Delhi District Court
State vs Jasbir Chauhan on 21 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI
DELHI
Unique Identification No. 02404R01162012
Sessions Case No. 111/1/13
FIR No. 12/12
PS Swaroop Nagar
U/s 304 IPC
State Versus Jasbir Chauhan
Son of Sh. Kartar Singh,
Resident of Village- Rang Puri,
Delhi.
Date of institution in Magisterial Court: 16.04.2012
Date on which the case was received
by the Court of Sessions : 26.04.2012
Date of conclusion of final arguments: 21.02.2015
Date of judgment : 21.02.2015
Memo of appearance
Sh. Sanjay Jindal, learned Addl. P.P. for State.
Sh. Vikas K. Bharti, learned defence counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
1 In North Indian communities, it is customary for the bridegroom to travel on a mare to the wedding venue while accompanied by his family members and friends. Such bridegroom's wedding procession is known as Baraat and people accompanying the procession are known as baraatis. Dances, music band, dhol and fireworks are integral part of any such procession. Some baraatis, as a show-off and to unnecessarily demonstrate their jubilation, take pride in firing in air from their licensed fire-arms which they feel as their prized possession. Little do they realize that such thing is neither desirable nor legal and can also kill someone? This is what precisely happened in the case in hand.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 1 of 162 One Mr. Sandeep was getting married on 21/01/2012. The marriage procession had come to Nathupura, Burari. It reached near Shastri Park, Nathupura, at about 7.30 p.m. Mr. Sandeep had also invited his friend Jasbir (accused herein) to attend his marriage. Jasbir was having a licensed pistol. He carried that to the marriage function. Sh. Raj Singh (father of bridegroom), however, told Jasbir to keep the pistol inside and not to use the same during the marriage procession. He also told him that earlier also on a few occasions, some mishaps had taken place due to use of firearm in marriage. One Mr. Ranbir also advised him not to use the firearm. However, accused Jasbir did not relent and even had a verbal tiff with Ranbir on said issue. Sandeep, the groom, was on the mare and baraatis were dancing. Accused Jasbir, despite being advised to the contrary, took out his pistol and all of a sudden fired in celebration. The bullet, so fired, however, hit Ranbir who was immediately rushed to Saroj Hospital, Rohini where he was declared brought dead.
3 Further investigations were carried out. Spot was inspected. Police took into possession the video footage and the photographs of marriage function and recorded statements of various baraatis who were members of the marriage procession, who all, in no uncertain words, raised accusing finger towards accused claiming that the incident had taken place due to the gunshot fired by him. Video cassette was also sent to physics laboratory of FSL Rohini which opined that there was no alteration with the cassettes. Accused Jasbir was arrested. He also produced his pistol and arm licence. Those were taken into possession.
4 The pistol (.380 bore) recovered from accused Jasbir was sent to FSL for forensic opinion. After comprehensive investigation, the investigating agency came to the conclusion that the case was u/s 304 IPC instead of one u/s. 302 IPC as was originally registered and, therefore, the accused was sent up to face trial for commission of offence u/s 304 IPC.
5 Charge-sheet was laid before the Magisterial Court on 16/04/2012 and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the concerned Magisterial Court vide order dated 23/04/2012.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 2 of 166 Case was received on committal by this Court on 26/04/2012.
7. Accused was charged under Section 304 Part-II IPC and also u/s 30 Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and examined 31 witnesses. The witnesses can be classified as under:
i) Alleged eye witnesses and other important public witnesses: PW3 Karambir (brother of deceased Ranbir), PW4 Mushtaq Ali (videographer/photographer of marriage), PW5 Sandeep (bridegroom), PW6 Raj Singh (father of bridegroom), PW7 Kamlesh (mother of bridegroom), PW8 Satbir, PW9 Rakesh @ Ramlu, PW10 Pramod, PW11 Sonu @ Rajesh, PW12 Sanjeev Kumar, PW13 Dharambir, PW14 Bijender, PW15 Pradeep Kumar S/o Om Prakash, PW16 Pradeep S/o Ranvir Singh, PW17 Bhim Singh, PW18 Sunil, PW19 Sheetal, PW20 Mohd. Shamim and PW21 Chetan,
ii) Other witnesses related to investigation etc: PW29 W/Ct Preeti (PCR official, who filled up PCR form), PW30 Ct Renu (PCR official who filled up PCR form), PW1 SI Anil Kumar (in-charge crime team), PW2 HC Raj Kumar (duty officer), PW22 Sanjay (photographer who prepared CD from the video cassette), PW27 SI Jagdeep (initial IO) and PW26 ACP Ranbir Singh (IO of the case).
iii) FSL Expert/doctors: PW24 Dr. Rajender Kumar (FSL expert), PW25 Dr. M.P. Waghmare (FSL expert), PW28 Dr. Bhim Singh ( who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Ranbir Singh) and PW31 Sh. Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics)
9 Accused, in his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded innocence and claimed that he had been falsely implicated. The incriminating evidence was put to him but he pleaded ignorance to almost all the questions. He also did not desire to lead any evidence in defence.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 3 of 1610 It will be worthwhile to mention right here that when postmortem of deceased was conducted, part of the bullet was recovered from his body and was preserved for forensic opinion also. Fact, however, remains that such piece of bullet was sent to FSL by police for a very limited purpose i.e. in order to ascertain whether it was containing any blood or not. As per report dated 17/05/2012 of FSL, which has been proved as Ex. PW24/B, no human blood could be found on such fired bullet as there was no reaction.
11 Very strangely, the police was having the firearm in its possession which had been allegedly used in the present incident by the accused.
12 For reasons best known to the investigating agency, no necessity was felt of sending such piece of bullet to FSL for seeking a ballistic opinion to the effect whether such bullet could have been fired from said firearm or not.
13 However, the defence itself came to the rescue of prosecution.
14 When the case was at the stage of final arguments, the video cassette containing the footage of the marriage procession was played and on 05/11/2014, defence counsel argued that he had already moved an application for obtaining FSL opinion whether such bullet could have been fired from the alleged pistol of the accused. The prosecution offered its no opposition to such request of the defence and accordingly the piece of bullet and the firearm i.e. pistol of accused were ordered to be sent to FSL for necessary opinion.
15 It was in that background that FSL gave another report dated 29/12/2014 while concluding that the metallic piece in question was part of the bullet which had been discharged through the pistol in question. Such report of Sh. Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics) has been proved as Ex. PW31/A. 16 I have heard Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Vikas K. Bharti, learned defence counsel for the accused.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 4 of 1617 Sh. Sanjay Jindal, learned Addl. PP for State has, though, at the very outset, conceded that almost all the eye-witnesses, who were part of the marriage procession, have not supported the case of the prosecution and have not incriminated the accused, yet, according to Sh. Jindal, the aforesaid scientific evidence i.e. report of Ballistic Division of FSL clearly proves the case of the prosecution to the hilt. He has also contended that if the video footage is seen from the original cassette, it becomes abundantly clear that it was accused and accused alone who was armed with the pistol and had even fired twice with the pistol. He has further contended that both the aforesaid crucial aspects are sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the unfortunate death in question.
18 Sh. Vikas K. Bharti has, on the other hand, refuted said contentions. He has argued that all the alleged eye-witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported even a single incriminating word against the accused. He has argued that as per the testimony of such alleged eye-witnesses, there were many other 'baraatis', who were having pistols and guns and were using the same and opening fire while dancing in said marriage procession and all such prosecution witnesses are completely unsure as to how deceased Ranbir Singh had sustained injuries and have rather gone to the extent of exonerating the accused completely. He has further argued that bridegroom i.e. PW5 Sandeep was in the best position to see as to what was happening in front of him and he too has claimed that when accused had come towards him and wished him and was shaking hands with him, all of a sudden, there was a stampede due to air- fire made by the 'baraatis' and thereby his uncle Ranbir Singh had received injuries. He has contended that no witness has stated that accused Jasbir Chauhan was armed with pistol much less that he had fired or used the same.
19 He has contended that IO himself had stated before the Court that the piece of bullet was deformed and, therefore, it was not sent to obtain any opinion from FSL and in such a factual background, the subsequent opinion of FSL is hardly of any consequence. He has also claimed that the contradictory versions are appearing on record and it is not clear whether the pistol in question was improvised or a standard pistol. He has also asserted that even otherwise, the second report of FSL given by Sh. Puneet Puri is hardly of any substance as in FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 5 of 16 his cross examination, he has virtually admitted that there were marked differences in the lands and grooves which fact was sufficient to create a doubt whether such piece of bullet could have been fired from the alleged pistol of accused.
20 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record. I have seen the testimony of various public witnesses, who were part of the marriage procession. They all have not supported the case of the prosecution. They are as under:
1. PW3 Karambir : brother of deceased
2. PW5 Sandeep : groom himself
3. PW6 Raj Singh : father of groom
4. PW8 Satbir : friend of groom
5. PW9 Rakesh @ Ramlu : -do-
6. PW10 Pramod : -do-
7. PW11 Sonu @ Rajesh : Co-villager
8. PW12 Sanjeev Kumar : -do-
9. PW13 Dharambir : -do-
10. PW14 Bijender : -do-
11. PW16 Pradeep : -do-
12. PW17 Bhim Singh : -do-
13. PW19 Sheetal : -do-
14. PW20 Mohd. Shamim : -do-
15. PW21 Chetan : -do-
21 As per testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses, they had not seen the accused armed with any pistol. None of them claimed that accused was responsible for the incident in question or that it was because of the gunshot fired by him that Ranbir had sustained injuries. They all were declared hostile and were cross examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court but they remained adamant to their such stand and did not whisper even a single word against the accused.
22 On the contrary, most of them have claimed that there were many 'baraatis', who were firing in the air with their respective weapons due to which Ranbir Singh had sustained bullet injuries. None of them dared to say that such gunshot had been fired by the accused. Or should I say that none of them dared to reveal the truth?
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 6 of 1623 Needless to state that somersault taken by all the eye-witnesses has given a jolt to the case of the prosecution.
24 However, fortunately, everything is not yet over for prosecution.
25 Admittedly, the accused was having a license to possess firearm and was having a firearm also.
26 Reference be made to the testimony of PW23 Sh. Devender Kumar Dhawan. He is proprietor of A.C. Dhawan Gun House and was authorized dealer of arms and ammunition. He deposed that on 06/02/2012, police had come to him and made inquiries about one .380 bore pistol make Llama bearing No. 70207 and he checked up his record and told the police that said weapon had been sold by him to accused on 14/08/2005. He had also issued a cash receipt to Jasbir Chauhan at the time of sale of said weapon. He also identified accused Jasbir Chauhan during trial as the same person who had purchased said pistol from his shop on 14/08/2005. Accused had also been granted license. PW23 Sh. Devender Kumar Dhawan furnished the requisite documents to police vide letter Ex. PW23/A which includes the cash receipt and also the license for transport of arm or ammunition.
27 The firearm has been described as .380 bore pistol make Llama No. 70207. License has also been duly proved as Ex. P-9. It seems to me that there is no dispute with respect to the aforesaid fact as even the accused has, in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., did not dispute the documents proved by PW23 Mr. Devender Kumar Dhawan. Reference be made to his answers in response to questions No. 32 to 33A.
28 Thus, one thing is very clear that accused was the holder of such pistol of .380 bore and was having a license to possess the same. He himself had submitted the license and the pistol to the police during investigation. Such fact is also not challenged.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 7 of 1629 Now, it is to be seen whether prosecution has been able to establish that on the date of incident, accused was possessing such pistol and was part of the marriage procession and had used the pistol during the marriage procession or not. It is also simultaneously required to be seen whether there is any evidence which can suggest that the piece of bullet in question had been fired from the same pistol or not.
30 I have already noticed that the public witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. None of them, except for the bridegroom, have claimed that accused Jasbir Chauhan was in the marriage procession much less that he was possessing or firing with the pistol. Luckily, Sandeep, the bridegroom admitted that accused was part of his marriage procession.
31 The marriage procession in question was captured on video by photographer and it would be, therefore, useful to see the testimony of such photographer.
32 PW4 Mushtaq Ali deposed that he had done the videography of the marriage ceremony of Sandeep son of Raj Singh on 21/01/2012 and the 'Baraat' had reached Nathupura and he had also accompanied the marriage party for videography of the marriage ceremony. He further deposed that Sandeep was riding on a horse and during the marriage procession, public persons were dancing and some of them were having guns and pistols and such persons, who were having guns and pistols, were also opening fire. He further deposed that thereafter, there was a stampede and he came to know that one Ranbir had sustained injuries due to fire who was taken to hospital and he later on learnt that he had expired. He further deposed that after the incident, the remaining marriage ceremony was performed and he prepared the videography of 'phera ceremony' also.
33 He prepared two cassettes in all and on 22/01/2012, Inspector Ranbir Singh, SHO PS Swaroop Nagar had demanded those cassettes from him and he handed over such cassettes to the police which were seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW4/A. Those cassettes were also shown to him and he identified the FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 8 of 16 same as Ex. P1 and Ex.P2.
34 There is no challenge to the genuineness of the cassettes as defence did not put any question challenging the authenticity of the same. No objection was taken when the cassettes were exhibited. If prosecution did not play those during the trial, defence also did not venture into this direction. It also did not make any request that such cassettes be played. It perhaps knew for sure that such move would have back-fired. Be that as it may, when prosecution got these cassettes exhibited, defence did not raise any objection and therefore, impliedly, it does not dispute the contents thereof either.
35 These cassettes contain the unedited version. These are, therefore, the original cassettes and since the originals have been produced before the Court, there is no requirement of having any certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Reference be also made to Anvar V.P.K. Basheer (Civil Appeal 4226 of 2012; Date of Decision 18.09.2014) wherein it has been held that if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Here, as already noted above, the original cassettes have been seized and are part of case property. A CD was also prepared by police and the crucial moments have been highlighted in slow motion. Such act on the part of investigating agency was least warranted. CD should have been also in the same condition, frame by frame. There was no justification in having those last crucial moments in slow motion. Fortunately, those two cassettes are untempered and in the same original condition.
36 Moreover, these cassettes were also sent to FSL in order to find out whether there was any tampering or editing with the same or not and as per such FSL report, there is no indication of alteration therein. Such report is per se admissible u/s. 293 Cr.P.C. and defence never requested for summoning said witness for cross-examination.
37 Cassettes and the CD prepared therefrom were played during the course of final arguments in the presence of accused, defence counsel and FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 9 of 16 prosecutor and the last frames are very decisive which clearly indicate that accused Jasbir Chauhan was having pistol and he also fired with the same during the marriage procession. In fact, since said cassettes and CD were not played during the trial, this Court invoked its power u/s. 165 of Indian Evidence Act in order to find out the truth and put questions to accused. In response, accused admitted that he had attended the marriage and he also admitted that he had fired but supplemented that he had fired only once and such fire was in air only.
38 Such electronic evidence is of impeccable nature and can be considered by the Court. It really does not matter much whether material prosecution witnesses, who were part of the marriage procession, have deviated from the original stand and have not spoken in favour of prosecution. I strongly feel that when all such public witnesses were declared hostile and were cross- examined by the prosecution, this crucial piece of electronic evidence should have been played before them and then their responses should have been recorded. They all dared to hold back the truth for reasons best known to them. That, however, would not mean that court has no option but to shut its eyes to such manifest and critical piece of evidence which rather takes us to the past and at the spot itself and recreates the actual occurrence.
39 As already noted above, the concerned photographer has proved the aforesaid cassettes and defence did not dispute the aforesaid exhibition of cassettes as Ex. P-1 & Ex. P-2. Such photographer Sh. Mushtaq Ali may not be personally knowing who was the actual culprit but then since he was involved with the videography, whatever he captured was preserved by him and was eventually seized by the police and such video-evidence clearly indicates that accused was in possession of a firearm which he even used during the marriage procession. Such user was naturally not in consonance with the terms & conditions of the licence EX P-9. He had no business to even display the same without good faith. Here, he rather displays the same in the middle of marriage procession and uses the same also. Therefore, he is definitely liable for violation of the conditions mentioned in license itself and is held guilty under Section 30 of Arms Act.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 10 of 1640 Now comes the most challenging aspect. Whether Ranbir Singh died because of such shot fired by accused?
41 It has been again argued by Sh. Bharti that almost all the baraatis have claimed that many other persons in marriage procession were firing in air and, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that death has taken place due to the alleged gunshot fired by none other the accused. Sh. Jindal re-asserts that such footage, if seen very minutely, would reveal that accused had fired two shots. First shot which was at shoulder level must have been the one which eventually proved fatal and the second one was mere air-shot.
42 I have seen the video-footage very painstakingly and minutely. A very close scrutiny of the video footage would reveal that accused had , in fact, fired two shots. First shot was at shoulder level. Sound of fire can be heard in background and the expression of accused also says it all. It is evident that he had fired first shot at shoulder level as he is, at that particular moment also, found closing his eyes which is nothing but a normal human reaction when anyone pulls trigger. Second shot is in the air. Same type of gunshot sound is again heard. As already noticed above, the cassettes were played during the final arguments. Defence counsel has re-stressed that only one shot was fired, even as per the video footage and same is in the air and he claims that there is no fire at shoulder level at all. He has also contended that even the cassettes are edited and do not contain the full coverage.
43 Certainly, no witness has said about any such thing related to two shots. Curiously, this was not whispered even by I.O. during his deposition. I feel that all these baraatis have held back the truth because of some tacit sympathetic approach towards the accused. They must have started thinking that they had already lost one member of the marriage procession and since the act in question did not seem to them to be a deliberate one, why to lose another? Such misplaced self-styled exoneration was neither justified nor lawful.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 11 of 1644 Let me also see the testimony of concerned doctor who had conducted the postmortem.
45 PW28 Dr. Bhim Singh has proved the postmortem report as Ex. PW28/A and according to him cause of death was cranio-cereberal damage consequent upon firearm injury which was ante-mortem and fresh in duration and caused by bullet from 'near range'.
46 Term 'near range' is very significant.
47 In cross-examination, defence got it further clarified and PW28 Dr. Bhim Singh claimed that distance of fire may be about 2-3 feet.
48 I was again prompted to see the video-footage. I would like to highlight the expression of the person standing with the accused. His facial expression and body language lay bare that he could sense that first bullet had done something terribly wrong. He is not seen in the mood of jubilation any more. He, with worried looks, puts his hand over the shoulder of accused and then sees towards the pistol with stunned expressions.
49 That, however, is the last frame as the video abruptly ended there itself. Prosecution did not grill the photographer on this issue. Such video was also not played before the allege eyewitnesses either. I though feel that some subsequent portion might have also been captured by the videographer but fact remains that such footage is not available. There is no explanation by the prosecution as to where is such later video-footage? Whether it was recorded at all or not or has it been held back deliberately? Or, in worst scenario, was there any editing? Investigating agency has no answer at all. Even the concerned photographer has not been asked to throw any light on this vital issue.
50 Nonetheless, the available video-footage would not lose its sanctity and value. Since the angle of video was such that it could have recorded happenings in front of lens only, it was not possible to have the opposite frame showing deceased getting hit. When these cassettes were exhibited by the FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 12 of 16 concerned photographer, the defence did not raise any objection and now it is too late to claim that these cassettes are edited cassettes or the contents have been tampered with.
51 At least, all the baraatis have claimed that deceased was also in procession and he got killed during such procession by gun-shot only. Thus, even if we don't have that frame which depicts anyone getting hurt within 2-3 feet radius of accused that itself would not mean that no-one was hurt due to the first shot. It was at shoulder height. Moreover, the entry point of bullet as per medical report is completely in synchronization with the theory of first shot released from shoulder height.
52 Let me now see the ballistic evidence.
53 As I have already noticed above, such forensic expert came into witness box pursuant to the request made by defence. Defence had prayed that the bullet allegedly recovered from the body of the deceased and the alleged firearm of accused be sent to laboratory for comparison. Prosecution gave its no objection and ballistic report was accordingly given by Sh. Puneet Puri. He was permitted to be examined as prosecution witness and in his deposition, he categorically claimed that piece of bullet i.e. metallic piece Ex. EBR1 was part of bullet of 9mm cartridge and had been discharged through the pistol Ex. F1 as the individual characteristics of rifling marks present on said metallic piece and also on the test fired bullets were identical when examined under the forensic microscope.
54 Several things need to be noted right here. Firstly, as per defence those test-fired bullets TB1 & TB2 have not produced before the Court. Sh. Bharti has also argued that police had also sent five cartridges for the purposes of test firing but despite that PW31 Sh. Puri took the test bullets from the stock of FSL and did not use those sent by police. It has been also claimed that examination was done by Mr. Puri under the comparison microscope and, therefore, he should have taken some photographs through said microscope in order to demonstrate before the court that the rifling marks were identical.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 13 of 16Finally, according to defence counsel, these rifling marks do not match at all.
55 At the very outset, I would like to remind the defence that for all practical purposes, Mr. Puri came into witness box on the basis of application moved by defence only. Though, Mr. Puri was permitted to be examined as prosecution witness, he is in witness box, courtesy defence. Sh. Bharti is now trying to disown him as he has given report which naturally does not find favour with him.
56 To me, it really does not matter whether Mr. Puri is a prosecution witness, defence witness or a court witness. He being a forensic expert, one is to focus on the contents of his report which is per se admissible in evidence and he can be called, on request, for cross examination.
57 Mr. Puri, in his cross-examination, volunteered that those five cartridges, which had been sent by police, did not perfectly fit within the chamber of the pistol and, therefore, he had to take test bullets from FSL stock. It would have certainly better, if he had clearly mentioned the same in his report Ex. PW31/A. However, omission on this score cannot be said to be fatal. Though there was provision of taking picture during comparison microscope yet these were not taken. Sh. Puri has deposed that three dimensional visuals would have given better result as compared to two dimensional pictures. Certainly, these photographs, if taken might have been handy but lapse in this regard is not fatal at all.
58 Modern pistols, revolvers, rifles have what are called rifling in their barrels. Rifling consists of grooves cut or formed in a spiral nature, lengthwise down the barrel of a firearm. Rifling is placed in the barrels of firearms to impart a spin on the bullets that pass through it. Because bullets are oblong objects, they must spin in their flight, like a thrown football, to be accurate. Firearms can be manufactured with any number of lands and grooves in their barrels. The lands are the raised areas between two grooves. They can also spiral either left or right. Whenever, any bullet is fired through the barrel of any such firearm, it leaves the impression of such lands and grooves on such bullet. Therefore, FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 14 of 16 another bullet is fired through such gun by forensic expert to compare the rifling marks.
59 As per the report of Sh. Puri, rifling marks were identical on the bullet in question and on the test-fired bullets. In his cross-examination, he did admit that pistol in question had six land and grooves but the metallic piece Ex. EBR1 had four visible land and grooves when the same were examined under the comparison microscope. When it was suggested that in view of the aforesaid difference, said bullet could not have been fired from said pistol, he claimed that since the bullet examined by him was only a metallic piece which was part only, he found four land and grooves. I have also seen such metallic remnant of bullet. I also feel that because the entire bullet was not available, Mr. Puri could give his report on the basis of what he actually saw. His version rater seems truthful. In such a peculiar backdrop, defence cannot be permitted to dig any advantage from such inconsequential differences in number of lands and grooves which, according to me, stand answered satisfactorily.
60 According to Sh. Bharti, strangely, forensic experts are not sure about the type of pistol in question. One claims it to be an improvised pistol and the other claims it to be a standard pistol.
61 It's Llama- a Spanish pistol. As per report Ex PW 25/A of PW 25 Dr. M.P. Waghmare, it's stated to be an improvised one. However, PW31 Mr Puri claimed in witness box that it was a standard pistol. Curiously, they both were also shown the same pistol EX P-8 during trial and they both identified the same as well. Since their report is about the same pistol, it relay does not matter much as to why one says it improvised and other a standard pistol?
62 Upshot of my aforesaid discussion is that it's abundantly clear that such bullet Ex P-7( Ex EBR-1) was fired by the pistol Ex P-8 ( Ex F-1) held by accused and accused only. Many other alleged eyewitness have tried to spoil the case by deposing that many other baraatis were also firing in air but a thorough playing of cassettes and CD tells a different tale. No one else is found in possession of any firearm- much less firing with the same. Moreover, FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 15 of 16 accused, being a friend of groom could have shown any other video suggesting that there were many others who were holding guns and firing as well. Nothing of that sort has been done by him. He, astonishingly, point blank denies even attending the marriage if his detailed statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is seen. Mercifully, in his supplementary statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., when the video footage was shown to him, he admitted that he had attended the marriage.
63 Indisputably, as already noticed above, though the material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile yet clinching ballistic evidence leaves no doubt in my mind that it was accused and accused only who was responsible for the incident in question. In this regard, I would also like to make reference to one judgment of our own High Court cited as State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta (2010) 168 DLT 139 wherein also the facts were virtually identical. All the eyewitnesses had turned hostile therein as well but the scientific evidence clearly indicated that the cartridge had been fired from the pistol of the accused and he was accordingly held guilty for offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
64 Such act of firing by accused was not evidently intentional but he certainly had knowledge that he was holding a dangerous weapon. It was loaded one. He was not firing in any deserted place. It was rather a marriage procession and he was virtually in the centre of same. He had clear-cut awareness about the possible consequences of his such act. He knew that such likely consequence included death of anyone including a fellow-baraati. Thus he has committed an offence of culpable homicide within the meaning of Section 299 and punishable under Section 304 part II IPC.
65 I, therefore, hold him guilty for offences under Section 30 of Arms Act and u/s 304 part II IPC convict him thereunder.
Announced in the open Court On this 21st day of February, 2015.
(MANOJ JAIN) Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) North-West District, Rohini: Delhi FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 16 of 16 FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar U/s 304 IPC StateVs. Jasbir Chauhan Tuesday, February 24 2015 Present: Sh. Sanjay Jindal, learned Addl. P.P. for State.
Convict in person with counsel Sh. Vikas K. Bharti.
1 Indian weddings are globally known as 'Big Fat Weddings'. Question is- whether it's to be taken as compliment.
2 India has largest number of hungry people in the world. Starvation is also Killer No.1 in India. It's really surprising as to why our thinkers and policy makers don't ponder over it? Why can't we have Guest Control Order? Why can't we have 'One-dish Rule' for such gatherings? At least, this small thing we need to emulate from our neighbour country situated in the west.
3 If the Colossal food wastage and money pumped in for pure show off was not enough, we have another menace.
4 Firing with Guns and Pistols during marriage procession. It has become a sort of fashion. If this is happening in capital city, it will be certainly in a larger proportion in rural or remote areas. This is proving to be killer for innocent fellow-baraatis and even on-lookers. It's high time that government tightens the procedure for grant of arm-license and also devolves a robust mechanism to ensure that these licenses are not misused.
5 Heard arguments on sentence.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 17 of 166 Learned Addl. P.P. has stated that convict does not deserve any leniency as because of his act, a precious life is lost and as per the report of investigating agency, his wife, two minor children and aged parents are barely able to make their both ends meet. According to him, there is no one else in the family who is earning and, therefore, even otherwise, besides the substantive sentence, convict should be burdened with heavy fine.
7 Sh. Bharti has reiterated that alleged act of the convict was not intentional and he is ready to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs and, therefore, he may be permitted to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount and may be let off with the period already undergone by him. I am told that he has already remained behind the bars for a period of more than two months.
8 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.
9 Convict is reportedly 35 years of age. His family consists of his aged parents, brother, his wife and two children. His parents are reportedly suffering from cancer for last more than three years. Convict is managing a automobile service station at Rang Puri. I am told that he has no previous bad antecedents and this happens to be his first case.
10 Undoubtedly, the act was not intentional but convict had knowledge that because of his such dangerous act, there was every likelihood of anyone getting fatal injuries.
11 Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and taking stock of all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I hereby sentence convict to undergo RI for a period of 25 months for offence under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC and simultaneously while invoking power contained under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C., I also order that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lacs in the Court as compensation.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 18 of 1612 Convict is also sentenced to undergo SI for a period six months for offence under Section 30 of Arms Act. Both the sentences would, however, run concurrently.
13 Firearm in question is impounded and a copy of the judgment and order on sentence be also sent to such Licensing Authority for taking appropriate action in the matter.
14 Convict is granted one month's time to deposit such compensation amount. If such compensation amount is deposited, same may be disbursed to Ms. Geeta, wife of deceased. This order would be, however, subject to outcome of appeal, if any.
15 In case the compensation is not paid/deposited, the convict would further undergo SI for a period of one year in view of provisions contained in Section 421 r/w Section 431 Cr.P.C.
16 Convict be sent to jail under appropriate warrants.
17 Needless to say that convict would be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
18 A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to convict free of cost.
19 Case property, if any, be destroyed as per Rules after expiry of period of appeal or as per the outcome of appeal, if any.
FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 19 of 1620 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on this 24th day of February 2015. (MANOJ JAIN) Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) North-West Distt: Rohini: Delhi FIR No. 12/12 PS Swaroop Nagar Page 20 of 16