Delhi District Court
Sc No.:-28020/2016 State vs . Pradeep & Ors Page No.1/43 on 29 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR, ASJ (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No.:-28020/2016
Unique ID no.:-02401R0310042012
CNR-DLCT01-000759-2012
State
Vs.
1. Pradeep (expired)
S/o Late Sh. Chandu Lal
R/o H.No.8257, Arakashan Road,
Nabi Karim, Delhi
Also at: MCD-9 Quarters,
Nabi Karim, Delhi.
2. Shiva
S/o Pradeep
R/o H. No.8257, Arakashan Road,
Nabi Karim, Delhi
Also at: MCD-9 Quarters,
Nabi Karim, Delhi.
3. Praveen
S/o Hari Chand
R/o H.No.8268, Arakashan Road,
Nabi Karim, Delhi.
4. Sunny
S/o Nand Kishore
R/o H.No.8333, Arya Nagar,
Nabi Karim, Delhi.
Also at: B-22, Pushta no.1,
MCD Quarters, Usman Pur,
Delhi.
Case arising out of:-
FIR no. : 83/2012
Police Station : Nabi Karim
Under Section : 323,342,367,384/387/506/364A/34 IPC
& 27 Arms Act.
SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.1/43
Date of Institution : 17.07.2012
Date on which arguments heard : 13.11.2018
Date of Decision : 27.11.2018
J U D G M E N T:-
1. Story of the prosecution in brief is as under:
On 08.04.2018 on DD no.5A and DD no.8A were received pertaining to quarrel at Hans Hotel. Police reached there and upon inquiry, it was found that one Pawan Singh told that Praveen and Sunny have forcibly dragged Chandra Shekhar from the hotel and taken him to the house of Pradeep. It was further stated that two other boys namely Shiva and Aman also came there. Shiva and Aman were apprehended and police reached at the house of Pradeep and it was found locked from inside, and when it was knocked, Pradeep opened the door and Chandra Shekhar was found there, he was terrified. Pradeep was apprehended and Chandra Shekhar was released. Police brought Pradeep and Chandra Shekhar to the hotel where complainant Chandra Shekhar told that he is native of Champaran Motihari, Bihar and residing at Delhi on rent.
2. He further stated that he along with Pawan Singh had taken Hans Hotel on lease from its owner Amit Sardana for last six months. He further stated that on 08.04.2012 at about 12:15 am (during night) when he along with Pawan was at Hans hotel, one boy Shiva came there who SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.2/43 was heavily drunk and his nose was bleeding. Shiva said that he quarreled with the employees of Neha Hotel and asked Chandra Shekhar to come with him as he has to teach them a lesson. When they refused, Shiva started abusing them and threatened to break glass and started manhandling. When Pawan called at 100 number, Shiva left the hotel at that time.
3. Thereafter, at about 3:00 am, Praveen and Sunny came to the hotel, who are relatives of Pradeep, they said that as they did not help Shiva, therefore, they are not going to spare them. Praveen and Sunny forcibly dragged Chandra Shekhar out of the hotel and took him to the house of Pradeep. Pradeep, Shiva and Aman were present outside the house of Pradeep and they said that as he has not helped them, therefore, they are going to teach him a lesson. Shiva took out a revolver and fired in the air and threatened to kill him. Revolver was handed over to Sunny. Pradeep asked to take him inside the house and they took him inside and beat him with fists and blows. Pradeep remained there and his other associates left by saying that they are going to bring Pawan as well.
4. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.PC was filed and Ld. MM after completion of formalities, committed the matter to the Sessions Court for trial after compliance of Section 207 SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.3/43 Cr.PC.
5. After committal, charge under Section 323/342/367/364- A/506/34 IPC has been framed against accused Shiva, Pradeep and Praveen and a separate charge under Section 27 Arms Act has been framed against accused Shiva on 21.08.2012. It is important to mention here that accused Pradeep has expired during pendency of trial and proceedings against him have been abated. Accused Sunny was arrested later on and charge under Section 323/342/367/364-A/506/174-A IPC has been framed against him on 16.08.2017. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to establish the liability of accused persons, prosecution has examined 20 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded on 17.09.2018 under which they stated that they are not willing to lead evidence in their defence.
7. Before proceeding further, as per mandate laid down under Section 354 (1) (b) Cr.PC following are the points of determination which are necessary to consider in order to arrive at a conclusion:
1. Whether accused persons namely Shiva, Praveen and Sunny along with accused Pradeep (since deceased) on 08.04.2012 in between 12:20 am to 3:30 am, restrained complainant Chandra SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.4/43 Shekhar, and thereby committed an offence under Section 342/34 IPC?
2. Whether accused persons namely Shiva, Praveen and Sunny along with accused Pradeep (since deceased) abducted complainant Chandra Shekhar with an intention that he may be subjected to grievous hurt and further gave him reasonable apprehension that he may be put to death / hurt and thereby committed an offence under Section 367/364-A read with Section 34 IPC?
3. Whether accused persons namely Shiva, Praveen and Sunny along with accused Pradeep (since deceased) on 08.04.2012 in between 12:20 am to 3:30 am, voluntary assaulted Chandra Shekhar and caused simple injury upon his person and thereby committed an offence under Section 323/34 IPC?
4. Whether accused persons namely Shiva, Praveen and Sunny along with accused Pradeep (since deceased) in furtherance of their common intention threatened the complainant with dire consequences, and thereby committed an offence under Section 506/34 IPC?
5. Whether accused person Sunny had absconded during investigation and had declared proclaimed offender on 05.12.2012, and thereby committed an SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.5/43 offence under Section 174-A IPC?
6. Whether accused Shiva in order to threaten complainant Chandra Shekhar fired in the air and thereby committed an offence under Section 27 Arms Act?
8. First and Second points of determination:
(i) Whether accused persons namely Shiva, Praveen and Sunny along with accused Pradeep (since deceased) on 08.04.2012 in between 12:20 am to 3:30 am, restrained complainant Chandra Shekhar and thereby committed an offence under Section 342/34 IPC?
(ii) Whether accused persons namely Shiva, Praveen and Sunny along with accused Pradeep (since deceased) abducted complainant Chandra Shekhar with an intention that he may be subjected to grievous hurt and further gave him reasonable apprehension that he may be put to death / hurt and thereby committed an offence under Section 367/364-A read with Section 34 IPC?
Both these points, being interlinked, are taken up together. With regard to the first point of determination, the prosecution has alleged in the charge-sheet that all the accused persons called Chandra Shekhar and thereafter, restrained him and thereby committed an offence. In this regard, the relevant law is laid down under Section 342 IPC which reads as under:
342. Punishment for wrongful confinement.---
Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.6/43 a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
9. This section provides for punishment for wrongful confinement which is defined under Section 340 IPC. Section 340 IPC reads as under:
340. Wrongful confinement.--- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.
10. Wrongful confinement is a species of wrongful restrained in which prevention is total as different from 'wrongful restrained' and the person is restrained from proceeding in any direction. For completion of the offence, the period is immaterial. This section requires two essentials:
(a) wrongful restrained of a person;
(b) such restrained must prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.
11. The insistence by words of mouth or mere sitting around a persons would not satisfy the requirements of wrongful confinement SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.7/43 which requires that there must be voluntary obstruction to that person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. Similar observations have been made in "Leelabati Kanjilal" 1966 Cr.LJ 838(CAL).
12. Another charge so framed against the accused persons is U/s 367 / 34 IPC and 364A / 34 IPC which is under discussion vide second point of determination. The relevant law pertaining to section 367 & 364A r/w section 34 IPC is required to be discussed here before proceedings further.
364A IPC. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. ---
Whoever kidnaps of abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or international inter-
governmental organization or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
13. The essential ingredients of Section 364A IPC, which are SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.8/43 required to be looked into before arriving at any conclusion, are mentioned as under:
(i) A person is kidnapped or abducted.
(ii) Such person so kidnapped or abducted is threatened to cause death or hurt.
(iii) Such threat is giving a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or hurt or death is caused to such person in order to compel the government or any foreign state to do or extent for doing certain act or to pay ransom.
Section 367 IPC. Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc. --- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected, or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being subject to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural lust of any person, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
14. Section 367 IPC also lays down provision for kidnapping or abducting and such person so kidnapped or abducted, is put in danger of being subjected to grievous hurt or slavery or to the unnatural lust or SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.9/43 with the knowledge that such person will be subjected or disposed off. Thus, the difference in between Section 364A and Section 367 IPC is that under 364-A IPC kidnapping is for ransom and there is threat to life or person is killed whereas under Section 367 IPC the person so kidnapped is subject to grievous hurt, slavery etc. Another difference amongst the two provision is regarding the prescribed punishment as Section 364A IPC attracts punishment of life imprisonment or death penalty, whereas Section 367 IPC prescribed punishment upto ten years. Thus, Section 364-A IPC is more heinous and grievous in nature.
15. Coming to Section 367 IPC its essential ingredients as well as the facts required to be proved by the prosecution are as under:
(1) Kidnapping by accused or abduction by him;
(2) that he so kidnapped or abducted the person in question:
(a) in order that such person might be subjected to grievous hurt, slavery etc., or to unnatural lust etc.
(b) in order that such persons might be disposed off as to be put in danger thereof;
(c) knowing it to be likely that such person would be so subjected or disposed off.
16. Now coming to the case in hand and the evidence led by SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.10/43 prosecution, the first witness examined by the prosecution is PW-1 HC Ram Kesh who recorded DD no.5A and 8A on 08.04.2012. DD no.5A was recorded at 12:40 am (night) and DD no.8A was recorded at 3:45 am(night). This witness further received rukka Ex.PW1/D sent through Ct. Vijay and registered FIR Ex.PW1/C.
17. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-4 Chandra Shekhar Shah, the complainant himself. It is important to mention here that he is the person who is stated to have been wrongfully confined and abducted as well. It is stated by him that he along with his partner Pawan Singh, is running a hotel in the name and style of "M/s. Hans Hotel" at Nabi Karim. This hotel was taken on lease from Amit Sardana. It is stated that on 08.04.2012 at about 12:15 am (in the night), he along with his partner Pawan Singh, was in his hotel when one person Shiva, who was known to them, came there. His nose was bleeding and he told that he had a quarrel with persons belonging to Neha Hotel and he asked PW-4 to come with him to Neha Hotel which was declined by PW-4. Accused Shiva threatened them as well as threatened to break the glasses of their hotel by pelting stones. Police was called, however, accused Shiva left.
18. PW-4 has further stated that at about 3:30 am, some persons SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.11/43 namely accused Praveen and Sunny came there, and they said that as he has not helped accused Shiva, therefore, they threatened to kill him. Accused Praveen and Sunny forcibly took PW-4 to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased). Accused Pradeep (since deceased), Shiva and Aman were present there and they were furious. Thereafter, accused Shiva took out revolver and fired in the air and threatened to kill PW-4. Thereafter, accused Pradeep (since deceased) asked other accused persons to bring PW-4 inside the house and PW-4 was forcibly dragged in the house. Accused Pradeep (since deceased), Shiva, Praveen, Sunny and Aman started beating PW-4 and demanded Rs.50,000/- as ransom money. Accused Pradeep (since deceased) remained there and all other accused persons went outside while saying "iske partner Pawan ko bhe utha ker latey hain". They all bolted the room from outside and PW-4 was confined in the room.
19. During cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that accused Pradeep (since deceased) and accused Shiva are known to him. It is stated by PW-4 that on earlier occasion as well, accused Pradeep (since deceased) and accused Shiva had quarreled with him, however, no complaint was lodged. PW-4 further stated that when he was taken to house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), there was no one inside the house except accused Pradeep (since deceased). It is further stated that SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.12/43 when accused Shiva had fired the revolver in the air, no public person gathered there. PW-4 further stated that though, he did not receive any external injuries but he was beaten up by the accused persons with legs and fists and there was swelling on his neck and thigh. PW-4 however, admitted that prior to the incident, accused Pradeep (since deceased) did not demand any money.
20. During cross-examination of PW-4, one very strange suggestion has been given from the side of accused Shiva and Pradeep (since deceased) which is mentioned as under:
"It is wrong to suggest that on the day of incident, I had a quarrel with customers of hotel Neha, due to this accused Pradeep (since deceased) took me to his house to save me or that later on I compromised with the officials of hotel Neha and thereafter, accused Pradeep (since deceased) was falsely implicated in this case."
The implication of suggestion given from the side of accused persons reflects and implies that they themselves are stating that PW-4 Chandra Shekhar was taken to the house of Pradeep (since deceased) and the reason cited for the same is different that it was rather PW-4 who had a quarrel with officials of hotel Neha and accused Pradeep (since deceased) took him to his house in order to save him.
21. In this regard, it is important to mention here that the SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.13/43 prosecution, since the beginning, has been alleging that PW-4 Chandra Shekhar was forcibly taken to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) by the other accused persons. This fact has been denied and disputed by all the accused persons that none of the accused had taken PW-4 Chandra Shekhar to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased). However, the suggestion given by the accused persons, as mentioned above, which is reflected at page no.5 of cross-examination of PW-4, so conducted on 15.10.2012, is telling entirely a different story. By giving this suggestion, to my mind, accused persons have shaken their defence that none of them had taken PW-4 Chandra Shekhar to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased). In other words, they change their defence.
Perusal of the record further reflects that PW-4 was cross- examined on behalf of accused Sunny on 10.07.2015. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as he has corroborated what he had stated in his examination-in-chief.
22. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-5 Pawan Singh who has stated that he along with Chandra Shekhar is running a hotel in the name of "M/s Hans Hotel" at Nabi Karim on lease. On 08.04.2012 at about 12:15 am (in the night), he was present in his hotel along with Chandra Shekhar when one person Shiva came there who was SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.14/43 bleeding from his nose and said that he had a quarrel with people of Neha hotel and asked them to accompany him. When he was refused, he started abusing and threatened them. Police was called at 100 number. Upon this, accused Shiva left the hotel. After some time, Pradeep (since deceased), father of accused Shiva, came to the hotel and started abusing PW-5. PCR also reached there. They went in search of accused Shiva but in vain. Police left at that time. At about 3:00 am (in the night) two persons namely Praveen and Sunny came to their hotel. Accused Sunny abused them for not helping accused Shiva. He also threatened to kill them and accused Sunny demanded Rs.50,000/-. Accused Sunny apprehended Chandra Shekhar and took him towards the house of Pradeep (since deceased). Accused Praveen followed him.
23. Police was called at 100 number by PW-5. In the meantime, accused Shiva and one JCL Aman came to their hotel and they both abused them. They were apprehended by police. IO also reached there and he was told that Chandra Shekhar has been taken towards the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased). PW-5 along with IO and one Constable went to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased). It was got opened and they went inside the room and found that Chandra Shekhar was sitting in a fear. At that time, accused Pradeep (since deceased) was present inside the room along with Chandra Shekhar. SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.15/43
24. PW-5 has stated that he tried to save his partner when he was taken by the accused persons. Pw-5 further stated that accused persons, at the time when they had taken Chandra Shekhar, they had said that "iske papa ke yahan chalte hain" and accused Pradeep (since deceased) was called as "Papa". PW-5 further stated that when he went to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) along with the police and when inside the room, he found that hands, legs and mouth of Chandra Shekhar were not tied. Chandra Shekhar was present along with accused Pradeep (since deceased).
25. During cross-examination of PW-5, one suggestion has been given by the counsel for accused Shiva and Pradeep (since deceased) at page no.4 of his examination dated 16.10.2012 at para no.3 which is mentioned as under:
"It is correct that Chander Shekhar was brought back by the police from the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) at the hotel and police recorded the statement of Chandra Shekhar."
26. The above mentioned suggestion given by the accused persons implies that PW-4 Chandra Shekhar, who is complainant as well, was brought back by police and PW-5 Pawan Singh from the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased). Similar are the facts alleged by the SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.16/43 prosecution as well, that Chandra Shekhar was taken by accused Shiva and Praveen to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) which is narrated by PW-4 and also reflected by the relevant suggestion as mentioned above, as well as in the above mentioned suggestion given during cross-examination of PW-5. Both these suggestions are corroborating the fact that Chandra Shekhar was taken by the accused persons to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) and PW-5 Pawan Singh and police when reached at the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), they brought PW-4 Chandra Shekhar back to the hotel.
27. It is further reflected that similar suggestion has been given at page no.5 of examination dated 16.10.2012 that Chandra Shekhar was taken to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) in order to save him as he had quarreled with officials of hotel Neha. Thus, by giving these suggestions, accused persons themselves are not disputing the fact that PW-4 Chandra Shekhar was taken to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), though, the purpose for taking him to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) by the accused persons, is alleged to be different that he was taken there in order to save him whereas the version of the prosecution, as reflected in the charge-sheet, is different that Chandra Shekhar was forcibly taken there, confined, beaten up and accused persons even demanded Rs.50,000/- for his SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.17/43 release.
28. PW-5 has been examined again qua accused Sunny as he was declared proclaimed offender initially and was arrested later on. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as he has corroborated what he had stated in his examination-in- chief. This aspect will be discussed in light of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in the subsequent relevant paras.
29. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-6 Mushtaq Ahmed who has stated that he is residing in the hotel of Pawan and Chandra Shekhar and has been working there as a waiter. On 08.04.2012 at about 12:15 am, when he along with Pawan, Chandra Shekhar and Manager Salman, was present in the hotel, one person Shiva came there. He was bleeding from his nose. He asked Pawan and Chandra Shekhar to accompanying him to Neha hotel as he had a quarrel with employees of Neha hotel. Pawan and Chandra Shekhar refused him. Upon this, accused Shiva abused Pawan and Chandra Shekhar and threatened to break glasses of window of hotel. Call at 100 number was made and accused Shiva, in the meantime, left. It is stated by PW-6 that accused Pradeep (since deceased), who is the father of accused Shiva, came to the hotel. Police persuaded him and, he and police left SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.18/43 thereafter.
30. It is further stated by PW-6 that at about 2:30/3:00 am, two persons namely Praveen and Sunny came to Hans hotel and they started abusing Pawan and Chandra Shekhar for not helping accused Shiva. After that, accused Praveen and Sunny forcibly took Chandra Shekhar out of the hotel. When PW-6 tried to rescue him, they both pushed him aside. Pawan made a call at 100 number. In the meantime, accused Shiva and Aman (juvenile) came to Hans hotel. Police reached there and apprehended them. Pawan informed police officials that Chandra Shekhar was forcibly taken by Praveen and Sunny. Some police officials went with Pawan in search of Chandra Shekhar. After some time, police officials and Pawan came back to Hans hotel along with accused and Chandra Shekhar. It is further stated by PW-6 that accused persons used to threaten him as well as his owners and used to demand 'hafta' from them. During cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that he was present in the hotel at the reception when accused Shiva had come inside the hotel.
31. PW-6 was recalled and re-examination from the side of accused Sunny as accused Sunny initially was declared proclaimed offender and was arrested later on. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as he has SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.19/43 corroborated what he had stated in his examination-in-chief.
32. The next witness examined by the prosecution is Manzoor Alam @ Salman who has stated that he is working as Manager in hotel Hans which is run by Pawan and Chandra Shekhar. PW-7 has deposed on the same lines as PW-6 Mushtaq Ahmad. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as he has corroborated what he had stated in his examination-in-chief.
33. PW-8 Ms. Z.N. Loon was called from JJA Board who brought record pertaining to JCL Aman. This witness has not been cross-examined by the accused persons despite giving opportunity. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-9 Ct. Bajrang Lal who received call at about 12:34 AM (in the intervening night of April 7 th / 8th 2012) regarding quarrel. The said information was transmitted to concerned PCR officials for necessary action. The PCR form in that regard is Ex.PW9/A. This witness again has not been cross-examined by the accused persons, therefore, the call, so recorded, at about 12:34 AM, as mentioned above, and facts mentioned therein, are not disputed. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-10 Ct. Ashok who was DD writer on 07.04.2012 at PS Nabi Karim and recorded DD no.26B which is Ex.PW10/A. This witness has not been cross-examined by the accused SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.20/43 persons. Similar is the role of the next witness examined by the prosecution i.e. PW-11 W/Ct. Seema who was a DD writer on 07.04.2012 at PS Nabi Karim and recorded DD no.67B which is Ex.PW11/A. This witness has also not been cross-examined by the accused persons.
34. Then next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-13 ASI Khayali Ram who was on patrolling duty on 08.04.2012 and he along with Ct. Anthres reached at the spot I.e Hans Hotel, Nabi Karim at about 03:45 am when he received the information regarding quarrel there. It is stated by PW-13 that PCR officials were already there and IO / SI Amrit Lal along with Ct. Vijay reached at the spot. IO had apprehended two accused persons namely Shiva and Aman. Inquiry was made from accused Shiva and Aman by the IO. During inquiry, Pawan told IO that accused Praveen and Sunny had taken Shekhar (PW-4) to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased). IO along with Ct. Vijay and Pawan left the spot for the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) leaving accused Shiva and Aman in custody of PW-13 and Ct. Anthres.
35. PW-13 has further stated that after some time, IO along with Ct. Vijay and Pawan came back to the spot along with accused Pradeep (since deceased) and Shekhar (PW-4). IO made inquiry from Shekhar (PW-4) and recorded his statement. IO prepared rukka and sent the same SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.21/43 through Ct. Vijay for registration of FIR. SI Suresh also reached there. Accused Aman was handed over to SI Suresh Pal. IO / SI Amrit Lal arrested accused Shiva and Pradeep (since deceased) vide their arrest memos and personal search memos Ex.PW4/B, PW4/C, PW13/A and PW13/B respectively. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as he has corroborated what he had stated in his examination-in-chief.
36. PW-14 SI Suresh Pal is a witness qua juvenile Aman whose trial has been separated and commenced at Juvenile Justice Board therefore, testimony of this witness to this extent is not required to be discussed here. PW-17 Ct. Padam Singh is pertaining to the arrest of accused Sunny who remained with the IO / SI Amrit Lal, SI Mohit Yadav, Ct. Vijay, Ct. Purshottam and Ct. Suresh. Accused Sunny was arrested from his house vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW16/D and Ex.PW16/E. No material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as he has corroborated what he had stated in his examination-in-chief.
37. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW-15 Ct. Antresh, PW-16 Ct. Vijay Singh, PW-20 SI Mohit Yadav and PW-18 IO / SI Amrit Lal. They all have narrated the entire story, as alleged in the SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.22/43 charge-sheet / final report under Section 173 Cr.PC. Their testimonies start from receiving the call of quarrel at Hans hotel in the intervening night of 7th / 8th April 2012 which includes recording the disclosure statement of accused persons, their arrest etc.
38. PW-18 IO and PW-19 Manmandir Singh have been examined and deposed with regard to CCTV footage in CD Ex.P18/1 which was run / displayed in the court during his examination in which accused Shiva is visible coming to the gate of Hans hotel at 12:35:52 am on 08.04.2012 and having stone in his hand. At 12:37:21 am complainant Chandra Shekhar is seen coming towards accused Shiva outside the hotel and at 12:37:19 accused Shiva is pushing Pawan outside the gate of Hans hotel. In the said footage in CD Ex.P18/1, at 12:44:06 am, accused Shiva is pushing his hand to Chandra Shekhar. At about 12:46:34 am, accused Shiva had sat at the door of hans hotel and complainant is also visible. At about 12:48:13 AM accused Shiva is seen entering into Hans hotel and at 12:48:38 am, accused Shiva had come to the counter of Hans hotel. In the said footage in CD Ex.P18/1, 12:49:10 am, accused Shiva went outside the hotel. Similar is the testimony of PW-19 Manmandir Singh who is stated to be in the business of computer repairing and had installed CCTV camera for security purpose. PW-19, however, had not installed any CCTV camera at Hans hotel and he used to maintain such SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.23/43 CCTV cameras at Hans hotel.
39. PW-19 has not been cross-examined by accused Shiva despite giving opportunity and no material contradiction has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as he has corroborated what he had stated in his examination-in-chief. Other facts alleged by IO / PW18 and other police officials i.e. PW-15 Ct. Antresh, PW-16 Ct. Vijay Singh and PW-20 SI Mohit Yadav are not repeated here for the sake of brevity as enough light in this regard has been thrown by other witnesses.
40. The outcome of above mentioned testimonies of prosecution witnesses as well as certain suggestions given by and on behalf of accused persons, following facts are emerging;
(i) Accused persons themselves have not disputed the fact that they are known to Chandra Shekhar and other employees of Hans hotel.
(ii) Testimonies of PW-18 IO / SI Amrit Lal and PW-19 Manmandir Singh qua CCTV footage in CD Ex.P18/1 and visibility of accused Shiva, complainant Chandra Shekhar and Pawan on the day of incident at the relevant time, has been established during their cross-examination. Vide these testimonies, presence of accused Shiva at Hans hotel at the relevant time on the day of incident, is duly established by the prosecution.
SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.24/43
(iii) Two suggestions given during cross-examination of PW-4 Chandra Shekhar from the side of accused persons reflects that accused themselves have suggested and not disputed that accused Shiva and accused Pradeep (since deceased) took PW-4 Chandra Shekhar to the house of Pradeep (since deceased) and when police went to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), PW-4 was found there and brought back to the hotel. Both these suggestions further implies that accused persons are not disputing that they had gone to Hans hotel at the relevant time, which is also reflected from the CCTV footage in CD Ex.P18/1 and took to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), as well as when police again came at the second PCR call and went to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), PW-4 Chandra Shekhar was found there and he was brought back.
(iv) Two PCR calls made at around 12:30 am and 03:30 am in the intervening night of 7th / 8th April 2012, have not been disputed by the accused persons. In the relevant documents qua PCR calls vide Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW10/A it further corroborate the story of prosecution that there were two calls of quarrel at Hans hotel.
(v) PW-4 Chandra Shekhar, who is complainant along with PW- 5 Pawan Singh, partner of PW-4, PW-6 Mushtaq Ahmed, PW-7 Mazoor Alam @ Salman have categorically stated that accused Shiva initially SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.25/43 came to Hans hotel and asked Pw-4 Chandra Shekhar to accompany him and helped him, which was refused. Accused Shiva had threatened to break down the glasses of Hans hotel by throwing stones which is also visible in CCTV footage in CD Ex.P18/1, as mentioned above. These witnesses have further stated that accused Praveen and Sunny again came at Hans hotel and took Chandra Shekhar forcibly to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased). All these witnesses have alleged this fact for which there is no contradiction during their cross-examination. Thus, in my considered opinion, all these witnesses to this extent inspire their confidence and there is nothing contrary to the record by which their testimonies could be disbelieved.
(vi) As, it has not been disputed by the accused persons that there was a quarrel taken place at the spot in question, though, accused persons are having their own different story, therefore, the onus is upon the accused persons to prove to the contrary that they had taken complainant Chandra Shekhar (PW-4) to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) without any force and it was done to save him and not done to pressurize or threaten him, as alleged by the prosecution.
In this regard Section 106 IPC is required to be mentioned here which lays down a presumption which is required to be established by the person who alleges any fact. Section 106 IPC reads as under:
SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.26/43 Section 106 IPC. Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person. --- If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.
Certain judgments can be laid upon here for reference:
(a) "Virender Vs. State" MANU DE 11072015. In this case, it has been held that if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer his explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. In case, resting on circumstantial evidence if accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him and the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.
SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.27/43
(b) "Sodhi Transport Vs. State of UP", AIR 1986 SC 1099. In this case, with regard to burden of proof, it has been held that it is a rule concerning evidence, it indicate the person on whom lies the burden of prove, when the presumption is conclusive, it obviates the need of production of any other evidence to dislodge the conclusion to be drawn on proof of certain facts.
When it is rebuttable, it points out the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence.
Thus, the burden is upon the accused persons that they had taken complainant PW-4 Chandra Shekhar along with them in order to save him and they had not kidnapped or confined him. No evidence has been led from the side of accused persons in this regard nor any piece of evidence to the contrary, in this regard has been brought to the knowledge of the court. It is needless to say that any fact, so alleged, cannot be said to be proved by mere submissions itself. It has to be proved as per the procedure prescribed under Indian Evidence Act and unless until it is supported with any evidence, oral or documentary, it cannot be said to be established.
(vii) Kidnapping is defined under Section 359 IPC and 361 IPC which implies that a person is said to be taken or enticed away without his / her consent or consent of his / her lawful guardian and such taking SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.28/43 or enticing is to keep such person out of the custody of such lawful guardian or against the wishes of such person. It is a matter of record that in the present case, complainant Chander Shekhar is not a minor. He is said to have been taken away against his wishes for which, testimonies of complainant himself along with PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are led by the prosecution. In my considered opinion, none of the accused persons has been able to controvert this fact that Chandra Shekhar was taken against his wishes. It has been further deposed by above mentioned witnesses including PW-18 IO / SI Amrit Lal and other police officials that when they went to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), they found complainant Chandra Shekhar there and PW-5 during his examination, has categorically stated that when the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) was opened and they went inside the room they found Chandra Shekhar was sitting inside the room in a fear, and accused Pradeep (since deceased) was also present there.
(viii) PW-5 Pawan, the partner of complainant Chandra Shekhar has stated that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- and if it was not given, they will kill them. There is no evidence led by the accused persons to the contrary or controverting this fact that there was no demand of Rs.50,000/- from their side.
(ix) Prosecution has also examined PW-12 Dr. Sumedh SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.29/43 Dhuldhule who has deposed with regard to the MLC Ex.PW12/A of complainant Chandra Shekhar and has stated that as per the record, complainant Chandra Shekhar was brought to the hospital on 08.04.2012 with the alleged history of assault and after observing the injuries on his person, the nature of injury was simple and they were fresh i.e. recently caused. All these facts implies that complainant Chandra Shekhar has been assaulted and beaten up. It is needless to say that it has not been disputed by the accused persons that complainant Chandra Shekhar was found in the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), when police has reached there and IO / SI Amrit Lal (PW-18) has stated that after taking complainant Chandra Shekhar to Hans hotel first, he was taken to hospital for his medical examination, and MLC Ex.PW12/A is prepared in furtherance thereof. Thus, the chain of circumstances resulting into preparation of MLC Ex.PW12/A is uninterrupted and not broken by any intervening third factor nor any such interference has been pointed out or highlighted by any of the accused persons during examination of any of the prosecution witness.
(x) It is also come on record as per the testimony of PW4 and PW5 that when complainant Chander Shekhar was forcibly taken from Hans Hotel, accused persons took him to the house of accused Pardeep (since deceased) and accused Shiva in order to threaten and put him SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.30/43 under fear also fired in the air. PW4 Chander Shekhar has stated that he was terrified. All these facts, reflect that he was put under fear of death or grievous hurt or hurt as he had apprehended threat to his life. Thus, one of the essential ingredients that the person so kidnapped or abducted is put under or subjected to grievous hurt, is also established by the prosecution.
41. Thus, in the light of abovesaid discussion, it is reflected that all the essential ingredients of Section 342 and 367 IPC are established by the prosecution, however, none of the ingredients of Section 364-A IPC are either present or reflected from the charge-sheet or established by any of the prosecution witnesses. Section 364-A IPC requires that kidnapping is done for ransom and the person, so kidnapped, is put in the fear of death or hurt, or such hurt or death is caused, whereas on the other hand, with regard to Section 367 IPC, kidnapping has been done as mentioned above i.e. complainant Chandra Shekhar was taken against his wishes and when he was traced by the police, he was found at the house of one of the accused persons namely accused Pradeep (since deceased) and he was found sitting there in fear. Hurt is also said to have been caused to him as per MLC Ex.PW12/A.
42. None of the accused persons, as already stated above, have SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.31/43 been able to controvert any of these findings either by way of leading their evidence in their defence or by placing on record any evidence by which it could be presumed to be contrary. It has been further observed, to the contrary, that the entire incident i.e. coming of accused Shiva at Hans hotel at first instance at about 12/ 12:30 am in the intervening night of 7th & 8th April 2012 till complainant Chandra Shekhar was found in the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) that too in fear as seen by IO / SI Amrit Lal and PW-5 Pawan.
43. Coming to the chain of circumstances, there is CCTV footage in CD Ex.P18/1 showing accused Shiva coming to the Hans hotel and entered into altercation with the employees of said hotel. He is also seen having a stone in his hand and threatening the employees and the complainant Chandra Shekhar. Two calls at 100 numbers were made at about 12:30 am and 3:30 am in the intervening night of 7 th & 8th April 2012, which are not disputed. When the police had arrived at the spot upon second call, they had apprehended accused Praveen and Sunny from the spot itself. Evidence has also been led to the extent that after the second call, police official had come and PW-5 Pawan along with IO had gone to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) and found that complainant Chandra Shekhar in the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) sitting in fear.
SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.32/43 It is stated during arguments by the counsel for accused persons that at one stage, during his earlier examination, PW4 had stated that when he was taken to the house of Pardeep (since deceased), he had stated that door was not locked, whereas, at some other point of time during his examination on 15/10/2012 at page no.4, he had stated that when accused persons took him to the house of accused Pardeep (since deceased), the door was bolted from outside. In this regard, it is reflected from the perusal of the record that similar is the statement of IO that when he reached there at the house of accused Pardeep (since deceased) in search of Chander Shekhar, the door was bolted from inside. Thus, it is being inferred from these circumstances that when Chander Shekhar was taken to house of accused Pardeep (since deceased) he was kept there and the door was locked. It further implies that he was not allowed to go anywhere. Thus, the submissions, made on behalf of accused with regard to bolting of door as highlighted by their counsel is not tenable in the eyes of law.
The outcome of above discussion is that it is established by the prosecution that Chander Shekhar was forcibly taken to the house of accused Pardeep (since deceased) by the other accused persons, he was kept there, confined and beaten up as well and when police reached there, he was found in fear and was released by police officials and taken SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.33/43 back to Hotel Hans. The statement of PW4 Chander Shekhar has been recorded thereafter, on the same day.
In the light of abovesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, it is reflected that prosecution has been able to establish all the essential ingredients of Section 342/367/34 IPC, therefore, both these points of determination are decided accordingly in favour of prosecution.
44. Third point of determination:
(iii) Whether accused persons namely Shiva, Praveen and Sunny along with accused Pradeep (since deceased) on 08.04.2012 in between 12:20 am to 3:30 am, voluntary assaulted Chandra Shekhar and caused simple injury upon his person and thereby committed an offence under Section 323/34 IPC?
In order to establish the nature of injury upon complainant Chandra Shekhar, prosecution has examined PW-12 Dr. Sumedh Dhuldhule who has been examined on behalf of concerned Dr. Shitendu Kumar who was not available on the day of examination. It is stated that MLC Ex.PW12/A qua complainant Chandra Shekhar mentions nature of injury as simple. Complainant is said to have been brought to Lady Harding Medical College with the alleged history of assault and injuries upon his persons are of fresh origin, however, no external injury has been found, as per the MLC. IO / SI Amrit Lal along with other police officials has stated that in the intervening night of 7 th & 8th April 2012 at about 12:40 AM (night), complainant and his partner Pawan stated that one SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.34/43 Shiva has threatened them.
45. It has been further stated by the IO that a call was made again in the same night and he along with Ct. Vijay again reached Hans hotel and found that its owner Pawan had stated that Chandra Shekhar has been forcibly taken to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased). When IO went to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), it was found locked from inside and when it was opened by accused Pradeep (since deceased), he got nervous upon seeing the police. Complainant Chandra Shekhar was found there, he was taken to the Hans hotel and after sometime when accused persons were inquired, complainant along with accused persons were taken to Lady Harding Medical College for their medical examination. Thus, the entire chain of circumstances, as already mentioned above while discussion during first and second points of determination, is uninterrupted till preparation of MLC Ex.PW12/A. PW- 4 has categorically stated that he was beaten by accused persons by fists and legs and was kept and confined against his wishes in the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased).
46. None of the accused persons during examination of any of the prosecution witnesses, has been able to controvert any of these facts, as mentioned above. Thus, there is nothing on record vide which it could be SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.35/43 presumed to the contrary that injuries, as mentioned in the MLC, found upon the person of complainant Chandra Shekhar, were caused by any other person or at some other place. Therefore, all the essential facts and ingredients of Section 323 IPC are found to be established by the prosecution. It is also the story of prosecution that all the accused persons had committed the incident in furtherance of their active participation and intention, therefore, third point of determination is decided in favour of prosecution.
47. Fourth point of determination:
Whether accused persons namely Shiva, Praveen and Sunny along with accused Pradeep (since deceased) in furtherance of their common intention threatened the complainant with dire consequences, and thereby committed an offence under Section 506/34 IPC?
In the light of discussion made under first three points of determination, it is reflected that there is nothing on record from the side of accused persons by which story of the prosecution can be said to be controverted. More so, none of the accused persons have been able to establish their defence though, they have alleged that complainant Chandra Shekhar was taken to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) in order to save him from the dispute with officials of Neha hotel. On the contrary, complainant PW-4 Chandra Shekhar along with his partner PW-5 Pawan Singh has stated that accused Shiva had come to SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.36/43 their Hans hotel at first instance and he threatened complainant Chandra Shekhar and other employees with dire consequences. This fact is visible in the CCTV footage in CD Ex.P18/1.
48. It has been further stated by PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 that other accused namely Praveen and Sunny came later on and they said that they had come for PW-5 Pawan Singh. Accused Pradeep has already expired during trial and proceedings against him have been abated. Thus, active participation of all the accused persons is being reflected from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is important to mention here that accused persons themselves have taken the defence that they had taken complainant Chandra Shekhar with them in order to save him and they had not kidnapped him. In the absence of any evidence to this extent, it cannot be said to be contrary to these facts, which are established by the prosecution witnesses. Thus, all the ingredients of Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC are established by the prosecution. In terms of these observations, the fourth point of determination is decided in favour of prosecution.
49. Fifth point of determination:
Whether accused person Sunny had absconded during investigation and had declared proclaimed offender on 05.12.2012, and thereby committed an offence under Section 174-A IPC?
SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.37/43 It has been argued by the counsel for accused Sunny that the trial qua charge under Section 174-A IPC conducted against accused Sunny is vitiated due to procedural irregularity and the trial qua this offence which is exclusively triable by the Metropolitan Magistrate, should be tried before him only. It is argued that a Sessions Court cannot conduct the trial under Section 174A IPC. The counsel for accused Sunny has relied upon one judgment titled as "Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha Vs. State" decided on 23.05.2013 by Hon'ble Justice G.P. Mittal in Criminal Appeal no.391/2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in support of his contention. In this case, it has been held that trial of Section 174 A IPC which is exclusively triable by the Metropolitan Magistrate, should be conducted before Ld. MM itself and not before Ld. Sessions Court.
50. There are a number of judgments contrary to the view laid down in case "Mohd. Jamal @ Ranjha" (supra), and it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by various other Hon'ble High Courts that there is no bar in conducting the trial under Section 174 A IPC before Court of Sessions. Reference can be laid upon in following cases:
(i) Sudhir Vs. State of MP (2001)2 SCC 688. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a Session Judge has power to try any offence under IPC. It is not necessary that offence should be exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. It SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.38/43 has also been laid down in substantive provision under Section 26 Cr.PC.
(ii) Mustakeem Vs. State 2016 SCC Online DEL 2743. In this case, it has been held that a Sessions court can frame charge under Section 174-A IPC.
(iii) Purshottam Dev Arya Vs. CBI 2017 SCC Online DEL 7267. In this case, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that it can well be inferred that the offence under Section 174-A IPC which arises out of proceedings during the main case, can be tried and disposed off by the same court. Lodging of separate FIR for commission of offence under Section 174-A IPC is not always required.
51. Thus, the outcome of judgment "Sudhir" (supra) and other judgments of Delhi High Court is that there is no bar in trying any offence by Sessions Court which is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, as per IPC. Therefore, in the light of substantive provision laid down under Section 26 Cr.PC and directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as mentioned above, I do not find any irregularity in conducting the trial of Section 174-A IPC by this Court. Thus, submissions made on behalf of accused Sunny in this regard are not tenable in the eyes of law.
52. It is a matter of record that accused Sunny was declared SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.39/43 proclaimed offender and his trial has commenced along with other co- accused persons after a supplementary charge-sheet under relevant Sections along with Section 174-A IPC was filed and assigned to this Court. Documentary evidence in this regard is available and part of record to this extent. Nothing more is required to be established by the prosecution in this regard. More so, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC has not been challenged till date by accused Sunny, therefore, they have become final and binding upon him. Thus, as nothing is found to the contrary or brought by accused persons, the charge under Section 174-A IPC is established against him. In terms of these observation, the fifth point of determination is decided accordingly in favour of prosecution.
53. Sixth point of determination:
Whether accused Shiva in order to threaten complainant Chandra Shekhar fired in the air and thereby committed an offence under Section 27 Arms Act?
In order to establish this fact, the prosecution has examined PW-4 complainant Chandra Shekhar who has stated in his examination-
in-chief that when he was forcibly taken by accused Praveen and Sunny to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased), accused Shiva took out his revolver and fired in the air and threatened to kill him. It is important to mention here that no such pistol has been recovered till SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.40/43 date. It is important to mention here that there is no other witness besides PW-4 who has deposed to this extent and beside his testimony, there are disclosure statements of accused persons which are hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act unless until they lead to any recovery i.e. recovery of weapon itself.
54. After careful perusal of cross-examination of PW-4, it is reflected that no direct question has been put to the witness in this regard nor any contrary suggestion has been given to the witness. It is also important to mention here that it is a defence of accused persons that they had taken complainant Chandra Shekhar to the house of accused Pradeep (since deceased) in order to save him from the employees of Neha hotel. Thus, accused persons are not disputing the fact that they had taken complainant Chandra Shekhar along with them but it is the purpose of taking him, has been disputed which, however, has not been established by any of the accused persons being not supported by any evidence, as already mentioned above. It is also important to mention here that the outcome of fourth point of determination is that accused persons threatened complainant Chandra Shekhar with dire consequences and as per the outcome of first and second points of determination, prosecution has been able to establish that complainant Chandra Shekhar was not only illegally confined but SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.41/43 kidnapped as well.
55. With these observations, no doubt remains with regard to this fact as well, which is supported with the averment / testimony of complainant Chandra Shekhar (PW-4) that accused Shiva had fired in air in order to threaten him. Thus, the testimony of PW-4 reflects that fire arm has been used in commission of the offence and complainant Chandra Shekhar (PW-4) has been threatened in pursuance thereto. Therefore, charge under Section 27 Arms Act is established against accused Shiva and the sixth point of determination is decided accordingly.
56. Conclusion:
In the light of above discussion, the prosecution has been able to establish its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, all the accused persons namely Praveen, Sunny and Shiva are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323/342/367/34 IPC. Accused Shiva and accused Praveen are also convicted under Section 506/34 IPC. Accused Sunny is also convicted under Section 174-A IPC and accused Shiva is also convicted under Section 27 Arms Act. Prosecution has not been able to establish the Charge under Section 364-A IPC against all the accused persons.
SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.42/43 Proceedings qua accused Pradeep have already abated vide order dated 30.05.2014 as he had expired during trial.
Arguments on the point of sentence shall be heard. Separately.
Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2018.11.29 15:38:28 +0530 Announced in the open court (PRASHANT KUMAR) on 27th Day of November 2018 ASJ-04/Central District Tis Hazari Court/Delhi SC no.:-28020/2016 State Vs. Pradeep & Ors Page no.43/43