Delhi District Court
State vs . : 1. Nakul S/O Sh. Ajeet Singh on 22 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE05, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Session Case No. : 441225/2016.
State Vs. : 1. Nakul S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh
R/o VPO Guman Heda, Najafgarh,
Delhi.
2. Rajesh Gahlot @ Khote
S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar,
R/o Shiv Mandir Wali Gali,
VPO Mitraon, Delhi.
3. Praveen Gujjar @ Babbu
S/o Sh. Jagdip Singh,
R/o RZP25, Gali no. 34,
Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi.
FIR No. : 690/2015
P.S. : Baba Haridas Nagar
U/s : 302/34/174A & 27 Arms Act
Date of Institution : 31.05.2016
Date when arguments
were heard : 22.12.2017
Date of Judgment : 22.12.2017
JUDGMENT
Adumbrated in brief the case of prosecution is that on 23.12.2015 at about 6.15 PM at Anoop Chowk, Mitraon Village, New SC No 441225/2016 State Vs Nakul Etc 1 of 7 Delhi, the all accused persons namely Nakul, Praveen Gujjar @ Babbu and Rajesh Gahlot @ Khote sharing common intention committed the murder of Mehtab Singh by firing on him with country made pistols. Besides that allegedly accused Nakul, Praveen Gujjar @ Babbu and Rajesh Gahlot @ Khote used country made pistols without any licence while committing murder of Mehtab Singh. Accused Rajesh Gahlot @ Khote avoided arrest, absconded, did not appear before court despite published proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. and was declared proclaimed offender. Accused Praveen Gujjar @ Babbu was arrested on 09.06.2016. Accused Nakul was arrested on 02.03.2016 and enlarged on bail on 21.07.2017. Accused Rajesh Gahlot @ Khote was arrested on 08.08.2016 On completion of investigation, charge sheets for offences under Sections 302/34/174A IPC and under section 27 Arms Act were filed.
2. After completion of requirements of Section 207 Cr.P.C., matter was committed to the court of Sessions.
CHARGE
3. All accused persons have been charged for the offences under section 302/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act. Also accused Rajesh Gahlot @ Khote is charged for offence under section 174A IPC. All accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Presently accused Rajesh Gahlot @ SC No 441225/2016 State Vs Nakul Etc 2 of 7 Khote and Praveen Gujjar @ Babbu are in JC where as accused Nakul is on bail.
WITNESSES
4. To connect the accused persons with the offence charged, prosecution has examined two witnesses.
5. PW 1 Sh. Sampuran Singh, agriculturist, nephew of deceased had come at the scene of crime on the evening of occurrence after hearing noise of crackers and found deceased lying on ground and blood coming out of his head and empty cartridges were seen near deceased. PW1 observed deceased to have expired, informed police from his mobile phone and later on 24.12.2015, had identified body of deceased at mortuary of RTRM Hospital and had received the body of deceased after postmortem.
6. Sole cited and examined material/eye witness of occurrence namely PW 2 Sh. Surender, resiled from his previous statement Ex. PW2/PX1 on entering the witness box and did not support the case of prosecution at all despite cross examination at length done by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State. PW2 testified that on the fateful evening when he was present at his shop of General Store at Anoop Chowk, Mitraon village, he noticed deceased crossing his shop while walking in the adjoining street, when a white colour Swift Car came on the crossing near his shop, out of which a fat person came out and fired a bullet on Mehtab Singh (now deceased) and thereafter, left the spot in same car. PW2 testified that none of the accused SC No 441225/2016 State Vs Nakul Etc 3 of 7 persons was such offender who had fired the bullet on deceased. PW2 categorically denied suggestions of Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State of (i) assailants being three in number; (ii) accused being assailants; (iii) accused/assailants having come on motorcycle; (iv) accused Nakul being driver of motorcycle; (v) accused Babbu @ Gujjar and Rajesh @ Khote being pillion riders of motorcycle; (vi) accused having wrongfully restrained Mehtab Singh; (vii) accused Rajesh @ Khote and Babbu @ Gujjar having fired gunshots constantly on Mehtab Singh by using pistols.
7. Postmortem report of deceased Mehtab Singh, 74 years male embodies opinion that death of deceased was due to Hemorrhagic shock consequent upon fire arm injury to neck, chest and abdomen, detailed in injuries 1, 5 and 6 produced by projectile of rifled fire arm from distant range; all these injuries were antemortem in nature; afore elicited injuries with their corresponding internal injuries were individually and combinally fatal in ordinary course of nature.
8. Along with the supplementary charge sheet, FSL results of experts have been placed on record; in terms of which the ballistic experts of forensic laboratory opined that examination pointed that evidence empty cartridges cases marked exhibits EC1 to EC5 and evidence bullets exhibits marked EB2 to EB4 and EB6 have not been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm, allegedly recovered from accused Nakul, seized in case FIR no. 100/2016, under section 25 Arms Act, PS Chhawla, SC No 441225/2016 State Vs Nakul Etc 4 of 7 Delhi. Regarding the gunshot residue, no opinion could be given on the swabs marked exhibits SW1 to SW4 due to insufficient data.
9. There is no forensic expert opinion containing any scientific evidence, including from clothes of arraigned accused to connect any or all of them for the crime charged. Nor there is any iota of fact towards any circumstantial evidence to connect any or all of arraigned accused with the crime charged.
10. Record reveals in Ex. CW1/A dated 09.06.2016, process server HC Randhir Singh, CW1, had reported of having reached the given address of accused Rajesh @ Khote at village Mitraon, Delhi on 20.04.2016, found the house locked after which said process server had pasted copy of proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. at a public place and collected village people and done munadi (including beating of drums). In deposition as CW1 on 09.06.2016, before Magisterial court, said process server HC Randhir Singh testified that when on 20.04.2016, the accused Rajesh @ Khote was not found/traced out as he had left the said address; the proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. was publicly read in said area and a copy of process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was posted outside house of said accused Rajesh @ Khote. Said CW1 did not testify of pasting of copy of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. of accused Rajesh @ Khote at any public place, as stated in report Ex. CW1/A, nor testified of having got done any munadi including beating of drums at the time of execution of SC No 441225/2016 State Vs Nakul Etc 5 of 7 process under section 82 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, version of CW1 HC Randhir Singh is self contradictory with the version contained in his report dated 20.04.2016 Ex. CW1/A. Ex. CW1/A is not supported by any photographs for execution of such process under section 82 Cr.P.C. of accused Rajesh @ Khote. Accused Rajesh @ Khote was not declared proclaimed offender appropriately.
11. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh Gajender Singh, Ld. Proxy counsel for Sh. Anirudh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused Rajesh Gahlot @ Khote and Praveen Gujjar @ Babbu and accused Nakul and have perused the record including the evidence led.
12. In this fact of the matter, adjourning matter further for prosecution evidence, remanding accused Parveen Gujjar @ Babu and Rajesh Gahlot @ Khote in judicial custody shall be an exercise in futility as on record, there is no other cited witness to prove by direct or circumstantial evidence or by scientific evidence any fact incriminating any of the arraigned accused for offences charged. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed.
13. For want of incriminating material pointing towards guilt of the accused for offences charges, examination of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. was accordingly dispensed with.
SC No 441225/2016 State Vs Nakul Etc 6 of 7
14. After hearing the Ld. Prosecutor, accused persons, Proxy counsel for Ld. Defence counsel in attendance, from the material on record, I have reached the conclusion that the edifice raised by prosecution has crumbled to ground on resiling of sole cited material witness PW2 Sh. Surender, who did not support the prosecution case in any manner, whereas there was nothing else on record by which prosecution could prove by direct, circumstantial or scientific evidence the offences for which accused were charged. For want of evidence, arraigned accused are held not guilty as prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. All arraigned accused are acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Accused Parveen Gujjar @ Babu and Rajesh Gahlot @ Khote be released from Judicial Custody, if not required elsewhere in any other case. Each accused is directed to furnish a personal bond each in sum of Rs 10,000/ whereas accused Nakul, earlier on bail to also furnish surety in like amount, under section 437 A Cr.P.C for period of 6 months with undertaking to appear before appellate Court or this Court, if so called for. One day time is granted to the accused Nakul on his request for furnishing of the bonds. File be consigned to record room after digitization of records.
Announced in the open court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH)
nd
on 22 December, 2017 ASJ 05/SW/DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
SC No 441225/2016 State Vs Nakul Etc 7 of 7