Delhi District Court
State vs R.N.Sharma on 8 February, 2010
State Vs R.N.Sharma
IN THE COURT OF SH M.R.SETHI:
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE:(FTC)(W):DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 61/09
FIR No. 149/99
P.S Anand Parbat
State Versus R.N. Sharma
S/o Sh S. D. Sharma
R/o Barrack No.21
Qrt. No.2, Anand Parbat
New Delhi.
Date of Incident: 08-04-1999
Date of Arguments: 03.02.2010
Date of Judgment : 17.02.2010
JUDGMENT:
1 Challan in this case had originally been filed against accused R.N.Sharma and accused B.D.Sharma. As per order dated 20.9.07 passed by learned Court of Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma, MM, Delhi, in pursuance to directions issued by Hon'ble Ms Justice Reva Khetrapal in WP 1863/06 on 11.7.07, trial of accused 1 State Vs R.N.Sharma B.D.Sharma was separated and consequently,the case was committed in respect of accused R. N. Sharma. Investigating Officer was directed to file supplementary challan as and when accused B. D. Sharma recovered. Accordingly, present case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
2 As per allegations against the accused R. N. Sharma, on 8.4.99 he alongwith his co-accused B. D. Sharma in furtherance of their common intention had committed mischief by fire by liting up fire at Nath Printing Works. On basis of aforesaid allegations, charge was framed against the accused on 24.1.08 for having committed an offence punishable under Sec.436/34 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 In order to prove its case against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, thereafter, statement of accused was recorded who also examined two witnesses in his defence. 2
State Vs R.N.Sharma 4 PW.1 proved copy of FIR Ex PW1/B and his endorsement on Rukka Ex PW1/A. 5 PW.2 ASI Manju proved copy of DD No.8-A dated 8.4.1999 PS Anand Parbat as Ex PW2/A. The original was claimed to have been destroyed vide letter dated 11.08.04. Copy of which was proved as Ex PW2/B. 6 PW.3 Pradeep Chaudhary proved copies of invoices in respect of goods sold to Nath Printing Works. The same were Ex PW3/1 to PW3/5. 7 PW.4 HC Surender claimed that on 08.4.99 copy of DD No.8-A was handed over to him by the duty officer and he handed over the same to ASI Vasudev who was present in the Illaqa, and then both of them went to the spot i.e Barrack No. 21, Anand Parbat where they found fire in factory . Officials of Delhi Fire Service were also claimed to be present there. Witness claimed that rukka was handed over to him at about 6.30 PM and after getting FIR registered in the police station, he came back to the spot and handed over 3 State Vs R.N.Sharma rukka and copy of FIR to IO ASI Vasudev. He further claimed that on 09.4.99 he alongwith IO again went to the spot where burnt pieces of articles were seized vide memo Ex PW4/A and the pullanda was sealed with seal of VDY.
During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, he claimed that copy of DD No.8-A had been delivered to him at about 1.50 PM and they reached the spot at 2.00 PM. Site plan Ex PW4/DA was claimed to have been prepared by the IO in his presence. Witness claimed having left the spot after 8:00PM. He claimed that he did not remember if before he took the rukka anyone from public had met the IO to tell him as to how the fire took place. 8 PW.5 Bunty Khandelwal was Supervisor in the factory Nath Printing Works. He claimed that on 8.4.99 at about 1:30 PM he was present in the factory alongwith Sudhir and as it was lunch time, other workers had gone out of the factory to take lunch. He claimed that he saw the accused and his brother pouring something from a Can. He claimed that one of 4 State Vs R.N.Sharma them was pouring something from the Can while the other was trying to lit fire with the help of match stick but he could not recollect as to who was doing what. The liquid was claimed to be poured at a place where raw material of factory was lying. He claimed that the same had been poured outside the boundary of factory but just near the boundary wall. He claimed having informed the owner Sandeep Behl and the fire brigade was also informed. Police officials were claimed to have reached the spot and witness claimed having told the police that the articles had been set on blaze by accused Ravi and his brother. He claimed that police officials told them that accused and his brother were Patrakars. Witness further stated that at about 8 or 9 PM Sandeep Behl and Mr Vishwamitra Behl came to the factory and he narrated all the facts to them.
During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, witness claimed that his statement was recorded by the police at about 5:00PM. Much of his examination in chief naming the accused and mentioning the acts done by accused, were confronted as none of these details were mentioned in 5 State Vs R.N.Sharma his statement under Sec.161 Cr P. C (Ex PW.5/DA) . He claimed that he had not told the police that he did not know as to how the fire had taken place and that as soon as he would came to know cause of fire, he would inform the police. He was duly confronted with his statement Ex PW5/DA, where it was so recorded. Witness claimed that he had remained in the factory till about 2-3 AM on 09.4.99. He denied the suggestion that fire was caused due to short circuit in the motor and machine and claimed that he had no knowledge whether or not the owner had any license to run the factory. Witness admitted that he was still working in the same factory. He claimed that he was not under threat or pressure from anyone when his statement was recorded by the police on 08.4.99. He denied the suggestion that goods got burnt on account of short circuit.
9 PW.6 Sudhir claimed that at about 10 years back he was working in Nath Arts where foam used to be affixed on the clothes. He claimed that at about 1.30-2.00 PM when he came out of factory, he noticed fire outside the boundary wall of the factory but just 6 State Vs R.N.Sharma near the boundary wall. He claimed having seen two persons i.e one pouring something and the other setting the articles on fire, but claimed that he had not cared to note as to who those two persons were. To a Court question in this regard he claimed that perhaps one of them was Puppy but he did not remember name of the other. He claimed that fire brigade and police were also informed.
During course of cross-examination by Ld counsel of accused, witness claimed that at the time of incident, some workers had gone out to have lunch while 5-7 workers were having lunch in the factory . He could not tell names any of those. He claimed that police had interrogated Bunty in his presence but no one else had been interrogated. He stated that police had threatened him and had warned him not to name anyone who had caused the fire as police claimed that they could not do any thing to the Press Reporters. He admitted that he had not made any complaint to any superior officers in that regard. Witness specifically claimed that name of the factory where he used to work was Nath Arts and not Nath Printing Works. He 7 State Vs R.N.Sharma claimed that presently he was working in Gurgaon under the Behals . Witness claimed that he had not mentioned in his statement to police that he had not seen anyone setting the articles on fire or that he did not know as to how the fire took place. He was confronted with his statement Ex PW6/DA where these facts were mentioned. He further claimed having remained in the factory till 4-5 PM. He denied the suggestion that fire had taken place due to short circuit in the motor and the machine. He denied having mentioned in his statement to police that at about 1.30 PM when he came out of the office after having lunch, he saw the foam lying outside the factory was on fire. He was confronted with his statement Ex PW6/DA where it was so recorded. Witness claimed that he did not know name of the accused present in court and also did not know his nick name. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 10 PW.7 Sh Vishwa Mittar Behl claimed that on 08.4.99 he was operating M/s Nath Printing Works and was in Sonepat on that day. He claimed that the factory was dealing with converting raw material into 8 State Vs R.N.Sharma foam lamination and the raw material store was in the factory and raw material was also kept in other portions of the factory. He claimed that Bunty and Sudhir had informed about fire in the factory.
During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, witness admitted that he had no license to operate the said factory. He claimed that the telephone call was received by his son Sandeep at about 1.20-1.25 PM but he did know as to who had made the call. He stated "Sandeep Ne Mere Ko Bataya Ki Telephone Aya Ki Factory Mein Aag Lag Gai Hai". Witness claimed having reached his factory at about 6-6.30 PM . He claimed that his statement was recorded by the police on the same day. When he was asked as to whether he had mentioned in his statement to police that he did not know the reason of fire, witness claimed that as there was a crowd of 500/700 persons and to avoid any kind of untoward incident, the reason of fire were not stated by him. He claimed that he did not remember as to who told him names of Ravi and his brother. He further admitted that he had never told their names to the police at any stage. He 9 State Vs R.N.Sharma claimed that he did not remember having stated in his statement to police that he had inquired from his workers about cause of fire but, it could not be ascertained. He was confronted with his statement Ex PW7/DA where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that name of Ravi or his brother was being stated by him for the first time and falsely at instance of someone else. He denied the suggestion that accused was not involved in the incident or the fire broke out as he had illegally kept highly inflammable material and due to negligence in handling the same. 11 PW.8 Sh Navneet Kapoor had nothing to say about the actual incident and claimed having rushed to the factory on hearing about fire there.
The witness was cross-examined by learned Additional PP for State but nothing could be elicited from the witness. He claimed that he could not say if accused had met him or if he had any talk with the accused regarding the fire. His attention was drawn to his statement Ex PW8/A in this regard. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused 10 State Vs R.N.Sharma and was deposing falsely.
12 PW9 ASI Ranbir Singh claimed that on 08.4.99 on basis of DD No. 8-A PS Anand Parbat he alongwith other police staff had reached the spot where he saw fire and fire brigade was also present there. He claimed that the factory owner was not present there. SDM was also claimed to have reached the spot.
During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, witness named all the police officers who had gone to the spot. He claimed having remained at the spot till 4.30 - 5.00 PM and stated that no one had disclosed anything to him till the time he remained at the spot. He specifically claimed that no reason could be found regarding happening of the fire incident and cause of fire could not be ascertained.
13 PW.10 Sh Sandeep Behl claimed that on 08.4.99 he alongwith his father had gone to Sonepat and at about 1.30-2.00 PM he received a telephone call from his wife who told him that foam lying outside 11 State Vs R.N.Sharma the factory building but within the factory premises had caught fire. He claimed that after sometime he again received a telephone call from his supervisor Bunty, who had informed that fire had gone out of control and that police was not taking any action despite being told that R.N. Sharma had started the fire. He claimed that Bunty also told him that police was asking them not to name anyone as culprit. Witness claimed that he reached the factory alongwith his father at about 8-00 PM. He claimed that on next morning i.e 09.4.99 he went to the police station and met the SHO and informed him that R.N. Sharma had put his factory on fire. Witness claimed that SHO called R. N. Sharma, who claimed to have replied back to threats of father of the witness. He further stated that on the next day i.e 10.4.99 one of their neighbour Amit Sharma brought a Canny and claimed having found the same in the heap of cannies which were being thrown by fire brigade people and collected by the neighbours . Witness claimed that the said Canny smelled of thinner and he took it over and handed it over to IO Vasudev. The said Canny was claimed to have been seized vide seizure memo Ex PW10/A. He 12 State Vs R.N.Sharma identified the Canny Ex P1. He further claimed having given a written complaint on 4.5.99 to SHO. The complaint was proved Ex PW10/C. He also identified the accused.
During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, witness claimed that his statement was recorded by police on 9.4.99. He admitted that they had been challaned for not having MCD license. Witness claimed that the first telephone call regarding the incident received by him was from his wife at about 1.30-2.00 PM. He denied the suggestion of having reached the factory between 6- 6.30 PM . He claimed that his father had reached the factory with him and that there was no police officer present there at that time. He could not say whether or not his statement was recorded by the police on 14.4.99. He admitted that he had not mentioned to the police that Bunty had told him that police was not taking any action despite being told that R. N. Sharma had started the fire. He could not say whether or not there was any lid on mouth of the Canny Ex P.1 when it was produced before him for the first time . He 13 State Vs R.N.Sharma admitted that lid of the Canny was secured with the help of a black tape when produced in court but, there was no tape when it was seen by him for the first time. He claimed having seen the Canny for the first time on 10.4.99 and having handed it over the same to police on the same day. He denied the suggestion that no canny Ex P1 had been produced before him by Amit Sharma or that he had not handed over to the police. He claimed having mentioned in his statement to police about having met the SHO on 9.4.99 and having told him that R.N. Sharma had put the factory on fire and also about R. N. Sharma having been summoned by the SHO. He was confronted with his statement Ex PW10/DA where none of these facts were mentioned. He also claimed having mentioned in his statement to police about canny having been produced before him by Amit Sharma on 10.4.99 and regarding his having produced the canny before the Investigating Officer on the same day. He was again confronted with his statement Ex PW10/DA where these facts were not mentioned. He claimed having lodged complaint with superior officer regarding police not taking any action, but could not produce copy of any such complaint. He 14 State Vs R.N.Sharma denied the suggestion that he was running an unauthorized factory and using second hand and substandard electric motors which caused short circuit in the factory . He claimed that after he had returned to his factory he met Bunty and Sudhir who told him anything about the fire and who had caused it. He had admitted that he had not produced Sudhir and Bunty before police on 8.4.99. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
14 PW.11 Sh Harvinder Chadha claimed that he was not in Delhi on the date of incident and on return to Delhi, he came to know about fire incident and that fire had taken place due to short circuit.
After seeking permission from the Court the witness was cross-examined by Addl PP for State and he admitted that fire incident took place on 8.4.99. He claimed that he had not made any statement to police in this case. When statement Mark P11-A was read over to the witness, he denied the contents of the same having been disclosed by him to the police. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely under 15 State Vs R.N.Sharma pressure of accused or was trying to save him.
During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, witness claimed that he knew R.N. Sharma for the past about 45 years. He claimed that R. N. Sharma was a sincere and helpful person.
15 PW.12 Sh Amit Sharma claimed that he did not remember the date or month but admitted that a fire took place in his neighbourhood in the year 1999. He claimed having been informed about the fire by a Pandit of nearby Mandir. He claimed that nothing else happened and he did not know anything.
After seeking permission from the court the witness was cross-examined by Addl PP for State and he claimed that he had never been interrogated by the police and had not made any statement to police on 14.4.99. His statement Mark P12-A was read over to the witness who denied having made any such statement to the police. He denied the suggestion of having picked up a canny from the back side of house 16 State Vs R.N.Sharma of R. N. Sharma or that it was smelling of thinner. He denied the suggestion of having handed over said canny to Sandeep Behl on 10.4.99. He denied the suggestion that he was not disclosing true facts having got mixed up with the accused.
16 PW.13 SI Vasudev was the Investigating Officer who during course of his examination in chief disclosed facts as had been alleged by the prosecution against the accused. He proved his Rukka endorsement Ex PW13/A and also the site plan. He claimed that he had also met Sandeep Behl and his father and had interrogated them but they claimed that they were not in a position to say anything at that time. He further stated that on 14.4.99 Sandeep Behl came in the police station and handed over to him a canny which had black tape over its mouth. He further claimed having recorded statement of Vishwamittar Behl on 20.4.99. He further claimed that on 4.5.99 a complaint written by Sandeep Behl was forwarded to him by the SHO and on basis of the same he had interrogated Sandeep Behl as well as R.N. Sharma . He further claimed that he had collected report of the Electrical 17 State Vs R.N.Sharma Inspector and as there was no direct evidence against the accused, he was placed in column No.2 and challan filed in court. He also identified the canny Ex P1 and the burnt articles Ex P2.
During course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, witness admitted that cannies like Ex P1 were easily available in the market. He claimed having reached the spot at about 2 PM and that SDM had reached about 1-1.1/2 hrs after he reached at the spot. Witness claimed that SDM had made inquiries but had not prepared any report at the spot. He further claimed that Bunty was also present with him when telephone call was made by family members of Sandeep Behl . He claimed that neither Bunty nor any other family member of Sandeep had informed him at that stage that they had already informed Sandeep about the fire. He claimed that Bunty met him for the first time around 3 PM and telephone call to Sandeep was made thereafter. He claimed that he did not meet any eye witness when he visited the spot on 9.4.99. He claimed that neither Bunty nor Sandeep had produced any other worker 18 State Vs R.N.Sharma before him who could have stated about the cause of fire. He claimed that he had neither pressurized nor threatened any of the witness who had been examined by him or whose statements had been recorded by him. He denied the suggestion that R.N. Sharma was never called to the police station or that he had never visited the police station in connection with the present case. Witness admitted that as per report of the Electrical Inspector,cause of fire could not be ascertained. He further claimed that only burnt pieces of foam had been sent to FSL but admitted that no report from FSL had been received nor was it available on record. Witness further stated that on 9.4.99 the Behls had claimed that they were not in a position to say anything at that time and that they had not given any other reason for not making any statement on that day. He further claimed that he he had been meeting the Behls between 9.4.99 to 20.4.99 but they had been expressing inability to make any statement regarding the incident. He stated that he had not obtained any written report from Fire Brigade regarding the fire incident. He denied that Fire Brigade Officers told him the cause of fire was short circuit. He denied the 19 State Vs R.N.Sharma suggestion that he was deposing falsely. 17 After prosecution evidence was closed, statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C without oath. Therein accused denied all the allegations against him. He claimed that he had been falsely implicated as he had protested against the Behls for running unauthorized and illegal factory. He further claimed that even Mr Vishwamittar Behl had told the neighbours that fire was due to short circuit and that the said fact had been verified by fire brigade. 18 Accused chose to lead defence evidence and in fact examined two witness in his defence. 19 DW1 Ravinder Singh proved copy of fire report (Ex DW1/A) and stated that the reason mentioned therein was electric short circuit.
During course of cross-examination by Additional PP for State, witness claimed that he could not identify author of DW1/A and that he had no personal knowledge as to on what basis the reason of 20 State Vs R.N.Sharma fire was mentioned as electric short circuit. 20 DW2 Sh N. P. Sharma had brought the summoned record including request for sending water tank which was proved as Ex DW2/A. During course of cross-examination by Additional PP for State, he claimed that Ex DW2/A was not in his handwriting.
21 Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by Additional PP for State and learned counsel for accused. It was stated by Additional PP for State that prosecution has proved its case to the hilt and that eye witnesses i.e PW.5 and PW.6 had proved culpability of the accused.
22 Ld. counsel for accused on the other hand submitted that there were material contradictions in testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and that the alleged eye witnesses infact had made substantial improvements as regards their statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. It was pointed out that 21 State Vs R.N.Sharma improvements had been made in material particulars by these witnesses.
23 During course of his submission learned counsel for accused had also placed reliance on Kora Ghasi Vs State [(AIR 1983 SC,360] to discredit the story of recovery of the canny from an open space. Reliance was also placed on Ram Lal Lohar Vs State [(1981 Crl. L. J 1734)]. While referring to B.R. Karpude & Ors Vs State [(1981 SC 1223], it was submitted that improvements by witness in prosecution story as compared to story in 161 Cr P.C had to be disbelieved. To same effect reliance was placed upon State of Punjab Vs Jit Singh & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 549] 24 On perusal of records, this court is of considered opinion and finds itself in agreement with submissions made by learned counsel for accused to the effect that most of the prosecution witnesses have made substantial improvements while deposing in court as compared to their statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. PW.5,PW.6 and PW.10 have apparently 22 State Vs R.N.Sharma made substantial improvements and infact have substantially changed facts as had been mentioned by them in their statements recorded by the police. Not only this, there are some glaring contradictions in testimony of these witnesses interse. 25 It cannot be lost sight of that the accused had been placed in column no.2 of the charge sheet and was subsequently summoned by the court. Investigating Officer during course of his testimony had admitted that as there was no direct evidence against the accused, he was placed in column no.2 and challan was accordingly filed in court. 26 All these gains credence in view of fact that name of the accused had not cropped up as the culprit during early stages of investigation. The alleged eye witnesses had nowhere mentioned the accused as being the culprit in their statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr P. C. The Investigating Officer during course of his cross-examination had categorically stated that the Behls had claimed that they were not in a position to say anything on 9.4.99 and had been expressing their 23 State Vs R.N.Sharma inability to make any statement regarding the incident even up till 20.4.99.
27 In case employees of Behls had disclosed name of the accused to them in the first instance (as is sought to be projected by the prosecution during course of trial), the Behls would have been the first persons to mention the said name during interrogation by the police and would not remain quiet. Their silence speaks volumes.
28 PW5 Bunty had claimed that Sudhir was present in the factory while other workers had gone out for lunch. PW6 Sudhir on the other hand, claimed that 5-7 workers were having lunch in the factory. It would not be out of place to mention herein that as per case of prosecution the incident had taken place in Nath Printing Works while Sudhir specifically claimed that it was Nath Arts and not Nath Printing Works. 29 PW7 Vishwamittar Behl had claimed that he had reached his factory at around 6 or 6.30 PM alongwith his son Sandeep. Now Sandeep when 24 State Vs R.N.Sharma examined as PW10 claims having reached the factory at about 8 PM and specifically denies having reached there at 6-6.30 PM.
30 PW 5 Bunty claimed having narrated all the facts to the owner by 8-9 PM on the day of incident. Still, the owners have kept quiet in this regard. 31 Let us now have a look at the documents and evidence in respect of the plastic canny and the burnt material found at the spot.
32 Investigating machinery in this case was set in motion on basis of DD No 8A dated 8.499 PS Anand Parbat. The police party on basis thereof, had reached the spot from where ASI Vasudev (PW-13) sent rukka Ex PW13/A. A perusal of the rukka reveals that it is mentioned therein that "Aag Lagne Ke Karan Ka Abhi Tak Koi Patta Nahin Chal Sakka". It further mentions "Mokka Par Koi Chashamdeen Gawah Mulaki Nahi Hua" That being the position, it is apparent that till 6.30 PM when the rukka was sent from the spot, the investigating machinery was unaware about identity of 25 State Vs R.N.Sharma the culprit.
33 PW9 ASI Ranbir Singh was amongst the police party which had reached the spot in the first instance. He claimed that he had remained at the spot till about 4.30-5 PM and that no one had disclosed anything to him till that time and no reason could be found regarding happening of the fire incident. 34 Surprisingly, the owners i.e PW10 Sandeep Behl and PW.7 Vishwamittar Behl , despite claiming that they had been told name of the culprits by their employees, remained silent before the police and took no steps to inform the police about names of the culprits. As per record, it was only in his application dated 4.5.99 that Sandeep Behl had named the present accused as being the culprit. Neither Sandeep nor his father had made any report or complaint to the higher officials of the police regarding inaction of the IO in this case. As per IO (PW13) , he had been meeting the Behls from 9.4.99 to 20.4.99, but they had been expressing their inability to make any statement regarding the incident. This conduct of the complainant 26 State Vs R.N.Sharma appears to be unnatural. No one would remain silent if he knows name of the culprit who had set his factory on fire. It would not be out of place to mention herein that even in his statement Ex PW10/DA recorded by police on 14.4.99, Sandeep Behl had not named the present accused as being the culprit who had set fire in his factory.
35 This brings us to another interesting aspect of this case. The fire, as per case of prosecution was lit on the raw material and as per testimony of witnesses, the raw material was lying outside the boundary of the factory. PW5 in this regard had claimed that the liquid (inflammable articles) had been poured outside the boundary of the factory but just near the boundary wall. This witness admittedly, was inside the factory at that time. PW.6 Sudhir also claimed that when he came out of the factory, he noticed fire outside the boundary wall of the factory, but just near the boundary wall. Even PW10 Sandeep Behl has claimed about having received a telephone call from his wife who told him that foam lying outside the factory building had caught fire. One is at a loss as to how a person inside the 27 State Vs R.N.Sharma factory could come to know about fire having been lit outside the boundary of factory and as to why any factorywala would store his raw material outside boundary of the factory.
36 Moreover, another fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the burnt material was never sent to FSL for examination. Although investigating officer (PW13) had stated during course of his testimony that the burnt pieces of foam had been sent to FSL, his this testimony is falsified as the burnt material recovered at the spot had been converted into pullanda which was sealed with seal of VDY, and the case property when produced in court was still sealed with the same seal. Apparently, the same had never been sent to FSL for examination.
37 This brings us to the plastic canny. As per case of prosecution the canny was handed over by Amit to Sandeep Behl on 14.4.99 and was then handed over to the police. Now PW.10 claims during course of his testimony that the canny was handed over to him by Amit on 10.4.99 and was handed over by him to the 28 State Vs R.N.Sharma IO on the same day. The Investigating Officer PW13 on the other hand, has claimed that the canny was handed over to him by Sandeep (PW10) on 14.4.99. The said canny was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW10/A. Surprisingly, the said seizure memo does not bear name or signatures of Amit Sharma and moreover, Amit Sharma when examined as PW.12 has completely disowned the story regarding the plastic canny. He specifically denied having handed over any plastic canny to Sandeep.
38 All this puts in doubt genuineness of claim of the prosecution regarding the canny Ex P1 having been used by the accused to lit fire in the manner it was sought to have been lit.
39 The defence evidence led by the accused cannot be dealt with lightly. As per record of the fire department which had been brought on record by the accused (Ex DW1/A), the fire was in electric wiring. DW1 specifically claimed that the reason "ELECT S/C"
means electric short circuit. These documents and testimony of DW1 & 2 give support to defence of the 29 State Vs R.N.Sharma accused that fire in this case took place on account of short circuit and in considered opinion of this court non-sending of the burnt material to FSL further fortifies claim being raised on behalf of the accused.
40 PW5 & 6 are being projected by the prosecution as being eye witnesses in this case. A perusal of the testimonies goes to show that they have made material improvements over their statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr. P.C, while making statement on oath during course of trial. This coupled with the fact that both of them were still in the employments of the Behls renders their testimonies unreliable.
41 SDM of the Illaqa had reportedly reached the spot and had made inquiry but nothing beyond that had been brought on record by the investigating agency. The report, if any, of the SDM has not seen light of the day.
42 Non-sending of the burnt material to FSL for examination was a fatal omission and serious hiatus 30 State Vs R.N.Sharma in the story pictured by the prosecution to frame the accused in this case.
43 Keeping in view all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and primarily in view of material improvements made by the prosecution witnesses while deposing in court as compared to their statements recorded by the police, non-sending of burnt pieces of the material to FSL for examination and material contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses enumerated herein-above, this court is of considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove culpability of accused in this case. Accordingly, the accused is hereby ordered to be acquitted in this case. His bail bond stands cancelled. Surety discharged.
Announced in open court (M. R. SETHI) on 17.2.2010 ADsDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: (FTC) (WEST):DELHI 31 State Vs R.N.Sharma 32 State Vs R.N.Sharma 33 State Vs R.N.Sharma 34