Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Yogender S/O. Chander Bhan R/O. on 5 June, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY GARG: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE; (EAST) FTC : KARKADOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No. 147/09
FIR No. 148/03
U/S: 302/120B IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
P.S: Farash Bazar
State Versus 1. Yogender S/o. Chander Bhan R/o.
Village, Rangana P.S. Jhinjhana, Distt.
Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
2. Babloo, S/o. Jai Singh R/o.
Village, Rangana P.S. Jhinjhana, Distt.
Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
3. Parmod S/o. Parkash Chand R/o.
Village, Rangana P.S. Jhinjhana, Distt.
Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
(present add-4/1811, Rama Block, Bhola
Nath Nagar, Delhi).
4. Kapil Vaidh S/o. Om Pal Vaidh R/o.
451 A/C, Maharu Block, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Delhi.
5. Amarjeet S/o. Bhoop Singh R/o.
4/1811, Rama Block Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi.
6. Mahavir Gupta S/o. Ram Das Gupta,
R/o. 4/2406, Gali No. 12, Bihari Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 22.10.03
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON : 01.06.10
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON : 05.06.10
JUDGMENT
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 19.5.03 PW24 SI Todar Singh received DD No. 2A at 00.45 hours and he alongwith Ct.
FIR No. 148/03 1 of page 13 Murlidhar reached at Surya Hospital, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. One Mahesh Gupta was found admitted in the hospital. Doctor did not declare the patient fit for statement and patient was referred to AIIMS. PW24 also reached at AIIMS. There MLC of the patient was prepared and gunshot injuries were reported. PW24 prepared rukka Ex.PW24/A and sent it though Ct. Murlidhar for registration of the FIR. PW24 reached at the spot i.e 4/2406, Gali No. 12, Bihari Colony at corner of Gupta Sweet House. He got the spot photographed, lifted earth control and blood stained earth from the spot. After putting it in a pulanda seized it. One Harish Bansal and one Mohd. Arif met PW24 at the spot claimed themselves to be eye witnesses to the incident. PW24 recorded their statements. From the spot PW24 reached at AIIMS. The bullet was extricated from the body of patient Mahesh Gupta was seized by the IO. The blood stained clothes of Mahesh Gupta were also seized. On 22.5.03 Mahesh Gupta died and further investigation was handed over to PW34 Inspector Ashwani Kumar.
2. IO PW34 got the dead body postmortemed
3. On 22.5.03 PW26 HC Satbir posted in P.S. Farash Bazar alongwith other police officials was on patrolling duty and he apprehended accused Babloo, Amarjeet and Yogender on the basis of the secret information. A countrymade pistol was recovered from possession of accused Yogender. IO PW34 interrogated these accused persons and they confessed their involvement in the present case. Their disclosure statements were recorded. Accused Babloo with his two associates got accused Pramod arrested from his house at 9.40 p.m. Accused Pramod got recovered one countrymade pistol from 2nd floor of his house. The countrymade pistol was taken into possession. Accused Pramod also made disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the present case. Same day at about 11.45 p.m IO PW34 at the instance of secret informer apprehended accused Kapil Vaidh and Mahavir Gupta. From Kapil Vaidh one countrymade pistol was recovered, for which FIR No. 153/03 was lodged. During interrogation both the accused persons made disclosure statement about their FIR No. 148/03 2 of page 13 involvement in the present case.
4. During investigation PW9 Samir Bahadur, Head of North India Operations, Tata AIG General Insurance Company met IO on 31.7.03 and informed him that one policy of accident guard for Rs.1 crore was issued on the name of deceased Mahesh Gupta on one time premium of Rs.14,555/- paid in cash by one Mahavir Gupta to agent Shashwat Goyaliya (PW4). IO collected proposal form and other documents. Insurance Company also made investigation at its own and it got expert opinion in regard to handwriting of deceased to verify whether form was filled up by the deceased. IO also collected specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Mahavir Gupta. After investigation police filed chargesheet against the accused persons u/s. 302/120B IPC and u/s. 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
5. Charges u/s. 120B read with section 302 IPC and u/s. 302/34 IPC were given to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Separate charge u/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act was given to accused Pramod to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case prosecution examined 36 witnesses. PW1 Mohd. Arif, PW2 Shahabuddin and PW3 Harish Bansal are the three eye witnesses to the incident but they all turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. PW4 Shashwat Goyaliya is the Insurance Agent of Tata AIG Life Insurance & General Insurance Company. PW4A Ct. Manoj Kumar accompanied IO on 22.5.03 for investigation of this case. PW5 Laxmi is the wife of the deceased, she proved proposal form of Insurance Company Ex.PW5/A. Cheque of PNB Ex.PW5/B and form of PNB bearing signatures of her husband Ex.PW5/C. PW6 Om Prakash Gupta is the father-in-law of the deceased. PW7 Dr. Rajender Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer proved his report Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B. PW8 Sh. K.C. Varshney, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics) proved his reports as Ex.PW8/A and PW8/B. PW9 Samir Bahadur, Head of North India Operations, Tata AIG General Insurance Company proved his letter dated 1.8.03 to SHO as Ex.PW9/A, the temporary FIR No. 148/03 3 of page 13 receipt Ex.PW9/B, his letter dated 2.8.03 to SHO Ex.PW9/C and an other letter dated 5.8.03 as Ex.PW9/D. PW-10 D.D. Goel, Retired Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents proved his report Ex.PW10/A.
7. PW-11 Sh. Anil Kumar is the Insurance Investigator. PW-12 Shashi Bala is the wife of accused Amarjeet. PW-13 Ct. Uday Vir Singh is the MHC(M), P.S. Farash Bazar and he took the parcels to FSL from Mal Khana. PW14 Ct. Sonu Kaushik, Asstt. Draftsman proved his scaled site plan Ex.PW14/A. PW15 Woman ASI Asha Sharma proved DD No. 5A as Ex.PW15/A. PW16 Pramod Kumar Gupta is the elder brother of deceased Mahesh Gupta. PW-17 Surender Singh, Computer Operator of Bank of Baroda proved saving bank statement of account No. 9945 in the name of Mahesh Chand Gupta issued by Sh. Ashok Makkar, Bank Manager as Ex.PW17/A and photocopy of account opening form Ex.PW17/B.
8. PW-18 Vinod Kumar Sharma, Computer Operator, Punjab National Bank proved statement of account Ex.PW18/A and account No. 7370 on the name of Shashwat Goyaliya. PW19 Ct. Ramesh, photographer in the Crime Team proved photographs Ex.PW19/1 to PW19/6 and negatives Ex.PW19/7 (collectively). PW20 Satpal Sachdeva, Record Keeper, PNB proved statement of account of saving bank account No. 114979 in the name of Mahesh Chand Gupta Ex.PW20/A and signatures slip Ex.PW20/B. PW21 Dinesh Kumar Gupta identified dead body of Mahesh Kumar Gupta vide his statement Ex.PW21/A. PW22 Bhoop Singh is a formal witness in this case. PW23 Ct. Yogpal Dahiya was working as duty constable at AIIMS on 20.5.03. He proved seizure memo of the pulanda containing bullet Ex.PW23/A handed over to him in emergency at AIIMS taken out from the body of the deceased.
9. PW24 SI T.S. Malyan (Todar Singh Malyan) reached at the spot on receiving DD NO. 2A. He proved the tehrir Ex.PW24/A, DD No.2A Ex.PW24/B, seizure memo of earth control and blood stained FIR No. 148/03 4 of page 13 earth Ex.PW24/C, rough site plan Ex.PW24/D, seizure memo of blood lifted from the spot also vide memo Ex.PW24/D, statement of brother of the deceased Ex.PW24/E vide which dead body was identified, seizure memo of the blood sample of deceased Ex.PW24/F, arrest memo of accused Yogender, Babloo and Amarjeet Ex.PW24/G, PW24/H, PW24/J and the personal search memos Ex.PW24/K, PW24/L, PW24/M, disclosure statements of these accused persons Ex.PW24/N to PW24/P, seizure memo of the motorcycle Ex.PW24/Q. Arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Parmod are Ex.PW24/R, PW24/S and PW24/T, sketch of the countrymade pistol and cartridge Ex.PW24/U recovered at the instance of accused Parmod, seizure memo of pulanda Ex.PW24/V vide which katta and cartridge were taken into possession. PW25 Retired SI Badri Prasad delivered the special report to Ld. M.M and senior officers at their residences on 20.5.03.
10. PW26 HC Satbir was on patrolling duty on 22.5.03, he proved sketch of the countrymade pistol and cartridge Ex.PW26/A recovered from accused Yogender, seizure memo of this pistol and cartridge Ex.PW26/B, rukka under Arms Act Ex.PW26/C, FIR No. 152/03 Ex.PW26/D and site plan Ex.PW26/E. PW27 Ct. Raj Kumar was accompanying PW26 on 22.5.03 when accused Amarjeet, Babloo and Yogender were arrested. PW28 Lady Constable Kismat was on duty on PCR. She received a telephonic call regarding this incident and passed on the information by wireless to P.S. Farash Bazar vide DD No. 2A. PW-29 ASI Suresh Kumar, Duty Officer proved DD No. 2A as Ex.PW29/A and FIR as Ex.PW29/B. PW-30 Dr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Resident, AIIMS proved MLC of Mahesh Gupta Ex.PW30/A. PW31 Dr. M. Alam, Administrator, Surya Hospital proved the MLC of Mahesh Kumar Gupta Ex.PW31/A. PW32 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. ASJ proved TIP proceedings of accused Babloo Ex.PW32/A and of accused Yogender Ex.PW32/B. PW-33 HC Lakhi Singh was MHC(M) P.S. Farash Bazar, he proved the respective entries regarding the case property in this case in register No. 19 as Ex.PW33/A to PW33/D. PW-34 Inspector Ashwani Kumar is the IO of the case. He proved form FIR No. 148/03 5 of page 13 No. 25.35 as Ex.PW34/A, his application for postmortem of the body of the deceased Ex.PW34/B, arrest memo of accused Kapil Vaid and Mahavir Gupta Ex.PW34/C and PW34/D, specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Mahavir Gupta Ex.PW34/E to PW34/G. PW35 Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Asstt. Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines proved postmortem report Ex.PW35/A.
11. On the basis of incriminating evidence appearing on record against the accused persons, their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded after putting them all the incriminating evidence. All the accused denied the evidence brought by prosecution against them and took the plea of false implication in this case. Accused led defence evidence and examined two witnesses.DW1 is Sh. R.K. Dubey, Legal Manager from Dainik Jagaran Publication and DW2 Ct. Chaman Singh, PS. Jhinjhana, Distt. Muzaffarnagar.
12. Heard arguments of Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Ld. APP for the State, Sh. A.U. Khan, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Mahavir Gupta. He also filed written submissions. Sh. R.K. Kochar, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Pramod, Babloo and Kapil and Sh. P.L. Behl, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Amarjeet and Yogender. Perused the record.
13. Ld. APP contended that accused Mahavir Gupta is the real brother of deceased and he hatched conspiracy with other co-accused to kill his brother Mahesh Gupta. Sometime prior to the murder of Mahesh Gupta, accused Mahavir Gupta purchased an accident policy of Rs.1 crore in the name of deceased by forging signatures of the deceased and instead of showing wife of deceased as nominee had shown his mother as nominee. It is stated that under the said conspiracy accused Mahavir Gupta had not paid premium by cheque but had paid by cash to the agent.
14. Sh. P.L. Behl, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Amarjeet and Yogender has relied upon the following judgments : -
FIR No. 148/03 6 of page 13
(i). 2009 [2] JCC 1206, case titled Kalloo Passi Vs. State
(ii) 1999(1) RCR (Criminal) SC 718, case titled Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
(iii) 2008 (1) C.C. Cases (SC) 217, case titled Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(iv) 2008 (1) C.C. Cases (SC) 222, case titled Puran Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal
(v) AIR 1977 SC 1753, case titled Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati etc. Vs. Chhatrasinh & Ors.
15. The prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The motive with the accused Mahavir Gupta for killing his real brother Mahesh Chand Gupta, as per the prosecution was the single premium personal accident policy purchased on the name of deceased by forging his signatures. Now let us see what evidence has been brought on record by prosecution regarding this insurance policy. Prosecution has examined two witnesses on this aspect.
16. PW9 Samir Bahadur, Head of North India Operations, Tata AIG General Insurance Company has deposed that in May'03 one claim was reported by mother of Mahesh Gupta on whose behalf a personal accident policy of Rs.1 crore had been taken through an Agent's employee, Shashwat Goyaliya. Apparently the proposal form had been submitted to the agent by deceased's brother Mahavir Gupta alongwith cash premium of Rs.14,555/-. On inquiry it revealed that brother of deceased Mahavir Gupta himself had earlier taken insurance policy of Rs.10 Lacs from the same agent and had submitted the proposal form for this policy signed on behalf of deceased and nominee was proposed to be their mother though deceased was married. During inquiry it revealed that despite being asked to give a cheque for premium Mahavir Gupta had given cash at the residence of Shashwat Goyaliya. Further their investigator has reported that deceased's wife handed over to him the check signed by her late husband which was returned by the bank due to insufficient funds. A handwriting expert namely D.D. Goel, Retired Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents gave a report after FIR No. 148/03 7 of page 13 perusing the said cheque and the original proposal form that original proposal form did not bear any resemblance to the signatures of Sh. Mahesh Gupta as seen on the cheque given by his wife. During cross- examination by accused Mahavir Gupta this witness has stated that there is no statutory bar for nominating father-mother in the policy by the policy holder He also admitted that DD Goel is not a Govt. servant and is a retired person.
17. PW4 Shashwat Goyaliya is the agent of the Tata AIG Life Insurance Company. As per him accused Mahavir Gupta was known to him as there was an ice cream parlour on the ground floor of the house of accused and he used to visit it. He approached the accused and his friends for insurance and accused agreed to take accidental guard (GIC Policy) of about 10 Lacs and after this he asked him to give further reference. Accused introduced him to his brother Mahesh Chand Gupta and he met him(Mahesh Chand Gupta) at Bihari Colony in his shop of Aggarwal Sweets in July or August, 2002. He briefed him about the insurance and asked him for general insurance policy. Mahesh Chand asked him to leave the form for him and he will think about it. In September'02 accused Mahavir Gupta in first week came to his residence and handed over to him the form which was partially filled up and had signatures on it and also gave Rs.14,555/- with regard to the policy of personal accident having coverage of Rs.1 Crore. He deposited the cash given to him by Mahavir Gupta in his own personal account and issued a cheque in favour of Tata AIG General Insurance Company. He asked Mahavir Gupta as to why he has not given to him the cheque of premium but he (Mahavir Gupta) told to take cash. During cross-examination by accused Mahavir Gupta PW4 admitted that when he met Mahesh Chand Gupta in his shop for the first time accused Mahavir Gupta was not present there and he had left the proposal form with Mahesh Chand Gupta then and there. The witness has further stated that there are number of instances where he had received payment by cash and issued cheque from his own account after depositing the cash in his account. He did not inform Mahesh Chand Gupta about the policy and he informed Mahavir Gupta as he had FIR No. 148/03 8 of page 13 brought the cash amount and proposal form to him. The receipt in support of the premium amount regarding the insurance used to be sent directly to the house of the insured.
18. PW5 Laxmi is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that she married Mahesh Chand Gupta in 1999 but had no issue from this marriage. Her husband was running a Halwai shop on the ground floor in house No. 4/2406, Bihari Colony, Delhi. Accused Mahavir Gupta, who is his brother-in-law also used to work in that shop but there used to be no quarrel between Mahavir Gupta on one side and her motor-in-law on the other side on the issue of shop. Her husband was shot dead in the darkness by someone. Her husband never used to discuss with her anything about Mahavir Gutpa prior to his death. She identified signatures of her husband on proposal form Ex.PW5/A. She also identified the signatures of her husband on cheque and account opening form of PNB Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C. She had come to know from her husband about the policy of Rs.1 crore at the time of Diwali prior to his death. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by Ld. APP. She denied the suggestion that there used to be quarrel between her mother-in-law and accused Mahavir Gupta that accused should sit on that shop whereas her husband wanted that accused Mahavir Gupta should do some other work. She denied the suggestion that prior to his death her husband had discussed with her 2-3 times that Mahavir Gupta can go to any extent and can do anything. She denied the suggestion that police had shown her the original proposal form of Tata AIG and on seeing it she had told that the signatures and handwriting were not of her husband. She further denied the suggestion that whatever her husband had told her about behaviour of Mahavir Gupta on the issue of shop she had disclosed to her father.
19. PW6 Om Prakash Gupta is the father of PW5 Laxmi and father-in-law of deceased and even he had not supported the prosecution in any manner. He has simply stated that he does not know anything with regard to any quarrel between Mahavir Gupta and his son- in-law Mahesh Gupta on the issue of sweet shop. He was also declared FIR No. 148/03 9 of page 13 hostile and cross-examined at length but prosecution has failed to extract anything favourable to it in his cross-examination.
20. PW10 Sh. D.D. Goel worked as a Govt. Examiner of Questioned documents. After examining proposal form Ex.PW5/A and the cheque of PNB Ex.PW5/B, he gave his report Ex.PW10/A. As per him the writings and the signatures of the insured person/proposal in the proposal form Ex.PW5/a were written by one and the same person. The person who wrote the signatures on cheque Ex.PW5/B did not write the signatures of insured person/proposal on proposal form Ex.PW5/B.
21. Prosecution has not proved any report of any hand writing expert for comparing signatures on the proposal form Ex.PW5/A and PNB cheque Ex.PW5/B.
22. PW10 was engaged by Tata AIG Insurance Company to compare signatures and handwriting on Ex.PW5/A and PW5/B. There is no report proved on record by the prosecution to establish that the signatures and handwriting appearing in proposal form Ex.PW5/A was of accused Mahavir Gupta.
23. For the sake of arguments even if allegations of conspiracy to kill to his brother Mahesh Chand Gupta is accepted the question arises why he did not mention his name as nominee and rather mentioned name of his mother as a nominee of the insurance policy. If after death of Mahesh Chand Gupta any amount would have been given by Insurance Company that would have gone to mother of the accused. After mother that amount would have fallen to all the legal heirs and not only to accused Mahavir Gupta.
24. PW5 who is wife of the deceased has admitted of having knowledge given to her by her deceased husband about the insurance policy and she has also admitted signatures of the deceased on proposal form Ex.PW5/A. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove if accused Mahavir Gupta had any motive to kill his brother Mahesh FIR No. 148/03 10 of page 13 Chand Gupta.
25. It is a case where eye witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW3 has not supported the prosecution from any angle.
26. The other evidence as per the prosecution against the accused persons is that accused Yogender, Babloo and Amarjeet were arrested on 22.5.03 and their disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the present case were recorded. These three accused persons got arrested accused Pramod, who got recovered one countrymade pistol from the second floor of his house. Same day on 22.5.03 at 11.45 p.m. Accused Kapil Vaid and Mahavir Gupta were arrested. They also made disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the present case. As per IO PW34 accused Pramod was arrested outside his house on the identification of accused Babloo at 9.40 p.m, he led the police to second floor of his house and took out one countrymade pistol from under the mattress of a cot. On checking the said pistol one used cartridge was found in it.
27. A bullet recovered from the body of deceased alongwith the countrymade pistol and one used cartridge recovered at the instance of Pramod were sent for Ballistics examination to FSL, Rohini. PW8 K.C. Varshney, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics) proved his report Ex.PW8/ A and PW8/B. He gave the report that the deformed bullet (recovered from the body of the deceased) had been discharged through the countrymade pistol Ex.F-1 (which was recovered at the instance of accused Pramod).
28. Ld. Defence counsel for all the accused except Mahavir Gupta has contended that all these accused were apprehended by the police from village Rangana and subsequently they have been shown arrested from Delhi and a country made pistol was planted upon accused Pramod. To prove their defence, they examined DW1 Sh. R.K. Dubey, Legal Manager, Dainik Jagran Publication, Noida, UP and he testified that newspapers dated 23.05.03 was published from FIR No. 148/03 11 of page 13 Muzaffarnagar Division and it contained news items "Supari Lekar hatya karne Wala Giroh Pakda". He certified that news item referred at point A on Ex. DW1/A must have been obtained by the correspondent on 22.05.03. DW-2 Ct. Chaman Singh of PS Jhinjhana, UP proved General Diary Register of PS Jhinjhana dated 21.05.03 as Ex.DW2/A. As per Ex. DW2/A SI T.S. Malyan visited the police station along with other police officials for investigation of FIR No. 148/03 under section 307 IPC PS. Farash Bazar, East Delhi. PW 24 SI T.S. Malyan has refused to have gone to Village Rangana Muzaffarnagar with regard to investigation in this case. However from Ex. DW2/A it stands established that PW-24 had gone to village Rangana on 21.05.03 for investigation of this case. Ex.PW24/J, Ex.PW24/G, Ex.PW24/H, Ex.PW24/R and Ex.PW34/C are arrest memos of accused Amarjeet, Yogender, Babloo Pramod Kumar and Kapil. As per these arrest memos their date of arrest is 22.05.03. Column number eight of the arrest memo is about the name of the persons to whomsoever information of arrest of the accused is given. Ex.PW24/J, Ex.PW24/G, Ex.PW24/H, Ex.PW24/R and Ex.PW34/C also bears signatures and thumb impression of the persons to whom information of the arrest in respect of accused was given. Giving information to the relatives of the accused arrested in this case is one thing and taking signatures of that person to whom information is given on the arrest memo shows that at the time of arrest that person was available. These arrest memos being the record of the prosecution, it was required to explain that how signatures of the these persons appear on these arrest memos. If accused were arrested on 22.05.03 from Delhi there was no opportunity with the IO to obtain signatures of their relatives on arrest memos at the time of their arrest. The news items regarding arrest of 5 accused in this case from village Rangana appearing in Dainik Jagran Muzaffarnagar Ex.DW1/A, General Diary Entry Ex.DW2/A dated 21.05.03 and arrest memos of the accused persons establish the defence taken by accused persons that they were arrested from village Rangana and not from Delhi on 22.05.03 as projected by prosecution. As the arrest of these five persons from Delhi has come under strong shadow of doubt, therefore the alleged recovery of pistol with used FIR No. 148/03 12 of page 13 cartridge at the instance of accused Pramod from second floor of his house also comes under the shadow of doubt. Accused persons are also charged for hatching criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Mahesh Gupta. Criminal conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and is not possible to get direct evidence on it. But prosecution is required to prove some evidence to establish an agreement and meeting of mind amongst accused persons prior to the date of incident. Absolutely no evidence has come on record to establish that prior to the date of incident, if accused persons had ever met or there was any agreement and meeting of mind between them to commit this dastardly act.
29. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Mahesh Gupta and in execution of this conspiracy on 19.05.03 at about 11.30 PM, at Gali No.12 near Aggarwal Sweets, Bihari Colony, they committed the murder of Mahesh Gupta. Prosecution also fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt about the recovery of one pistol from the accused Pramod on 22.05.03. All the accused are accordingly acquitted from the offence punishable under sections 120B read with section 302 IPC and 302/34 IPC. Accused Pramod is also acquitted from the offence punishable under section 25 Arms Act.
Announced in the open Court ( SANJAY GARG )
on 5th day of June, 2010 Addl. Sessions Judge (East)
FTC, Karkardooma Courts:
DELHI.
FIR No. 148/03 13 of page 13