Delhi District Court
State vs . Gaurav @ Gollu on 19 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 66/12)
Unique ID Case No. 02404R0250712012
State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu
FIR No. : 507/06
U/s : 399/402 IPC & 25/54/59 of Arms Act
P.S. : Paschim Vihar
State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu
S/o Sh. Yashpal Singh @ Guddu,
R/o House No.28/127,
Kashturwa Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi.
Date of institution of case 31.07.2012
Date on which, judgment have been reserved 19.09.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment 19.09.2012
JUDGMENT:
1 Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 03.06.2006, a secret information was received by SI Ashok Kumar, Incharge: PP Miyanwali that five persons with illegal weapons would assemble at Park in front of dispensary R S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 1/ 18 2 Block, Jwalapuri, Delhi and on the said information, SI Ashok Kumar alongwith ASI Rajinder Singh, HC Hansraj, HC Jai Singh, HC Omkar Sharma, Ct. Suresh Kumar, Ct. Surinder, Ct. Mahavir, Ct. Kuldeep and Ct. Maha Singh went at the spot where accused Gaurav @ Gollu along with his coaccused Ramesh @ Paggal, Ramesh @ Manna, Chhannu and Mahender (since convicted) were apprehended and recovery of illegal weapons was made from them. It is alleged that at that time the accused persons were making preparation for the purpose of committing dacoity in the area of Sunder Enclave falling within the jurisdiction of P.S. Paschim Vihar and all of them were armed with deadly weapons. A buttondar knife each is stated to have been recovered from possession of Ramesh @ Paggal, Ramesh @ Manna, while accused Gaurav @ Gollu was found in possession of one country made pistol and live cartridge. An iron rod and an iron cutter are also stated to have been recovered from accused Chhannu and Mahender respectively. 2 On the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. After committal, the arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, charge for committing the offence punishable u/s399/402 IPC was framed against all the above named accused persons. In addition to this, charges for committing the offence punishable u/s25/54/59 of Arms Act were also framed against the accused Gaurav, Ramesh @ Pagal & Ramesh @ Manna by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the respective charges framed against them and claimed trial. Accused Gaurav @ S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 2/ 18 3 Gollu, absented himself after framing of charge and was declared Proclaimed Offender by learned Predecessor vide order dated 26.10.2009. He was arrested on 27.07.2012 and was produced before the Court. Accordingly, the prosecution witnesses examined in his absence were recalled for reexamination vide order dated 06.08.2012.
3 It is noteworthy that accused Ramesh @ Manna, Chhannu and Mahender have already been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 08.02.2010 and order on the point of sentence dated 09.02.2010. Accused Ramesh @ Paggal was also convicted vide judgment dated 15.04.2010 and order on the point of sentence dated 16.04.2010.
4 In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 5 witnesses namely PW1 HC Shankar Singh, PW2 Ct. Sanjay Kumar Dahiya, PW3 Inspr. Ashok Kumar, PW4 HC Mahavir Prasad and PW5 Sh. H.G.S. Dhaliwal. 5 PW1 HC Shankar Singh deposed that on 03.06.2006, he was working as duty officer at PS Paschim Vihar and on that day at about 11:40 PM, he received a rukka through Ct. Mahavir, sent by SI Ashok Kumar for registration of the case and he recorded the case FIR No.507/06 of this case u/s 399/402 IPC and u/s.25/54/59 of Arms Act which is in his handwriting and he has proved the carbon copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that after recording the FIR, he handed over S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 3/ 18 4 the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Mahavir to further hand over ASI Ram Gopal for further investigation.
6 PW2 Ct. Sanjay Kumar Dahiya, who was working as DD writer at PP Miyanwali Nagar of PS Paschim Vihar, deposed that on that day at about 7.05 PM, SI Ashok Kumar made a DD entry vide DD No.31 dated 03.06.2006 and SI Ashok Kumar along with ASI Rajinder Singh, HC Hansraj, HC Jai Singh, HC Omkar Sharma, Ct. Suresh Kumar, Ct. Surinder, Ct. Mahavir, Ct. Kuldeep and Ct. Maha Singh had left the PP Miyanwali Nagar after they were briefed by SI Ashok Kumar vide DD No.32 dated 03.06.2006 and proved the true copy of DD No.31 as Ex.PW2/A and true copy of DD No.32 as Ex.PW2/B. 7 PW5 Sh. H.G.S. Dhaliwal, DIG, Arunachal Pradesh, deposed that on 09.10.2006 the papers and the draft charge sheet of case FIR No.507/06 u/s.399/402 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act were placed before him and after going through the documents, he was satisfied that accused Gaurav @ Golu s/o Yashpal had committed offence punishable u/s.25/54/59 Arms Act and accordingly, he granted the sanction u/s.39 Arms Act against the accused Gaurav @ Golu as Ex.PW5/A. 8 PW3 Inspr. Ashok Kumar is the IO of the case and he deposed about the investigations carried out by him and documents prepared by him during the course of investigations. He proved the sketch of country made pistol and live cartridge S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 4/ 18 5 recovered from accused Gaurav as Ex. PW3/J. He also deposed that the said country made pistol was measured and kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK and the pullanda was given Sr. No.1 and that the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/K. He also deposed that at his instance IO ASI Ram Gopal prepared site plan as Ex.PW3/M. He also proved arrest memo of accused Gaurav as Ex.PW3/W and personal search memo as Ex.PW3/X. 9 PW4 HC Mahavir Prasad was a member of the raiding party. He had also gone to overhear conversation of accused Gaurav and his associates at the instance of IO and later apprehended accused Gaurav and recovered one country made pistol from his possession. He deposed about joining the investigations with IO Inspr. Ashok Kumar and IO ASI Ram Gopal in this regard and deposed on the same lines as of PW3.
10 It is noteworthy that ASI Ram Gopal, second IO and ASI Rajender, one of the members of the raiding party, could not be examined as they had already expired by the time accused Gaurav was arrested as proclaimed offender. 11 After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Gaurav @ Gallu was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the entire prosecution case and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case after being lifted from his house. He further stated that his signatures were S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 5/ 18 6 obtained forcibly by the Police on some blank papers and printed proformas and later on, those papers were converted into various memos against him. As accused did not wish to lead evidence in his defence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
12 Arguments have been addressed by learned defence counsel for the accused as well as learned Additional PP for the State. Learned Additional PP has contended that from the testimony of its witnesses and documents placed on record by it, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, learned amicus curie for accused has contended that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which go to the root of the prosecution case and that the fact that second IO has not been produced in the witness box to substantiate his allegations and there is no other witness, who can link the accused with the commission of offence are all circumstances which are in favour of the accused. It is further submitted that in these facts and circumstances prosecution has completely failed to prove its case against the accused and it is prayed that accused be acquitted of charge u/s. 399/402 IPC and u/s.25 of Arms Act.
13 I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Addl. PP and Sh. Rajnish Kumar Antil, learned amicus curie and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 6/ 18 7 in support of its case.
14 In the present case, prosecution is mainly relying upon testimonies of PW3 Inspr. Ashok Kumar and PW4 HC Mahavir Prasad in order to prove the charges against the accused Gaurav. PW3 Insp. Ashok Kumar deposed that on 3.6.2006, he was posted as I/c PP Miyanwali Nagar of PS Paschim Vihar and on that day, he was present in his office at about 7:00 P.M., when one secret informer came to PP and informed him that 5 young persons, who were having illegal arms, would come to DDA Park RBlock at about 8:00 P.M and that they would plan for dacoity in the area and that he reduced that information in writing vide DD No. 31 dated 3.6.2006 (Ex.PW2/A) and same was informed to the SHO and senior officers. He further deposed that as per the directions of senior officers and SHO, P.S Paschim Vihar, he organized a raiding party consisting of himself, ASI Rajinder Singh, HC Hansraj, HC Jai Singh, HC Omkar Sharma, Ct. Suresh Kumar, Ct. Surinder, Ct. Mahavir, Ct. Kuldeep and Ct. Maha Singh and left the PP Miyanwali Nagar vide DD No. 32 dated 3.6.2006 (Ex. PW2/B) and reached Rblock in a private vehicle alongwith secret informer, where he requested 45 passersby to join the raiding party, but none agreed and thereafter, Ct. Mahavir Prasad and secret informer were also briefed and sent inside the park and to give signal as and when the above said 5 persons gathered in the park, by flashing the torch towards the members of raiding party after hearing their conversation. The PW3 further deposed that members of raiding party were divided into four separate parties and S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 7/ 18 8 ASI Rajinder was leading one of the parties, consisting of himself and Ct. Suresh and they were deputed towards the North side of the park; HC Jai Singh was leading another party, consisting of himself and Ct. Kuldeep and they were deputed towards the South side of the park; HC Hansraj was leading one party, consisting of himself and Ct. Surinder and they were deputed towards the West side of the park and HC Omkar Sharma was leading another party, consisting of himself and Ct. Maha Singh and they were deputed towards the Eastern side of the park. He then deposed that at about 8:00 P.M. two persons came there and sat near the Kacha Rasta in the said park and after 10 minutes, three other persons also came in the park and they also sat beside the above said two persons and at about 8:30 P.M., Ct. Mahavir signaled them by flashing the torch and they surrounded the accused persons from all the sides and he challenged them not to run away as they had been surrounded by the police party, but all of them tried to escape from the spot and thereafter, he with the help of Ct. Mahavir apprehended their gang leader namely Gaurav and Ct. Mahavir informed him that accused persons were planning to commit dacoity at Sunder Enclave and Gaurav was telling the remaining accused that he had seen the house of a person who had huge money. PW3 deposed that on formal search of accused Gaurav (since PO), one country made pistol was recovered from his possession. He further deposed that ASI Rajinder and Ct. Surinder had apprehended one another person who disclosed his name to be Ramesh Kumar @ Pagal (since PO) and on his formal search, one buttondar knife was recovered and HC Hansraj with the help of Ct. Suresh apprehended one person who disclosed his S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 8/ 18 9 name Ramesh Kumar @ Mana and on his formal search one buttondar knife was recovered and he prepared the sketch of knife Ex. PW3/A and thereafter, the said knife was measured and its total length was 23.8 cm, length of blade was 11 cm, handle was of 12.8 cm and width of blade was 2.8 cm. and the said buttondar knife was kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK and the pullanda was given Sr. No.3 and the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. PW3 deposed that HC Omkar Sharma with the help of Ct. Maha Singh apprehended one person who disclosed his name as Chhannu and on his formal search one iron cutter was recovered and its sketch Ex. PW3/C was prepared and on measurement, the total length of iron cutter was 25 cm, length of blade was 15.5 cm. and thereafter the said iron cutter was kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK and the pullanda was given Sr. No.5 and the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D. He further deposed that HC Jai Singh with the help of Ct. Kuldeep apprehended one person who disclosed his name Mahinder and on his formal search one iron rod was recovered and its sketch Ex. PW3/E was prepared and on measurement, its total length was 41 cm. and the same was kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK and the pullanda was given Sr. No.4 and the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/F. PW3 deposed that he also prepared the sketch of knife which was recovered from accused Ramesh @ Pagal and same was Ex. PW3/G and on measurement, the total length of knife was 23.1 cm, length of blade was 10.5 cm, handle was of 12.6 cm and width of blade was 2.9 cm. and the said the buttondar S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 9/ 18 10 knife was kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK and the pullanda was given Sr. No.2 and the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/H. He further deposed that he also prepared the sketch of country made pistol and live cartridge which were recovered from accused Gaurav and same was Ex. PW3/J and the said country made pistol was measured and the total length of barrel was 16 cm, length of body was 11 cm and butt was of 8.6 cm and the length of live cartridge was 7.6 cm. and the said country made pistol and live cartridge were kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK and the pullanda was given Sr. No.1 and the said pullanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/K . PW3 deposed that FSL form was also filled and Seal after use handed over to Ct. Mahavir. He further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW3/L and handed over the same to Ct. Mahavir with the request that after registration of the FIR, further investigation be handed over to some other IO and accordingly, said constable went to PS and got registered the case vide FIR No. 507/06 (Ex. PW1/A) and came back at the spot alongwith IO ASI Ram Gopal and he handed over all the recovered weapons alongwith their sketches and recovery memos to IOASI Ram Gopal, who prepared the site plan on his pointing out and said site plan was Ex. PW3/M and thereafter, all the accused were arrested. PW3 deposed that accused Ramesh @ Manna was arrested vide memo Ex. PW3/N and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/P, accused Mahinder was arrested vide memo Ex. PW3/Q and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/R, accused Chanu was arrested vide memo Ex. PW3/S and his personal S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 10/ 18 11 search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/T, accused Ramesh @ Pagal was arrested vide memo Ex. PW3/U and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/V and accused Gaurav was arrested vide memo Ex. PW3/W and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/X. PW3 identified the aforesaid country made pistol and live cartridge recovered from accused Gaurav as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. He further identified the buttondar knives recovered from accused Ramesh @ Pagal and accused Ramesh @ Manna (since convicted) as Ex. P3 and Ex. P4. PW3 also identified the iron rod recovered from accused Mahender (since convicted) and iron cutter recovered from accused Chhanu (since convicted) as Ex.P5 and Ex. P6 respectively. 15 PW3 Inspr. Ashok Kumar also identified country made pistol and live cartridge recovered from possession of accused Gaurav as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively. During his crossexamination, PW3 stated that they had left Police Post at about 7:20 PM and that all the members of the raiding party were in uniform and that PW1 was carrying his service pistol while ASI Rajinder was carrying his service revolver and Ct. Mahavir Singh was carrying SAF with 10 rounds and remaining members of raiding party were not carrying any arms and ammunitions. 16 PW3 could not tell the number of vehicle in which the members of raiding party had proceeded to the spot. He could also not tell the name of its owner or the Police official, who had arranged for the same. Suggestions were S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 11/ 18 12 put to PW3 that there were residential houses situated near the DDA park where accused Gaurav was to assemble along with his coaccused persons and that due to summer season, there were several public persons present in the park at the time of apprehension and arrest of the accused persons, however, these suggestions were denied by the PW3.
17 From the further crossexamination of PW3, it is brought out that the secret informer was standing with him behind the MCD Dispensary. Though PW3 denied suggestions that MCD school is situated near the MCD Dispensary and near the park, when confronted with site plan Ex.PW3/F, PW3 admitted that in the said site plan MCD school was shown near the MCD Dispensary and inside the park. PW3 also deposed that accused did not try to use or show the weapon carried by him to the Police officials and that the said weapon was seen by the Police officials only after search of the accused. PW3 admitted that he had not mentioned the bore of the country made pistol alleged to have been recovered from accused Gaurav, in its sketch Ex.PW3/J. When asked about the time when he had sent rukka, PW3 stated that the same had been sent by him at about 11:30 PM. 18 Since the case of the prosecution was that two accused had reached the spot at about 8:00 PM and were followed by three other accused persons after 10 minutes, PW3 was asked to name the first two accused, who had reached the spot. PW3 deposed that he could not tell the names of the said two accused as he S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 12/ 18 13 could not see their faces due to late hours and poor visibility. He further deposed that Ct. Mahavir had overheard the conversation of accused persons from a distance of 25 - 30 ft. and that for said purpose, he had taken cover behind bushes which were of the height of 3 - 3 ½ ft. He also stated that Ct. Mahavir had heard the conversation of accused persons for about two minutes and that the secret informer left the spot at about 8:30 PM after pointing out accused persons from a distance of 100125 ft. A specific Court question was put to the witness as to when the secret informer had pointed out accused persons to him since PW3 had stated that when the first two accused persons came to the spot PW3 was unable to see their faces due to late hours and poor visibility. PW3 replied by stating that secret informer had pointed out accused persons after they had sat down at the spot. PW3 was asked to clarify further if the visibility had improved between the period when first two accused persons came to the spot when all the accused were pointed out by the secret informer. The PW3 replied in negative stating that visibility had not improved. During his further crossexamination, PW3 stated that when the first two accused persons had reached the spot, the secret informer had pointed towards them saying that perhaps they were also involved in the conspiracy. He admitted that uniform of none of the Police officials were torn at the time of apprehension of accused persons as accused had not offered any resistance. As regards the place where the writing work was done, PW3 stated that same was done while sitting on a bench outside the MCD Dispensary in the light of tube lights affixed outside the Dispensary. PW3 admitted that none of the gates of S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 13/ 18 14 MCD Dispensary opened inside the park and that the boundary wall of the MCD Dispensary separated it from the park and that the gate of MCD Dispensary opened towards the main road. When questioned about the time when PW3 had finally left the spot, he stated that it was about 2:00 / 3:00 AM. He also deposed that after using the seal, he had handed it over to Ct. Mahavir, who returned back the same to him about 3 / 4 days.
19 From the further crossexamination of PW3, it is brought out that the second IO ASI Ram Gopal had reached the spot within 10 minutes of sending rukka by PW3 and that copy of FIR and original rukka was received by him after 45 minutes / one hour of sending rukka. PW3 could not tell the time when ASI Ram Gopal had left the spot with the pullandas, documents, other members of the raiding party and accused persons. PW3 denied that nothing had been recovered from the possession of accused Gaurav.
20 HC Mahavir Prasad, who was one of the members of the raiding party and had helped in apprehending of accused Gaurav was examined as PW4. In his examinationinchief, PW4 deposed on the lines of PW3 Inspr. Ashok Kumar. He also identified the accused Gaurav and country made pistol and live cartridge recovered from his possession. The crossexamination of PW4, however, clearly brings out the discrepancies in the case put forth by the prosecution. Contrary to PW3, the PW4 stated that there were residential houses situated at a distance of 70 S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 14/ 18 15
- 80 mtrs. from DDA park. He also termed it correct that MCD school and MCD Dispensary are situated inside the park. He further deposed that IO did not call any person i.e. watchman or security guard from the school as well as from the Dispensary at the time of apprehension of accused Gaurav. PW4 could not state if IO had mentioned the bore of country made pistol on its sketch Ex.PW3/J. As regards the distance from which he had overheard the conversation of the accused persons, PW4 stated that it was about 15 - 20 steps. He also deposed that secret informer had left at 8:30 PM after pointing out accused persons from a distance of 15 - 20 ft. While PW3 had stated that the writing work was done on a bench outside MCD Dispensary, PW4 stated that the writing work was done while sitting on a Patri outside MCD Dispensary. Further while PW3 had stated that he alone had left the spot at about 2:00 / 3:00 AM, PW4 stated that he along with other members of the raiding party left the spot finally at about 2:00 / 3:00 AM and that SI Ashok Kumar i.e. PW3 had also left the spot with them. As regards the time of arrival of second IO ASI Ram Gopal at the spot, while PW3 had stated that it was within 10 minutes of his sending rukka and that Ct. Mahavir had returned to spot with copy of FIR and original rukka 45 minutes thereafter, PW4 stated that ASI Ram Gopal reached the spot at about 8:45 PM and again improved upon his statement to state that it was 12:30 midnight and that he too had returned to spot at about 12:30 midnight with a copy of FIR and original rukka. Further, on one hand PW4 deposed that he as well as other S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 15/ 18 16 members of raiding party had finally left the spot at about 2:00 / 3:00 AM, on the other he gave the time when he and other members of raiding party returned to PS, after medical examination of accused persons at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, also at 2:30 / 3:00 AM. The fact that the time when the raiding party left the spot has been given to be the same as the time when the accused persons were brought back to PS after their medical examination also creates a doubt about the prosecution case.
21 The discrepancies in the testimonies of PW3 Inspr. Ashok Kumar and PW4 HC Mahavir Prasad are not the only thing that create a doubt regarding the prosecution case but there are other lacunae as well in the prosecution case. Firstly, the site plan Ex.PW3/M does not reflect whether or not there was any source of light in the park where the accused are alleged to have assembled. As per the prosecution case the accused persons had collected at the spot at about 8:00 PM. From the Court questions put to PW3 Inspr. Ashok Kumar, who was incharge of the raiding party, it is clearly brought out that there was poor visibility due to late hours and he could not see faces of the two accused persons who had reached the spot first of all and that when the secret informer pointed out accused persons to PW3 from a distance of 100 - 125 ft. the visibility had not improved. Further, from site plan Ex.PW3/M, it appears that there were trees and bushes in the park. Thus it is difficult to comprehend how Police officials present at the spot were able to apprehend the accused persons at the spot without any of them making attempt to S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 16/ 18 17 escape from the spot under the cover of darkness. It is also surprising that the accused, who are alleged to have been hardened criminals armed with deadly weapon, surrendered meekly to the Police officials without making any attempt to bid their escape from the spot by using their weapons. The conduct of accused persons as put forth by the prosecution is contrary to the normal conduct of a hardened criminal armed with deadly weapons. Further even though it has been put forth that no public person was available in the park when the accused persons were apprehended a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that during the month of June there are summer vacations are going on in the schools in Delhi and a large number of children, their friends, parents and relatives are seen accessing nearby parks to play or to enjoy themselves or to spend their time in open. Several ice cream vendors and other vendors selling eatables and drinks also are readily available near public place like park at that time. This is all the more so in the present case since there is a MCD school inside the park itself, though with a separate entrance. Thus for children enrolled in the school, who presumably would be from nearby colonies, the park would be a familiar place where they would prefer to spend their time. Thus the version of prosecution that no public person was found available inside the park or outside it cannot be believed at all.
22 Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s.399/402 IPC against S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 17/ 18 18 the accused on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Similarly, prosecution has also failed to prove separate charges u/s.25/54/59 of Arms Act against the accused Gaurav @ Gollu. Accordingly, I acquit accused Gaurav @ Gollu of the charged offences, giving him the benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 19.09.2012) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi.
S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 18/ 18
19
FIR No.507/06
P S Paschim Vihar
State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu
19.09.2012
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Gaurav @ Gollu produced from JC with counsel Sh. Rajnish Kumar Antil, learned Amicus Curie.
Statement of accused u/s.313 CrPC recorded.
Written arguments on behalf of accused filed. Copy given. Arguments heard on behalf of State.
Put up at 4:00 PM for judgment.
ASJ ( NW)01
Rohini/Delhi
19.09.2012
At 4:00 PM
Present : As Before.
Vide separate judgment, announced today in the open Court, accused Gaurav @ Gollu has been acquitted of the charged offences.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 19.09.2012 S.C No. 66/12 State Vs. Gaurav @ Gollu. Page Nos. 19/ 18