Delhi District Court
State vs . Puneet Kumar S/O. Late Sh Dayanand on 29 August, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEI(OUTER): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC No.93/11.
FIR No.507/09.
PSROHINI.
U/S. 307/186/353 IPC & 25/27 ARMS ACT.
STATE VS. PUNEET KUMAR S/O. LATE SH DAYANAND
R/O. H.NO.93, MAIN ROAD, POOTH KALAN,
DELHI.
Date of Institution in this Court : 24.02.2010.
Date of Arguments: 18.08.2012.
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2012.
JUDGMENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2009 at about 6.30pm a secret informer met with SI Puran Pant in Special Staff Office and told him that, one person namely Puneet Kumar resident of village Pooth Kalan, Delhi, who is wanted in the sensational murder case of one Vinod Goel , President of Vyapar Mandal Dadri, 2 Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. likely to come at M2K, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi, on his black pulsar motorcycle bearing no.0566 to meet his girl friend and he is carrying weapons. He further informed that he is also member of notorious gang of Nandu @ Narender @ Ravan. SI Puran Pant shared this information with his senior officers and who directed him to constitute a raiding party. Accordingly SI Puran Pant had constituted a raiding party consisting of SI Deepak Malik, SI Jaswinder Chaudhary, HC Naresh, HC Surender, Ct. Manish, Ct. Parveen and himself and thereafter, they reached at the road Vishram Chowk to Deepali Chowk, near Maharaja Agrasen Nagar, near M2K Shopping Complex at red light, Naharpur market and where they put barricades and started checking the vehicles. At about 7.15 pm the said secret informer had pointed out towards one black colour pulsar motorcycle. On this SI Puran Pant reduced the gap of barricades and signaled the motorcycle rider to stop. But 3 motorcycle rider did not stop and increased the speed of the motorcycle, on which his motorcycle hit with the barricades and thereafter, the said rider of the motorcycle bearing number DL8SAQ0566 fell down but, he got up and started running and also fired upon the police party. But, bullet did not hit anybody SI Puran Pant apprehended him with the help of HC Naresh, Ct. Manish and other staff. On inquiry from person's he came to know his name as Puneet Kumar. On checking pistol, he found two live cartridges in it. He seized the pistol, as well as, live cartridges, thereafter, he prepared the rukka and sent Ct. Manish for registration of FIR. Duty Officer registered the FIR No. 507/09, u/s.186/353/307 IPC and marked further investigation to SI Manwar Patwal of the PS South Rohini in which PS the FIR was registered. SI Manwar Patwal arrested the accused Puneet Kumar, recorded statements of witnesses and sent the weapon to the FSL, collected the sanction 4 u/s. 195 Cr.PC for prosecuting the accused and also obtained sanction under Arms Act from the concerned DCP and thereafter on completion of the investigations, filed the chargesheet under Section 186/353/307 IPC before the court and accused was put to trial.
2. Since offnece punishable u/s. 307 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, therefore, case was committed to the court of Sessions and after compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., ld. MM has committed the present case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, it was assigned to this court.
3. Vide order dated 15.04.2010, chargees have been framed against accused Puneet Kumar u/s.186/353/307 IPC, and charge u/s. 27 Arms Act was also framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. PW1 is Ct. Vinod Kumar who accompanied with IO SI 5 Manwar Patwal, PW2 HC Naresh was the member of raiding party, PW3 Ct. Moolchand had accompanied with IO SI Manwar Patwal during interrogation of accused at PS Rohini, PW4 HC Sudeshwar Singh was the duty officer at PS and registered the FIR Ex.PW4/A and made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW4/B, PW5 B.K. Singh Additional DCP who had given sanction u/s. 39 Arms Act, PW6 Ct. Manish Kumar was the member of the raiding party constituted by SI Puran Pant, PW7 HC Bhupender Singh was from PS Vijay Vihar, who took the alleged motorcycle to PS Vijay Vihar as the said motorcycle was the case property in Case FIR No.276/09 under Section 379 IPC, PS Vijay Vihar, PW8 Inspector Puran Pant was the incharge of raiding party, PW9 Mohd. Younous Ansari the registered owner of the black colour pulsar motorcycle No. DL8SAQ0566, which was stolen from the area of PS Vijay Vihar and for which he had lodged the FIR No.276/09, u/s. 379 IPC, PW10 Om Prakash 6 Sharma was ACP in the subdivision Rohini and who had prepared complaint u/s.195 Cr.PC and filed before the court of ld. ACMM, PW11HC Chander Shekhar proved past involvement of accused, PW12ASI Rajender Singh is the IO of the case which was registered at PS Vijay Vihar, PW13 Shri Puneet Puri is the expert witness from the FSL, Rohini, Delhi, PW14SI Manwar Patwal was the IO of the case and PW15HC Jagdish Singh was the MHC(M). Beside this prosecution also proved documents i.e.rukka Ex.PW4/B, FIR Ex.PW4/A, DD No.10 Ex.PW8/A, Seizure memo of pistol and live cartridges Ex.PW2/B, Sketch of pistol and live cartridges Ex.PW2/A, site plan Ex.PW14/A, personal search memo of accused Ex.PW1/B, Arrest memo Ex.PW1/A, Confessional statement of accused PW1/C, Ex.PW1/C1 & Ex.PW3/A, Seizure memo of motorcycle Ex.PW1/D, pointing out memo Ex.PW1/E, DDNo.58B Ex.PW14/B, FSL Report Ex.PW13/A, Complaint u/s.195 CrPC. Ex.PW10/A and Sanction u/s. 7 39 Arms Act Ex.PW5/A
5. Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. recorded in which he denied all the incriminating evident put to him and wishes to bring evidence in his defence.
6. I have heard arguments on behalf of Shri S.C. Sroai, ld. Addl. PP for the State and Shri Nitin Vashisht, ld. Counsel for accused and also gone through the record carefully.
7. The prime witness of the prosecution case are PW8 Inspector Puran Pant, PW2 HC Naresh and PW6 Ct. Manish, who are member of the raiding party and apprehended the accused.
8. PW8 Inspector Puran Pant has deposed that on 22.2.2009, he was present at his office at Special Staff, where at about 3.30pm, where the secret informer came to his office and he discussed secret information with his senior officers and, thereafter, briefed police officials namely SI Jaswinder Chaudhary, SI Deepak 8 Malik, HC Surender, Ct. Manish, Ct. Narender, Ct. Parveen and HC Naresh. Thereafter, information was recorded in DD No.10 Ex.PW8/A. The informer told him that, one Puneet Kumar, who is wanted in a murder case of Dadri District, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., will come in evening time to meet his girl friend. A raiding party was formed under his supervision consisting the abovesaid police officials and they all proceeded in a private vehicle to the spot i.e. red light point of Naharpur Market, Rohini, Delhi. There they put barricades for the purpose of checking the vehicle, as accused was about to come on his motorcycle. At about 7.15 pm the said secret informer gave signal about arriving of the accused Puneet Kumar. On seeing the motorcycle of the accused Puneet Kumar, he tried to stop the accused but accused had slowed the speed of his motorcycle and also made efforts to run away by making fast speed of his motorcycle, but he put barricades in front of motorcycle of the 9 accused, which hit barricades and as a result of which accused fallen down alongwith his motorcycle, thereafter, accused stand up and started running and immediately took out pistol from his possession and fired upon the raiding party with an intention to kill them and accused obstructed the police officials and he also used criminal force against them. But, he and HC Naresh overpowered the accused with pistol. HC Naresh snatched pistol from his right hand. He checked the weapon and found two live cartridges and he took measurements and prepared the sketch of the pistol and cartridges and thereafter, prepared the pullanda of the same after sealing the same with the seal of PP. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and prepared a rukka and gave the same to the Ct. Manish for registration of FIR to PS South Rohini. After registration of FIR SI Manwar Patwal alongwith Ct. Vinod reached at the spot. He delivered the rukka and carbon copy of FIR to SI 10 Manwar Patwal and also handed over accused and all the documents which were prepared by him. SI Manwar Patwal prepared the site plan at his instance and thereafter relieved him. After recording his statement, he identified the accused, as well as, pistol, cartridges and motorcycle.
In his cross examination, he stated that in secret information it was not mentioned that, at what time the accused will reach at M2K Complex. They reached at the spot at about 6.45 pm and remained there for about four hours. Public persons were asked to join the raiding party, but none of them joined and no written notice was given to them. Crime Team was not called at the spot and no chance print was lifted in his presence from the bike and weapon. He admitted the suggestion that whenever any fire is made recently from any weapon, there are chance for some gunshot particles comes from the barrel. He checked the barrel of the gun, 11 but did not seize any gunshot particles.
9. PW2 HC Naresh and PW6 Ct. Manish Kumar have also deposed same facts in their testimonies with some variations.
10. On appreciation of the testimony of PW8 SI Puran Pant, PW2 HC Naresh and PW6 Ct. Manish Kumar, I found that they have unanimously deposed that on 22.02.2009 a secret information received regarding arrival of accused Puneet Kumar, who is wanted in a murder case in UP and therefore, raiding party was constituted to apprehend him and they put barricades at the road near red light of Naharpur Market and at about 7.15 pm when they tried to apprehend accused Puneet Kumar, accused fired upon the police party and he was apprehended with pistol. The spot where accused was apprehended is Red light Point of Naharpur Market, Rohini, Delhi, the time of incident is 7.15pm. Hence, it could be understand that this place was full of public persons being a public road, despite 12 the said fact, no independent public persons have been joined by either SI Puran Pant or by the subsequent IO SI Manwar Patwal. Undoubtedly, the absence of independent public witness is not fatal to the prosecution case. But, at the same time, when police officials are themselves victim, as well as, witnesses in that eventuality, close scrutiny is required to their testimony in order to avoid false implication. In such circumstances, presence of independent public witnesses give credence to the testimony of police witnesses.
Furthermore, PW8 Inspector Puran Pant has deposed that they have knowledge that accused was having weapon, hence, I failed to understand why they have not equipped themselves with bullet proof jacket or other safety materials, they might be aware that person to whom they are going to apprehend may fire upon them, and thus by this act of SI Puran Pant not only put his life in danger as well as, that of other police officials, which in my view needs to be 13 considered in such cases. I find there are many contradictions and improvements in the statement of PWs. In the rukka Ex.PW4/A, it is mentioned that seeing the motorcycle bearing number DL8SAQ0566 coming, and he signaled to stop but motorcycle rider tried to cross the barricades, but struck with it due to narrow gap. Whereas in his testimony PW8 had stated that he suddenly put barricades in front of the motorcycle of the accused, when accused increased the speed of his motorcycle to run away. Same fact has been deposed by PW2 HC Naresh and PW6 Ct. Manish Kumar that, SI Puran Pant put barricades in front of the motorcycle when accused was trying to run away. Furthermore, all these witnesses have stated that accused had fallen down from the motorcycle after striking with barricades, but it is very unbelievable that, even after falling down from motorcycle, accused did not receive any injuries nor his clothes were torn, though his motorcycle as mentioned in the 14 seizure memo got damaged. SI Puran Pant was standing just near to him when accused fallen down from the motorcycle, but when the accused was fallen on the road he was unable to apprehend the accused, though,he would have taken some time to get up. But PW8 SI Puran Pant was quick enough that, he was able to apprehend the accused when accused started running and firing upon them. This creates suspicion. PWs have admitted that neither photograph of the spot was taken, nor Crime Team was called despite the fact that, it could be a material piece of evidence to prove that, accused had fallen down on road with his motorcycle, as there would be scratch and damage marks on the motorcycle, as well as, barricades which could be seen from the photograph and also there would be tyre skidding marks on the road. PWs have also failed to explain when accused had fired upon them, where the empty cartridges and fire bullet had gone. They have not stated in their testimony that any 15 effort was made to trace out the said empty cartridges and fired bullet. No gunshot particle have been found on the pistol Ex.P1 to prove that same was used for firing upon the police party and above all FSL Report Ex.PW13/A proved that pistol used in the commission of offence was not in working order, hence, where comes the question of firing from the said pistol. The prosecution has alleged that accused was wanted in a murder case of U.P., therefore, they had gone to apprehend him, but no documents has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove that accused was wanted in any murder case. Neither any documents places on record that they informed to the UP Police that they have apprehend a person, who is wanted in their murder case on that accused. Further no attempt was made to lift the chance prints from the pistol to substantiate that the same was ever in possession of accused Puneet Kumar or that he was in possession of pistol Ex.P1 and subsequently taken into 16 custody by the U.P. Police.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused had fired upon the police party/member of the raiding party including PW8 Puran Pant, PW2 HC Naresh and PW6 Ct. Manish Kumar, when they tried to apprehend him to attract the provision of Section 307 IPC. They have also failed to prove that accused had attempted to use criminal force or obstructed in discharging their official duties as same is in the form of firing upon the police party. Therefore, in my view prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 307/186/353 IPC. The alleged recovery of pistol and cartridges from accused also become doubtful in such circumstances. No other form of obstructions or criminal force has been alleged by the abovesaid PWs.
12. In the abovesaid facts and discussions, I held that 17 prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Puneet Kumar has committed offence under Section 307/186/353 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Therefore, accused Puneet Kumar stands acquitted from all the charges. His bail bond and surety bond are cancelled and surety is discharged. Original documents, if any, retained on the judicial record be returned. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Kumar)
On 29.08.2012 Addl. Sessions Judge
Rohini Courts: Delhi.