hon'ble High Court or that he was State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 7 of 21 deliberately concealing the material aspects. The witness has further denied that he and his parents made a compromise with the accused persons outside the court that is why he is concealing the material facts. The witness has deposed that he is unable to identify his blood stained T Shirt and pant due to passage of time.
(11) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that Ex.PW9/A was not read over to him by the police at the time of obtaining his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that he did not tell the contents of Ex.PW9/A to the police at any point of time.
According to him, whatever he has deposed before this Court, the same he had told the police.
(12) PW10 Avneet Kumar has deposed that in the year 2012 his father was contesting election of MCD Councilor and processed for a procession regarding the election of his father and there were so many persons in the procession. According to the witness, it was lunch time when his father and mother were asked to take lunch by the members of the procession and at that time he was in the Election Office of his father. He has deposed that when his father and mother were going home for taking lunch, they were waylaid by 1015 unidentified persons and they started beating his father and mother, as he was informed by someone. The witness has deposed that to escape from those persons, his mother and father rushed to their house but those persons also chased his parents and reached their house. The witness has deposed that on receiving the information from someone, he State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 8 of 21 immediately went to his house and came to know that his father had already made a call to his brother Gurvinder and Yogesh and when he tried to rescue his mother, those person also fired upon his brother Gurvinder and he sustained bullet injury on the middle finger of his right hand. The witness has deposed that his father called the PCR as well as his younger brother Yogesh and it was thereafter that the assailants flee from the spot. The witness has deposed that prior to reaching of the PCR, his younger brother Yogesh reached the house and he took his brother and his mother to the hospital.
(13) The witness has stated that he cannot identify those persons who had assaulted his brother, mother and father. The accused were shown to the witness who showed his inability to identified them and has stated that there was a huge crowd of procession and states that he cannot identify the assailants.
(14) In his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the statement Mark A was read over to the witness which he denied having made so before the police from point A to A. The witness has denied that on 04.04.2012 the accused persons Sulender, Ravinder and Chanchal (who were present in the court) along with their 23 associates committed house trespass in their house having made preparation for causing hurt or for wrongfully restraining his brother Avneet, Yogesh, himself and his mother Suman Lata and fired a gunshot on the stomach of his mother Suman Lata State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 9 of 21 with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that they or by the act caused the death of his mother and of his and in also in furtherance of their common intention caused the simple hurt on him and his father. The witness has denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not identifying the accused persons as he has been won over by the accused. He has also denied that the accused persons assaulted them when they disallowed them (accused) to continue the electricity supply which they (victims) had restored after filing the suit in the Hon'ble High Court. The witness has further denied that he is deliberately concealing the material aspects. The witness has also denied that he and his parents made a compromise with the accused persons outside the court that is why he is concealing the material facts. He has further denied that he is concealing the material facts of his statement Mark A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(15) PW11 Suman Lata has stated that she does not know anything about the present case. She has however deposed that in the year 2012 her husband was contesting election of MCD Councilor and at about lunch time she was present at her house and persons in the procession who were participating in the election of her husband entered inside their house and started scuffling when in the meantime someone from the crowd fired a gunshot which hit her on her abdomen. The witness has stated that she cannot identify those persons who had fired at her house whether they State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 10 of 21 were present in the court or not. According to the witness, she was also not interrogated and her statement was not recorded. The witness has deposed that on receiving the bullet injury, she was shifted to hospital. She is unable to tell whether her son Gurvinder had also received injuries or not. (16) This witness has also been crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the statement Mark B was read over to the witness which she has denied having made so before the police from point A to A. She has denied that at the time of the rally of her husband, she was with her husband in the procession and was not at her house during the lunch time. The witness has denied that on 04.04.2012 the accused persons Sulender, Ravinder and Chanchal (who were present in the court), along with their 23 associates committed house trespass in her house having made preparation for causing hurt or for wrongfully restraining her son Avneet, Yogesh, herself and her husband and fired a gunshot on her which hit on her stomach and also on the hand of her son Gurvinder with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that they or by the act caused her death and death of her son Gurvinder and in also in furtherance of their common intention caused the simple hurt on her husband. The witness has further denied that she is intentionally is not identifying the accused persons as she has been won over by them. She has denied that the accused persons had assaulted them when they disallowed them to continue the electricity supply which they had restored after filing the suit in the Hon'ble High Court. The witness has also denied that she and her husband and sons made a compromise with the State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 11 of 21 accused persons outside the court that is why she is concealing the material facts. She has further denied that she is concealing the material facts of her statement Mark B. She has not been crossexamined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. (17) PW12 Yogesh has deposed that on 04.04.2012 he was in the Election Office of his father and at about lunch session he received a telephone call from his house on which he immediately rushed his house and found that his mother was having a gunshot injury on her stomach and his brother Gurvinder was also having injury on his right hand and his brother Avneet was also having a minor injury on his body. According to the witness, he immediately rushed his mother to SGM Hospital and got her admitted there however the witness is unable to tell as to by whom his mother and brother were given the bullet injury. The witness has stated that he cannot identify those person whether they were present in the court or not. According to the witness, he handed over the blood stained clothes of his mother to the police which were seized vide memo Ex.PW12/A which bears his signatures at point A but he is unable to identify those clothes due to passage of time.
(18) In his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the statement Mark C was read over to the witness which he denied having made before the police from point A to A. He has denied that when he reached at the house on receiving the information, he found that the accused State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 12 of 21 Sulender (who was present in the court) was present with other coaccused persons and associates and was quarreling with his parents. The witness has further denied that the accused Sulender was forcefully connecting the electricity connection with their connection which they had restored after filing a suit before the Hon'ble High Court. The witness has denied that he is intentionally not admitting the fact that he is able to identify the clothes of his mother. The witness has also denied that he intentionally is not identifying the accused persons as he has been won over by the accused persons. The witness has further denied that he and his family members have made a compromise with the accused persons outside the court that is why he is concealing the material facts. This witness has also not been crossexamined on behalf of the accused persons and his entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(19) PW13 Surender Kumar has deposed that he was contesting the election of Councilor in his area and on 04.04.2012, the public persons of the locality were making a procession of his election. According to the witness, during the lunch session he and his wife came to the house but they were followed by the procession to the house and some of the person from the procession fired which hit his wife and his son Gurvinder. The witness has deposed that his wife was shifted to the hospital by his son Yogesh and his sons Gurvinder and Avneet who had also received injury also to the hospital. According to him, he made a call at 100 number and the PCR came at the spot and after some time the local police also came and they State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 13 of 21 were interrogated and the present case was registered. The witness has stated that he is unable to identify those persons who had fired on his wife and son and also caused injury to him, whether they were present in the court or not. The accused persons who were present in the court were shown to the witness who showed his inability to identify them. (20) The witness has been crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP wherein the witness has denied the suggestion that the accused Sulender was forcefully connecting the electricity connection with their connection which they had restored after filing a suit before the Hon'ble High Court. The witness has further denied that on 04.04.2012, the accused persons Sulender, Ravinder and Chanchal (who were present in the court), along with their 23 associates committed house trespass in their (witness') house after having made preparation for causing hurt or for wrongfully restraining him, his sons Avneet, Yogesh and his wife Suman Lata and fired a gunshot on her which hit on the stomach of her son Gurvinder with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that they or by the act caused death of his wife and his son Gurvinder and in also in furtherance of their common intention caused the simple hurt on his son and his wife. The witness has denied that he is intentionally not identifying the accused persons as he has been won over by the accused persons. The witness has further denied that he and his family members have made a compromise with the accused persons outside the court that is why he is concealing the State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 14 of 21 material facts. He has not been crossexamined on behalf of the accused and his entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Medical Evidence:
(21) PW8 Dr. Bina has deposed that on 04.04.2012 she was working at SGM Hospital as CMO from 2.00 PM to 8:00 PM and at about 3.45 PM the injured Suman Lata was brought in the hospital by Yogesh son of injured and she examined the patient vide MLC No. 5588 which is Ex.PW8/A and as per the history of injury, the nature of injury was found as dangerous.
The witness has further deposed that on the very same day the injured Gurvinder was also brought in the hospital by ASI Satpal Singh of PCR in the casualty and she examined him vide MLC No. 5589 which is Ex.PW8/B and after examination of patient she referred him for Ortho. Department where he was examined by Dr. Pravas and as per the history of injury, the nature of injury was found as grievous. The witness has further deposed that the endorsement of Dr. Pravas is Ex.PW8/B which bears her signatures at point A, signatures of Dr. Pravas at point B as well as her signatures at point C. According to the witness, on 04.04.2012 at about 9.20 PM the injured Avneet was brought to the hospital by Ct. Ranjeet and he was examined by Dr. Binay vide MLC No. 5438, the same is Ex.PW8/C which bears the signatures of Dr. Binay at point A and as per the history of injury and as per MLC the nature of injury was found as simple. He has not State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 15 of 21 been crossexamined on behalf of the accused and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(22) PW14 Dr. Manoj Dhingra has deposed that on 03.11.2012 he received application from the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW14/A along with MLC bearing No. 5588 of injured Suman Lata and after perusing the MLC he gave his opinion point X to X1 bearing his signatures at point A according to which the gunshot injury mentioned in the MLC over abdomen is possible to cause death. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. (23) PW15 Dr. Binay Kumar has deposed that on 04.04.2012 he was working at SGM Hospital as CMO from 9.20 PM the injured Avneet was brought to the hospital by Ct. Ranjeet and he was examined by Dr. Abhinav under his supervision vide MLC Ex.PW8/C showing the nature of injury as 'simple'. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Police / Official Witnesses:
(24) PW1 SI Anil Kumar has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 wherein he has relied upon Crime Team Report Ex.PW1/A. He has in his cross examination denied that the Crime Team Report was prepared at the instance of Investigating Officer without actual visiting the place of occurrence.
State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 16 of 21 (25) PW2 ASI Satyavir Singh has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 wherein he has relied upon the DD No. 28 A, copy of which is Ex.PW2/A, copy of FIR No. 116/12 copy of which is Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point A and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/C bearing his signatures at point A. In his cross examination the witness has denied the suggestion that no rukka was received at the police station or that the FIR was lodged by manipulating and fabricating the facts of this case.
(26) PW3 HC Rakesh Kumar has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 wherein he has relied upon the entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 82/21/13 copy of which is Ex.PW3/A and receipt/ acknowledgment issued by the FSL copy of which is Ex.PW3/B. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(27) PW4 HC Sunil Dutt has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 wherein he has relied upon entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 82/21/13 copy of which is Ex.PW3/A and receipt/ acknowledgment issued by the FSL copy of which is Ex.PW3/B. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(28) PW5 Ct. Shanker has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/1 wherein he has relied upon the arrest memo State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 17 of 21 and personal search memo of accused Chanchal which are Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B bearing his signatures at point A. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has denied that suggestion that no inquiry / interrogation was made to accused Chanchal by the Investigating Officer in his presence or that he never remained associated with the investigations of this case.
(29) PW6 HC Hukminder has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 wherein he has relied upon entry in Register No. 19 vide S. No.216/12. copy of which is Ex.PW6/A, running into six pages. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(30) PW7 Ct. Munish has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 wherein he has relied upon the photographs Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A16 and the negatives of the photographs are collectively Ex.PW7/B. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has denied the suggestion that neither he visited the spot, nor taken any photographs or that he has simply produced the photographs provided by the Investigating Officer to him.
(31) Since material eye witnesses of the prosecution including the complainant and injured had turned hostile, the further examination of police witnesses was dispensed with as it would not have served any useful purpose and the evidence of the prosecution was closed. State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 18 of 21
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED (32) The star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. the complainant / injured Gurvender Kumar (PW9) and the victims namely Avneet (PW10), Suman Lata (PW11), Yogesh (PW12) and public witness Surender Kumar (PW13) not having supported the case of the prosecution and having turned hostile on the identity of the accused persons and there being no incriminating evidence against the accused persons either in the form of ocular or circumstantial or medical or forensic evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC has been dispensed with.
FINDINGS (33) At the very outset I may observe that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of the injured / complainant Gurvender Kumar (PW9) and the victims namely Avneet (PW10), Suman Lata (PW11), Yogesh (PW12) and public witness Surender Kumar (PW13) who all have not supported the case of the prosecution. Though, all these witnesses have admitted the incident but they have all turned hostile on the identity of the accused persons and have denied having made any statement before the police that the accused persons have beaten up them and inflicted injuries upon them by firing gunshots.
(34) The only incriminating evidence against the accused persons is their own disclosure statements to the police which is inadmissible in evidence particularly there being no disclosure of facts. State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 19 of 21 (35) Since all the public witnesses namely Gurvinder Kumar (PW9), Avneet Kumar (PW10) and Suman Lata (PW11) and the eye witnesses namely Yogesh (PW12), Surender Kumar (PW13), have all turned hostile on the identity of the accused person on the aspect of the presence of the accused persons at the spot of incident, the police / official witnesses namely ASI Satbir Singh, SI Anil Bulang, Ct. Tara Chand, Ct. Birender, Ct. Prithvi, Ct. Ranjeet, Ct. Pawan and Ct. Sherpal who are only connected with the investigations of the case have been discharged unexamined as in the absence of any direct or circumstantial or credible evidence, the examination of these witnesses would not help the prosecution case in any manner and the prosecution evidence was closed.
(36) Also, there being no incriminating material against the accused either direct or circumstantial, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC has been dispensed with.
(37) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons. The materials brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient to hold that the accused persons guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 20 of 21 each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused persons. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to see, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstances evidence.
(38) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused persons there being no incriminating evidence against the accused persons either in the form of ocular or circumstantial or medical or forensic evidence, hence benefit of doubt is being given to all three accused persons namely Sulender, Ravinder and Chanchal Chaudhary who are hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Ravinder is also acquitted of the charge under Section 27 Arms Act. Their sureties be discharged as per rules.
(39) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 11.9.2013 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Sulender etc., FIR 116/12, PS Vijay Vihar Page 21 of 21