Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay @ Nav Rattan on 15 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST:
KARKARDOOMA:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 75/2016
CNR No. DLNE01-001906-2016
FIR No.: 35/2016
P.S. Gokalpuri
U/S: 307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act
STATE
Versus
(1) Sanjay @ Nav Rattan
s/o Sh. Jagdish
r/o H. No. E-73/B-94, Sanjay Colony,
Gokalpuri, Delhi-110006
(2) Sanjay @ Kallu
s/o Sh. Padam Singh
r/o H. No. E-73/A-181, Sanjay Colony,
Gokalpuri, Delhi-110006
(3) Sajid
s/o Sh. Liyakat Ali
r/o H. No. E-73/B-271, Sanjay Colony,
Gokalpuri, Delhi-110006
(4) Nanhey
s/o Sh. Bhura
r/o H. No. E-73/B-95, Sanjay Colony,
Gokalpuri, Delhi-110006
Date of Institution : 11-05-2016
Date of Argument : 04-12-2023
Date of Judgment : 15-01-2024
JUDGMENT
FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 1 of 31
1. The brief facts of this case are that on 13-01-2016 at about 12:18 am, an information was received through Wireless Operator at PS Gokalpuri that one Rinku s/o Ram Sewak resident of Jhuggi no. E-73/A-237, New Sanjay Colony, Gokalpuri, New Delhi came running towards Police Station at about 11:40 am, who had sustained gun shot injury and had been got admitted at GTB hospital by some B-31 officer. The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 4B (Ex. PW1/D) and marked to SI Habib Ahmad (hereinafter referred to as Investigating Officer/ IO). Prior to that at about 12:10 am, another information was received that one Rinku s/o Ram Sewak was got admitted in GTB hospital by Ct. Nikesh as the victim had received gun shot in front of school building, Gokalpuri, which was reduced into writing vide DD no. 3A (Ex. PW1/C). IO SI Habib Ahmad reached at GTB hospital and collected MLC of injured wherein he was declared fit to make statement by the doctor. The injured Rinku stated that he was residing at jhuggi no. E-73/A-237, Sanjay Colony, Gokalpuri, Delhi along with his family and used to run taxi. On 13-01-2016 on the occasion of death anniversary of his father, he was present near school building. One Sanjay @ Kallu, Sajid, Nav Rattan, and Nanhey (accused persons herein) were also present besides him and they were arguing with him. The accused persons caught hold of him, accused Nav Rattan had fired upon his chest and at the same time, accused Sajid had fired on his left shoulder. He fell down and tried to run away from the spot but accused Sanjay @ Kallu and Nanhey caught hold of him. When he raised alarm, all the assailants fled from the spot. Thereafter, he himself went to police station from where he was taken to GTB hospital in a police vehicle and got admitted.
FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 2 of 31Thereafter, IO along with Ct. Nikesh reached at the spot where they noticed one fired cartridge case, which was lifted and stored in a matchbox, wrapped in a white colour cloth and thereafter, they prepared a sealed pulanda with the seal of HAK. The spot was got inspected by Crime Team. On the basis of statement of complainant and surrounded circumstances, the present FIR was registered u/s 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act. Accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and Sanjay @ Kallu were arrested in the present case and one desi katta was recovered from each accused persons. Complainant Rinku was referred to AIIMS Trauma Center where on 23-01-2016, two bullet leads were removed from his body during operation. The exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini. NBWs were got issued against absconding accused Sajid and Nanhey. After completion of necessary formalities, charge- sheet was initially filed against accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and Sanjay @ Kallu in the Court of Ld. Ilaqa MM.
Subsequently, the accused Gulfam @ Sajid and Gullu @ Nanhey were arrested and supplementary chargesheet against them was filed. In the month of December 2017, ballistic expert opinion, sanction u/s 39 of Arms Act against accused Sanjay @ Kallu and Sanjay @ Nav Rattan were also filed.
COMMITTAL
2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of Sessions by the order of Ld. CMM/NE/KKD vide order dated 02-05-2016 against accused Sanjay @ Kallu and Sanjay @ Nav Rattan. The case against remaining two accused i.e. Gullu @ Nanhe and Gulfam @ Sajid were committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 20-12-2016. The same was allocated by the then Ld. FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 3 of 31 District and Sessions Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. CHARGE
3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie case was made out against all the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 of IPC; u/s 27 of Arms Act against accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and Gulfam @ Sajid. Charges were framed against them vide order dated 26-05-2016. Later on, charges were framed against accused Gulfam @ Sajid and Gullu @ Nanhey vide order dated 02-01-2017 for offence punishable u/s 307/34 of IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act. Additional charge u/s 25 of Arms Act was framed on 25-09-2023 against accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and accused Sanjay @ Kallu. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution got examined as many as 12 witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. (i) PW1 ASI Inder Pal Singh deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13-01-2016, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Gokalpuri. On 13-01-2016, at about 2:45 am, Ct. Nikesh brought a rukka sent by SI Habib vide Ex. PW1/A for registration of FIR. He made endorsement Ex. PW1/A-1 on the rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Nikhil vide Ex. PW1/B. He recorded DD no. 3A dated 13-01-2016 regarding admission of injured Rinku at GTB Hospital vide Ex. PW1/C. He recorded DD no. 4B vide Ex. PW1/D. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.
(ii) PW2 Chhotan @ Rinku is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that he is a TSR driver. On 12.01.2016, at about 10-11 P.M., he left his house to go to the shop of Satish FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 4 of 31 tentwala at Gokul Puri. When he reached near building wala school, Gokul Puri, Nav Rattan @ Sanjay, Sajid, Nanhe and their 3-4 associates were standing near the toilet on the end of wall of buildingwala school. Aforesaid three accused persons and their associates were having pistols in their hands. Accused Nav Rattan @ Sanjay, Sajid and Nanhe were known to him being residents of same colony. Accused Nav Rattan fired on him which caused injury on his chest. After hitting first fire, he tried to run from the spot but fell down on the road and accused Nanhe caught him. In the meanwhile, accused Sajid reached there, who hit second bullet on his armpit from behind. He ran towards Police Station to save himself. All the accused and their associates ran away after causing bullet injuries to him thereby firing in air. One auto driver saw him in injured condition and made him sit inside his auto for a while and took him to PS but he left him about 15-20 steps prior to P.S. He went inside the room of SHO, who inquired him about the incident and cause of injury and he immediately removed him to hospital by Govt. vehicle where he was hospitalized. His statement was recorded in hospital soon after hospitalization vide Ex. PW2/A. He remained hospitalized in GTB hospital for about one week but his bullet could not be extracted. After one week, he was referred to Trauma Center where he was operated and his bullet was removed after 13 days. He remained hospitalized for one month in Trauma Center. He deposed that at the time of incident, he was wearing white colour half sleeve T-shirt which was seized by the Police in GTB hospital.
In his deposition dated 06-01-2018, PW2 deposed that he could identify the weapon which had been used by the assailants FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 5 of 31 to cause injury to him. He volunteered that 7-8 assailants had attacked upon him at about 11.00 p.m. on 12-01-2016 near the Buildingwala School, Gokalpuri, Delhi. All the assailants were covering their faces with piece of cloth (rumal).
He deposed that accused persons present in the court in dock namely, Sanjay @ Navrattan, Sanjay @ Kallu, Sajid and Nanhe are known to him being residents of the locality and they were not the assailants and they had not caused injuries to him on 12.01.2016. He was not aware by whom fired injury was caused on his chest on 12.01.2016. As soon as he sustained bullet injury, he had fallen down on the road near Buildingwala School, Gokalpuri. He was in semi-conscious state and rushed towards PS Gokalpuri. He had reported the matter to one police official that 7-8 persons who were covering their faces with piece of cloth had caused injuries to him. When he was running towards PS Gokalpuri, someone had again fired at him and he sustained injuries on his backside of left shoulder. Police officials of PS Gokalpuri took him to GTB hospital and he was got admitted there. He remained in GTB hospital for one week. Thereafter, he was referred to AIIMS, Trauma Centre for further examination, where one bullet lead (sikka) was taken out from his body.
PW2 further deposed that in the morning of 13-01-2016, SI Habib Ahmed had met him in GTB hospital and recorded his statement. He did not know other facts of this case.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and during cross-examination, he affirmed that police had recorded his two statements i.e. on 13.01.2016. The statement Ex. PW2/A was shown to the witness and he admitted his signatures at point A. He denied the suggestion that he was FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 6 of 31 intentionally not supporting the prosecution case by taking turn in favour of accused persons in order to save them as he was won over by the accused persons. He denied that he has created a new story before court that 7-8 other persons who were in muffled face had caused injuries to him. He denied the suggestion that accused persons present in court namely Sanjay @ Navrattan, Sanjay @ Kallu, Sajid and Nanhe had caused injuries to him at about 11 pm on 12-01-2016 near Buildingwala School, Gokalpuri with an intention to kill him. He denied that he was intentionally not identifying aforesaid four accused present in court as assailants. He denied that accused persons had been named by him as assailants to police in his statement Ex.PW2/A. He denied that accused persons present in court had met him at the spot at about 11 p.m. on 12.01.2016 or that they had argued with him or that they had caught hold him or that accused Navrattan had fired at him or that he caused injuries on his chest or that accused Sajid also fired at him or that he caused injuries on his shoulder as stated by him in his statement to SI Habib Ahmed. He denied that accused Sanjay @ Kallu and accused Nanhe, both present in court had caught hold of him at the spot or that aforesaid four accused persons ran away after causing injuries to him on being raised alarm by him as stated by him to police in his statement. He denied that four accused persons present in court had given beatings to him as stated by him to police in his supplementary statement dt. 13.01.2016. He denied that he had disclosed name of accused persons present in court as Navrattan, Sajid, Sanjay @ Kallu and Nanhe as assailants to the police in his supplementary statement.
He affirmed that he had deposed partly in court on FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 7 of 31 23.03.2017. He volunteered that aforesaid part statement had been given by him at the instance of police officials who had met him outside the court. He did not know his name and he was not able to identify that police official. He denied that he had given his statement before court on 23.03.2017 voluntarily. He affirmed that he had disclosed name of three assailants as Navratlan @ Sanjay, Sajid and Nanhe in his statement before court on 23.03.2017 and he had deposed before court that they had caused injuries to him with their 3-4 associates at a place near Toilet on the end of wall of Buildingwala School, Gokalpuri, Delhi. He denied that he was intentionally taking turn in favour of accused persons in order to save them or that he was not intentionally identifying all four accused as assailants. He denied that he has settled the matter with the accused outside the court.
He deposed that he can identify the weapon which had been used by the assailants to cause injury to him, if same is shown to him. Two country made pistols Ex. P-1 and P-2 were shown to the witness and on seeing the same, the witness submitted that these were not the same country made pistols which had been used by the assailants to cause injuries to him.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and he affirmed that he has deposed before the court voluntarily, without any force or pressure from any side.
(iii) PW-3 Dr. Saurabh Uniyal, CMO, GTB hospital deposed that on 13-01-2016, injured Rinku, 28 years male was brought by Ct. Nikesh with alleged history of firearm injury at Gokalpuri near Building wala School at around 11 pm on 12-01-2016, as stated by patient himself. The injured was examined by him. Smell of alcohol was present. The patient was conscious and FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 8 of 31 oriented and vitals were stable. On local examination, following injuries were noted:
(a) entry wound present over sternum of about .5 x .5 cm about 6 cm above xiphisternum and 5-6 cm away from right nipple.
(b) entry wound present over posterior axillary line of about .5 x .5 cm about 8-9 cm below shoulder (coraco-acromial joint).
Blackening and tattooing were present over both entry wounds. Singing of hair over chest entry wound present. No exit wound present.
Following samples sealed and handed over to Ct. Nikesh with sample seal:
Two wound swabs; one control swab; one T-shirt and baniyan (vest).
After giving first aid, injured was referred to surgery emergency for further management.
He exhibited the photocopy of MLC as Ex. PW3/A. The witness was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.
(iv) PW4 Ct. Jasbir deposed that on 23-01-2016, he was on duty as Duty Constable at PP AIIMS Trauma Center. On that day, one sealed parcel containing two leads (bullets) were delivered to him by the doctor along with sample seal which had been taken out from the body of injured Rinku during operation.
He delivered the same to SI Habib Ahmad and he prepared seizure memo vide Ex. PW4/A. The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.
(v) PW5 HC Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 13-01-2016, he joined investigation of present case with SI Habib Ahmad and FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 9 of 31 Ct. Nikesh. They along with Beat Officer left the PS in search of accused persons and reached at the house of accuse Sanjay @ Nav Rattan at jhuggi no. E-73/B94, Sanjay Colony, Gokalpuri, Delhi at about 10 am. The accused was sitting at his house along with co-accused Sanjay @ Kallu. The Beat Officer identified both accused and IO SI Habib arrested accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan vide Ex. PW5/A1 and Ex. PW5/A2 and accused Sanjay @ Kallu was arrested vide Ex. PW5/B1 and Ex. PW5/B2. Disclosure statements of accused persons was recorded vide Ex. PW5/C and Ex. PW5/D. Both accused persons led them to the place of incident i.e. place near buildingwala school, Gokalpuri and pointed out the place. IO prepared joint pointing out memo at their instance vide Ex. PW5/E. Accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan brought a country made pistol from his room and produced the same to IO saying it was used in the crime. IO prepared sketch of country made pistol vide Ex. PW5/F-1. Its total length was 22 cm; length of barrel was 11.5 cm; length of body was 15 cm. The pistol was converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of HAK and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/F-2.
PW5 further deposed that accused Sanjay @ Kallu took out one country made pistol from right side dub of his wearing tracksuit saying it was used in the crime. IO prepared sketch of country made pistol vide Ex. PW5/G-1. Total length of pistol was 26.5 cm; length of barrel was 15 cm; length of body was 16 cm. The pistol was converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of HAK and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/G-2. After filling up the FSL form etc, they left the spot and reached the PS and both accused were put in lock up and case property was deposited with MHCM. He correctly identified both the FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 10 of 31 accused persons. He identified the country made pistol Ex. P-1 which was recovered from accused Sanjay @ Kallu and pistol Ex. P-2 which was recovered from accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.
(vi) PW6 Ct. Nikesh deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13-01-2016, he was on night emergency duty at PS. He has deposed more or less on the same lines as deposed by PW5 and PW10.
He also deposed that on 12-01-2016, at about 11 pm, one injured came at PS and informed that he has sustained bullet injury. He noticed that blood was oozing out from his chest and there was blood on his clothes. His name was revealed as Rinku. On the directions of SHO, he along with driver of of SHO took the injured to GTB hospital and got him admitted vide MLC Ex. PW3/A. Withing 30 minutes, SI Habib reached at GTB hospital and collected the MLC of injured Rinku. SI Habib recorded statement of Chhotan @ Rinku vide Ex. PW2/A and got the FIR registered through him. He delivered the rukka and copy of FIR to SI Habib at the spot. They inspected the spot and one empty fired cartridge case was found lying at the spot near the wall of Building wala school at a distance of about 100 meter from the main gate. It was lifted by the IO and converted the same into pulanda and sealed with the seal of HAK and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. After preparation of rukka, doctor had handed over three sealed parcels containing T-shirt of injured Rinku, chest wound swab and control swab along with sample seal which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B. FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 11 of 31 He identified accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and Sanjay @ Kallu. He also identified the country made pistol Ex. P-1 as recovered at the instance of accused Sanjay; another pistol Ex. P-2 which was recovered at the instance of accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan; one fired cartridge case Ex. P-3 which was lifted from the spot; and one T-shirt Ex. P-4 which was worn by injured at the time of incident.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that one fired cartridge case was found at the spot. Sealing and seizing of aforesaid fired cartridge case was completed by the IO and inspection of spot by crime team official. He denied the suggestion that no recovery of country made pistol was effected from any of the accused in his presence or that country made pistil was planted upon accused Sanjay @ Kallu and Sanjay @ Nav Rattan. He denied that accused Sanjay @ Kallu and Sanjay @ Nav Rattan were lifted from their houses or that both were falsely implicated in this case.
(vii) PW-7 Ct. Bijender deposed that on 12-08-2016, he joined investigation of present case with ASI Chajju Lal and made efforts to trace the accused Gullu @ Nanhe at his house but he was not found there. They reached near Gokalpuri flyover where secret informer disclosed that one accused of present case would come under the flyover. They took positions and at about 8 pm, one boy came from the side of Bhajanpura at main road, near Gokalpuri flyover. The accused was apprehended on the pointing out secret informer and his name was revealed as Gullu @ Nanhe. IO interrogated him and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A-1 and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/A-2. He correctly identified accused Gullu @ FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 12 of 31 Nanhe. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Gullu @ Nanhe vide Ex. PW7/B. Accused Gullu @ Nanhe led them at the place of incident and pointing memo Ex. PW7/C was prepared.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
(viii) PW8 ASI Chajju Lal is the second IO in the present case. He deposed that in the month of August 2016, he made search of two absconding accused persons namely Gulfam @ Sajid and Gullu @ Nanhe. The IO SI Habib Ahmad had submitted chargesheet against two accused persons namely Sanjay @ Navrattan and Sanjay @ Kullu and two accused persons were absconding. He made search of them here and there in Delhi but in vain till 11-08-2016. On 12-08-2016, he formally arrested accused Gulfam @ Sajid in present case and on that day, he was in custody in another case with SI Rajinder Dhama. He prepared arrest papers of accused Gulfam @ Sajid vide Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/A-1. He recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW8/B. He further deposed that in search of accused Gullu @ Nanhe, he along with Ct. Bijender reached at main market, Gokalpuri where accused Gullu @ Nanhe was arrested on the pointing out of secret informer. He prepared arrest papers of accused Gullu @ Nanhe vide Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/A2. He recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW7/B. Accused Gullu led them at the place of incident vide pointing out memo Ex. PW7/C. He completed supplementary chargesheet against both accused and sent to court for trial u/s 307/34 of IPC.
He further deposed that in the month of December 2017, he collected ballistic expert opinion dated 27-11-2017 Ex.
FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 13 of 31PW8/C and forwarding letter is Ex. PW8/D. He obtained sanction orders u/s 39 of Arms Act from Addl. DCP on 13-12- 2017 to prosecute accused Sanjay @ Kallu and Sanjay @ Nav Rattan for Arms Act vide Ex. PW8/E and Ex. PW8/F. The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.
(ix) PW9 ASI Ashok Kumar deposed that he was posted as MHCM at PS Gokalpuri at the relevant time. He brought register no. 19 and RC book and proved the relevant entries of register no. 19 and relevant RC vide Ex. PW9/A to Ex. PW9/D. He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.
(x) Sh. Rajender Prasad Meena, Addl. DCP has also been examined as PW9. He deposed that on 13-12-2017, he was on duty as Addl. DCP-1, NE, Delhi and on that day, IO ASI Chajju Lal had presented written request to get sanction order u/s 39 of Arms Act along with photocopy of chargesheet. The IO had also presented original ballistic report dated 27-11-20147. After going through the same, he accorded sanction u/s 39 of Arms Act to prosecute accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and accused Sanjay @ Kallu for Arms Act vide Ex. PW8/F and Ex. PW8/E. He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.
(xi) PW10 SI Habib Ahmed is the first IO of the present case. He deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13.01.2016, he was on night emergency duty at PS Gokal Puri. At about 12:15 am, on 13.01.2016, copy of DD No. 3A Ex. PW1/C was delivered to him to take action which was in connection of gun shot firing incident with Rinku at a place in front of buildingwala FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 14 of 31 school, Sanjay Colony, Gokal Puri, Delhi. Aforesaid DD entry was recorded on receiving information from GTB hospital. In the meantime, contents of DD No. 48 Ex. PW1/D were also passed on to him on phone that police official got admitted injured Rinku in GTB hospital. In pursuance of DD entries, he reached GTB hospital and collected MLC of injured Rinku Ex. PW3/A. He met injured who had been declared fit to make statement by the doctor on his MLC. He recorded statement of Chhotan @ Rinku S/o Ram Sewak Ex. PW2/A. Injured had named Navratan, Sajid, Sanjay@Kallu and Nanne saying that they had caused injuries to him with intention to kill. Whatsoever, injured told to him about the incident, same was recorded in his aforesaid statement. Ct. Nikesh met him in the hospital with Rinku who had told him that he got injured admitted in GTB hospital. He along with Ct. Nikesh visited the spot i.e. place near Building Wala School, Gokal Puri, Delhi and inspected the same. During inspection, one fired cartridge case was found lying at the spot. Crime team officials were called at the spot. They came and inspected the same. Neither photographs nor SOC report is on file as per main charge-sheet. He lifted fired cartridge case from the spot and converted in a parcel which was sealed with the seal of HAK and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. At the spot, he prepared endorsement Ex. PW1/A to get registered FIR for offence u/s. 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Rukka was sent to PS from the spot at about 2:30 am on 13.01.2016 through Ct. Nikesh. He prepared unscaled site plan as Ex.PW10/A. He made efforts in search of assailants as well as to recover the weapon of offence but no clue come forward on that night. In the meantime, Ct. Nikesh came and delivered rukka FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 15 of 31 Ex.PW1/A and copy of FIR Ex. PWIB to him for investigation. He mentioned FIR number on the aforesaid site plan. In meantime, Ct. Nikesh had delivered four sealed parcels containing shirt of injured, wound swab, wound swab, control swab with sample seal to him which had been received by him from the hospital. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B. They left the spot and reached GTB hospital. He interrogated injured and recorded his supplementary statement therein he had disclosed parentage and residential addresses of all named accused persons as Ex. PW2/D. They reached at PS. HC Ramesh met them there. He joined investigation being beat constable of the area of the accused persons. They all three left the PS and made search of named accused persons in the area of Sanjay Colony, Gokal Puri. During search, they reached at the house of accused Sanjay Navratan at E-73/B-94, Sanjay Colony, Delhi. There accused Sanjay @ Navrata and Sanjay @ Kallu were found present. HC Ramesh Kumar being beat Head Constable identified both the aforesaid accused persons as they were earlier known to him. He arrested both the accused persons one by one and prepared their arrest papers vide Ex. PW5/A-1, PW5/A-2 of accused Sanjay Navratan, Ex.PW5/B-1 and Ex.PW5/B-2 of accused Sanjay @ Kallu. He recorded disclosure statements of both the accused persons vide Ex. PW5/C and Ex. PW5/D respectively. Both the accused persons had accepted their involvement in the incident of present case and they had also disclosed name of their associates Sajid and Nanne. Accused Sanjay @ Navratan had produced one country-made pistol before him at the time of his arrest saying that it was used by him in crime. He seized the same after taking measurement, FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 16 of 31 preparing its sketch Ex.PW5/F-1, after converting in a cloth parcel and sealing with seal of HAK vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/F-2. He had taken search of accused Sanjay @ Kallu. One country-made pistol was found from the right side pocket of his lower. Same was taken into possession by him as it was told by him that same was used by him in crime. He seized the same after taking measurement, preparing its sketch Ex.PW5/G-1, after converting in a cloth parcel and sealing with seal of HAK vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/G-2. Both the accused persons led them at place of incident and pointed out the same vide joint pointing out memo Ex. PW5/E. He recorded statement of HC Ramesh Kumar and Ct. Nikesh. Thereafter, they reached at PS. He put both the accused persons in lock up and deposited all the seized parcels containing exhibits and recovered country-made pistols to the MHC(M).
He further deposed that on 13.01.2016, he had deposited two sealed parcels containing country made pistol with sample seal and FSL form etc. to MHC(M). He had also put the accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and Sanjay @ Kallu in the lock before PS. On the same day, both the accused were produced before concerned court and from there, they were sent to JC on his written request. On 23.01.2016, he visited Trauma Centre and duty Ct. of Trauma Centre handed over one sealed plastic jar containing two bullet led which had been taken out from the body of injured during operation. He had also delivered one sample seal along with aforesaid sealed parcel and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. He recorded statement of duty constable Jasbir and returned to PS and deposited the sealed parcels and sample seal in intact condition to MHC(M).
FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 17 of 31Thereafter, he made search of absconding accused persons namely Sajid and Nanhe, but in vain. He got issued NBWs against them from concerned court and also made efforts to procure their presence, but in vain as both were absconding from their respective houses. He recorded statement of PWs from time to time and got deposited MLC of injured for obtaining nature of injury, but same could not be placed on file as nature of injury could not be opined by the doctor concerned till the investigation remained with him. He completed investigation and prepared chargesheet against two accused persons for offence u/s 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act which was sent to court for trial. Thereafter, he got sealed parcels of present case deposited with MHC(M) through Constable, but same could not be deposited on that day as concerned Lab Official raised objection to bring 5 live cartridges for the purpose of examination. In the month of August, 2016, he handed over case file to MHC(R) due to his transfer from PS Gokalpuri.
He identified one country made pistol Ex. P-1 as the same which was recovered from accused Sanjay @ Kallu; one country made pistol Ex. P-2 as same which was recovered from accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan; one white T-shirt having cut marks and blood stains and baniyan as Ex. P-3 (colly) as the same T-shirt which he had noticed on the body of injured when he had recorded his statement; one fired cartridge case having FSL number, signature of the examiner and allotted number EC-1 as Ex. P-4 as same which was found at the spot; two bullet lead as Ex. P-5 and P-6 as same which had been delivered to him by the duty constable stating that these bullet leads were recovered from the body of injuring during operation.
FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 18 of 31During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness deposed that both the accused persons were sitting on the cot when he along with two police officials reached there. Accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan had produced weapon of his own. He had taken search of accused Sanjay @ Kallu and during search, one weapon was recovered from right side pocket of his wearing lower. Prior to preparation of arrest papers, accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan had handed over weapon to him. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were lifted from the place behind Government School, Gokalpuri or that they have been falsely booked in this case or that no weapon of recovery was effected from accused persons or that weapons were planted against them. He denied that all the documents of this case were prepared at PS subsequently or that signatures of accused were taken on them against their wish or that he was deposing falsely. He denied that he had not visited house of accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan at any point of time or that both the accused persons were not arrested.
(xii) PW11 R. Eniyavan, Jr. Forensic/ Assist. Chemical Examiner (Ballistic), FSL Rohini deposed that on 28-12-2016 sealed parcels mentioned in FSL report Ex. PW8/C were deposited in their office and same were marked to him for examination. He examined 6 parcels and gave opinion. The remnants were again sealed by him. He also put the report in sealed envelope which was handed over to concerned official to be handed over to police official concerned. The forwarding letter for said report was forwarded by the Director vide Ex. PW8/C. The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 19 of 31 counsel despite having given the opportunity. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused persons, which were denied by them. They stated that they are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not opt to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
6. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record. It is submitted on behalf of accused persons that only eyewitness cum victim in the present case namely Chhotan @ Rinku has failed to support the case of the prosecution. No independent public person got examined by the prosecution. There is no direct, scientific or circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution to connect the accused persons with the commission of alleged offence. It is, therefore, prayed by ld. Defence counsel that benefit of doubt be conferred upon the accused persons.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that despite the fact that victim/ complainant, has supported the case of the prosecution in his testimony dated 23-03-2017, who has taken a contrary stand much later, yet the case of the prosecution stands on strong footing on the basis of scientific evidence i.e. from the report of ballistic expert Ex. PW8/C wherein it was opined that the fired cartridge case had been fired through recovered country made pistol.
FINDING OF THE COURT
7. Before analyzing the prosecution and defence evidence adduced in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 20 of 31 provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.
307. Attempt to murder--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
25. [(1AAA)] of Arms Act--Whoever has in contravention of a notification issued under section 24A in his possession or in contravention of a notification issued under section 24B carries or otherwise has in his possession, any arms or ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [three years, but which may extend to seven years] shall also be liable to fine.
27. Punishment for using arms, etc. of Arms Act--(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that:-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
9. In Harendera Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 S.C. 1842, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated the well-known principle of the criminal jurisprudence as:
"....... The basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the latter view favourable to the accused....."
10. In Data Xiva Naique Desai and Another vs. The State, FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 21 of 31 AIR 1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the well-known principles of the criminal jurisprudence which are reproduced as under:
"The learned Judge would be advised to observe the following general rules when he is dealing with the serious question of the guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime: (i) The onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused lies on the prosecution; (ii) The evidence must be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused; (iii) In matter of doubt it is safer to acquit than to condemn; for it is between several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person suffer; and (iv) the hypothesis of delinquency should be consistent with all the facts proved."
11. In Swarn Singh Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "in criminal cases mere suspicion, however, strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Court must also take into consideration that an accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof."
12. Moreover, in Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773, the Apex Court had observed as follows:-
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable: it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 22 of 31 surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex-facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the individual accused. The conflict in this respect, in our opinion, is more apparent than real.
It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. All this highlights the importance of ensuring as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimized but not ruled out altogether."
13. It is observed that entire police machinery was set into motion by Chhotan @ Rinku (PW2). In his deposition dated 23- 03-2017, he has explained in detail with regard to the specific role of each of the accused persons and manner in which he was assaulted. He categorically deposed that on 12.01.2016, at about 10-11 P.M., he left his house to go to the shop of Satish tentwala at Gokul Puri. When he reached near building wala school, Gokul Puri, Nav Rattan @ Sanjay, Sajid, Nanhe and their 3-4 associates were standing near the toilet on the end of wall of buildingwala school. Aforesaid three accused persons and their associates were having pistols in their hands. Accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan, Sajid and Nanhe were known to him being residents of same colony. Accused Nav Rattan fired on him which caused injury on his chest. After hitting first fire, he tried to run from the spot but fell down on the road and accused Nanhe caught him. In FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 23 of 31 the meanwhile, accused Sajid reached there, who hit second bullet on his armpit from behind.
14. However, in his deposition dated 06-01-2018, he has disowned the case of the prosecution with regard to the identity of the assailants. He stated that the accused persons standing in the dock at that time were not the assailants and they had not caused injuries to him on 12-01-2016. Nevertheless, he admitted his signature on his statement Ex. PW2/A recorded by the IO, which forms the basis for registration of the present FIR. Thus, the testimony of PW2 cannot be relied upon without corroboration from independent evidence.
15. Further, it is well settled that testimony of hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto. In the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of M.P, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1853, Hon'ble Apex Court examined the evidentiary value of a hostile witness and held that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not wholly effaced from record and that part of evidence, which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon its previous decisions in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1976) 2 SCR 921, Rabinder Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orrisa (1976) 4 SCC and Sayed Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCR 95 held that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
16. With regard to the identity of assailants, the only piece of FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 24 of 31 evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the ballistic expert report Ex. PW8/C. PW11 R. Eniyavan, Assistant Chemical Examiner, from FSL Rohini has proved his report Ex. PW8/C. In the opinion of this court, the said report indicates the involvement of accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan in the commission of alleged offence. As per the said report Ex. PW8/C, it has been opined that exhibit empty cartridge case marked EC-1 has been fired through exhibit country made pistol marked F-2. Here exhibit Mark EC-1 is the fired cartridge case recovered by the IO from the spot, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. Whereas, exhibit mark F-2 has been assigned parcel no. 3 in the FSL report Ex. PW8/C. As per the version of PW10 SI Habib Ahmad, the country made pistol contained in parcel no. 3 having FSL number is the same weapon which was recovered from accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan. PW10 SI Habib Ahmad and PW6 Ct. Nikesh have duly proved the factum of recovery of country made pistol from accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan as Ex. P-2. They have also proved the factum of recovery of fired cartridge case from the spot as Ex. P3 (in the testimony of PW6) and as Ex. P-4 (in the testimony of PW10). It is further noted that PW11 R. Eniyavan, who has proved his report Ex. PW8/C, has not been cross-examined. The recovery witness namely PW6 Ct. Nikesh has also not been cross-examined on the aspect of recovery of fired cartridge case from the spot near the wall of buildingwala school, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. As such, the recovery of fired cartridge case is not disputed.
17. The effect of not cross-examining a witness on a particular fact/circumstance has been dealt with and explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr.
FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 25 of 31v. Bhagwanthuva (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1204 observing as under:
"31. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses."
18. Indisputably, as already noticed above, though the material prosecution witness namely PW2 Chhotan @ Rinku has turned hostile on the aspect of identity of accused persons in his deposition dated 06-01-2018 yet clinching ballistic evidence vide report Ex. PW8/C leaves no doubt that it was accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan is the person who had fired from country made pistol and caused gun shot injury in the chest of victim. Injury caused to victim has already been proved vide MLC Ex. PW3/A. In this regard, this court would like to make reference to one judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta (2010) 168 DLT, 139, wherein the eyewitnesses had turned hostile but the scientific evidence clearly indicated FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 26 of 31 that the cartridge had been fired from the pistol of the accused and he was accordingly held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 304-II of IPC.
19. Thus, in the opinion of this court, the identity of accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan has been duly established in the commission of alleged assault by causing gun shot injury upon the victim Chhotan @ Rinku as deposition dated 23-03-2017 of PW2 has been duly corroborated by ballistic report Ex. PW8/C.
20. Further, it is noted that there is no delay in apprehension/ arrest of accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and Sanjay @ Kallu. Recovery of country made pistols have also been effected immediately upon their arrest on 13-01-2016 at about 10:30 am. There is no reason to doubt the recovery of country-made pistol vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/F-2 from the possession of accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and recovery of another country made pistol vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/G-2 from the possession of accused Sanjay @ Kallu. PW5 HC Ramesh Kumar, PW6 Ct. Nikesh and PW10 SI Habib Ahmad have duly proved the said recoveries. PW9 Sh. Rajender Prasad Meena, Addl. DCP has also proved the sanction u/s 39 of Arms Act for proceeding against accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan and Sanjay @ Kallu as Ex. PW8/E and Ex. PW8/F.
21. It is argued vehemently that no independent witness was got examined by the IO and therefore, prosecution case cannot be relied upon. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in the present case, PW5 HC Ramesh Kumar, PW6 Ct. Nikesh and PW10 SI Habib Ahmad have been cross-examined at length. There is nothing in their version to indicate that any other independent witnesses had seen the occurrence i.e. the incident of FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 27 of 31 assault being caused by the accused persons.
22. It is pertinent to mention that on the above-mentioned aspect, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in judgment titled "Jhodha Sahney Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2011 (1) Crimes 382", as under:-
"7. The next ground taken by the Counsel for the appellant is that no public witness was joined at the time of recovery. The accused had started moving quickly towards the village on the seeing police party and police party therefore stopped the accused/appellant and checked his gunny bag. On checking it was found that gunny bag held by the accused contained charas. Merely because the police party did not associate public persons in this "chance recovery" cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case of prosecution. Moreover, there is normal tendency of public persons not to associate themselves with police investigation as the investigation and the trials in this country are the source of great harassment to the witnesses who are often not taken care of by the Courts or by the police. The witnesses are normally scared to join any investigation or give testimony even of what they have witnessed in broad daylight because of the repeated summoning in the Courts and sending them unexamined in a routine and casual manner by the Courts."
23. Dealing with the aspect of reluctance of the public persons to join the police proceedings, this Court in Jawahar vs. State (2007) ILR 2 Delhi 146 observed as under:-
"As far as non association of public witnesses at the time of recovery is concerned, I consider that this is not an infirmity sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution. It is very hard these days to get association of public witnesses in criminal investigation. Investigation itself is a tedious process and a public witness, who is associated, has to spend hours at the spot. Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any inconvenience for the sake of society. The other reason for the public witness not readily agreeing to associate with investigation is harassment of public witness that takes place in the courts. Normally a public witness should be called once to depose in the court and his testimony should be recorded and he should be discharged. But experience shows that adjournments are given even in criminal cases on all excuses and if adjournments are not given, it is considered as a breach of the right of hearing of the accused. These adjournments are specifically taken by counsels for accused persons, when FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 28 of 31 witnesses are present, just to see that witnesses get harassed by calling them time and again. The excuses normally given in the courts are; the counsel having urgent personal work, left the court; death of some near relatives etc; the counsel being busy in arguing other matter in other court or cross examining other witness in some other court. This attitude of the courts of sending witness back is a major cause of harassment which discourages public from associating in the investigation of any case. Since the police is faced with this handicap, the police cannot be blamed for not associating public witness. There is no presumption that the police witnesses are not credible witnesses. The testimony of every witness, whether from public or police, has to be judged at its own merits and the court can believe or disbelieve a police witness considering the intrinsic value of his testimony. Police witnesses are equally good witnesses and equally bad witnesses as any other witness and the testimony of police witness cannot be rejected on the ground that they are official witnesses".
24. Thus, the contention regarding non-joining of independent public witnesses raised by the Ld. Defence counsel fails to inspire confidence of this court.
25. Since PW2 Chhotan @ Rinku has disowned the case of the prosecution with regard to the identity of the assailants in his deposition dated 06-01-2018, the role of other accused persons namely Gulfam @ Sajid, Gullu @ Nanhey and Sanjay @ Kallu in commission of alleged offence u/s 307/34 of IPC could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as there is no substantive evidence led by the prosecution indicating their involvement.
DECISION OF THE COURT
26. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful qua accused Gulfam @ Sajid, Gullu @ Nanhey and Sanjay @ Kallu with FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 29 of 31 regard to the incident of assault and benefit of doubt certainly goes in their favor. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Sajid @ Gulfam, Nanhey @ Gullu and Sanjay @ Kallu are hereby acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 307/34 of IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act. However, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC and u/s 27 & 25 of Arms Act. The prosecution has also proved its case against accused Sanjay @ Kallu for the offence punishable u/s 25 of Arms Act. Accordingly, the accused Sanjay @ Nav Rattan is hereby convicted of the charges u/s 307 of IPC and u/s 25/27 of Arms Act and accused Sanjay @ Kallu is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 25 of Arms Act. Let the convicts be heard on the quantum of sentence and grant of compensation on the next date of hearing.
27. Perusal of record reveals serious lapses on the part of investigating agency which has impacted the outcome of the present case. In the present case, during investigation one Duty Constable Ct. Jasbir had also deposited in the Malkhana of PS Gokalpuri on 23-01-2016 two bullet leads which were recovered from the body of victim during his treatment at AIIMS Trauma Center and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. Two country made pistols have also been recovered. However, no efforts have been made by the Investigating Agency to seek the opinion of ballistic expert as to whether the bullet leads Ex. P5 and Ex. P6 can be fired through recovered country made pistols seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW5/G-2 and Ex. PW5/F-2. Let copy of this judgment be sent to Commissioner of Police for information and necessary action who shall ensure that such lapses, as noted FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 30 of 31 above, shall not recur in future.
Announced in the Open Court
ON 15-01-2024 PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ ARORA
ARORA Date: 2024.01.18
17:03:37 +0530
(PANKAJ ARORA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
KARKARDOOMA/15-01-2024
FIR no. 35/16 State Vs. Sanjay @ Nav Rattan Etc. Page 31 of 31