Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder Singh on 6 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIPIN KHARB
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 : SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 38/19
CNR No. DLSW01-000923-2019
State Vs. Ravinder Singh
FIR No. : 823/2018
Police Station : Uttam Nagar
Under Sections : 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 17.01.19
Date on which judgment was reserved : 06.07.23
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 06.07.23
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. On receiving DD No.43A dated 04.09.2018, ASI J.K. Thomas along with HC Sher Singh went to Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital, Uttam Nagar where they found injured Poonam admitted for treatment vide MLC No.114/18. The doctor on MLC has opined Gun shot injury at home and nature of injury 'Grievous'. Doctor opined that injured is fit for statement.
Thereafter, ASI J. K. Thomas recorded statement of injured Poonam.
2. In her statement Poonam stated that she is a housewife and has been married since 13 years. She lives with her family i.e. her husband Ravinder Singh, daughter Kanika age 11 years and son Mayank age 5 years at A-127, FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 1 of 23 Bhagwati Garden Extn., Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. She and her husband used to quarrel and because of the said reason she went to her maternal home. She returned to her matrimonial home one year back. They were resided on the ground floor of the house and upper floor was given on rent and the rent of the upper floor is their only source of income as her husband Ravinder does not do any work. On 04.09.2018 at about 2:20 p.m. when she return to home with her daughter Kanika from her school, her husband Ravinder started quarreling with her. She told him not to quarrel as kids are growing up, on this Ravinder went to another room, came back with a gun and fired upon her. She ran towards gali and cried for help. Her neighbours took her to the hospital. Accused Ravinder shot her with intention to kill her. On the basis of her statement and MLC, present FIR was registered.
3. During investigation, IO/ASI J. K. Thomas along-with HC Sher Singh went to the spot and found eye-witnesses Kanika (daughter) and Mayank (son). After the crime team inspection, exhibits were seized and taken into custody. IO prepared rukka and got registered the present case. After registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to SI Anup Rana. He seized the other exhibits and apprehended the accused. On secret information, accused was arrested from near Holy Chowk, Uttam Nagar and one desi katta, two live cartridges and one empty cartridge were recovered from his possession. He seized the same, recorded statement of witnesses, prepared site plan and sent all the exhibits to FSL. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court for the offences u/s. 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 2 of 234. After complying with Sec.207 Cr.PC, case was committed to the Sessions Court.
5. After hearing arguments, charge was framed against the accused on 30.04.2019 for the offences punishable u/s. 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act to which accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial.
6. During trial, supplementary charge-sheet qua FSL result and Sanction u/s. 39 Arms Act was filed on 18.04.2022 and further, charge for the offence punishable u/s. 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused on the same day to which accused pleaded "Not Guilty and claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
7. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused.
8. PW-1 HC Sharwan was the duty officer who had recorded the FIR No. 823/18 and proved the same as Ex.PW-1/A, endorsement on Tehrir as Ex.PW-1/B and Certificate u/s. 65-B of Evidence Act as Ex.PW-1/C.
9. PW-2 child witness deposed that on 04.09.2018, she and her mother reached home on scooty. She heard altercation between her parents. After the alteration, her mother came out into the hall where she was changing her clothes. Her father went to other room and got a gun with which he fired at FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 3 of 23 the stomach of her mother. She saw the incident and thereafter she along- with her younger brother and mother came out of the house. They started going towards the house of her uncle, who is the elder brother of her father. Her mother and brother could not walk much, she went to the house of her uncle and came back to her house with her cousin sister. She correctly identified the accused in the court.
In cross-examination by counsel for accused, she stated that she had never seen the gun used by her father prior to the incident. It was a katta and she does not remember the colour of the same. She denied the suggestion that some other person may have fired at her mother or that she was deposing falsely.
10. PW-3 Ms. Poonam was the complainant / injured. She deposed that her husband used to drink liquor due to this reason, she went to her parental house in the year 2012. Her mother-in-law i.e. mother of the accused called her to look after the accused as he was ill and his liver got damaged and he was admitted in Ganga Ram Hospital in August 2017 and got discharged from the hospital in the month of September 2017. In the month of May 2018, they shifted to their own house. On 04.09.2018, she along-with her daughter returned to house at about 1:30 p.m. Accused quarreled with her. She sat on the sofa in the hall. Accused went to another room and brought pistol and fired on her stomach. She along-with her children came out of the house. When she came near Atul Chowk, she fell down because of the gun shot injury on her stomach. Public gathered there and police was already present at the said spot and took her to Mata Rooprani Maggo Hospital. She FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 4 of 23 gave her statement Ex.PW-3/A to the police. She identified the pistol as Ex.P1, which was produced in the court in envelope i.e. Ex.F1 on which FSL/2018/F.11088 was written.
In her cross-examination by ld counsel for accused, she stated that there were three tenants along-with their families in their house on the day of incident. The house belongs to mother of the accused. She denied the suggestion that she used to pressurize the accused to get the said house transferred in her name. She stated that after hearing the noise of gunshot, her tenants gathered but now those tenants have vacated the premises and some new tenants are staying. Inder Singh, elder brother of the accused and his wife took her to the hospital and police accompanied them. She denied the suggestion that accused is falsely implicated in order to grab the property from his mother as accused refused to transfer property in complainant's name and she is deposing falsely.
11. PW-4 Sh. Inder Singh was brother of accused who deposed that on 04.09.2018, after having lunch, he was sitting in his house. The daughter of accused came to his house, who was crying and was under fear, and told him that her mother received gunshot injury. He took his vehicle and reached near the spot and saw that injured was already kept in a rickshaw for taking to hospital. He stopped the rickshaw and shifted the injured in his vehicle and took the injured to Mata Rooprani Maggo Hospital. The daughter of the accused remained at his house. He showed the house of accused to the police and police prepared the site plan Ex.PW-4/A. He was not cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused despite FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 5 of 23 opportunity being given to him.
12. PW-5 HC Sher Singh deposed that on 04.09.2018 on receipt of DD No.43A at about 3:40 p.m. he accompanied the IO / ASI J. K. Thomas. IO collected one bullet led from the spot. IO seized the bullet led vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A and took blood in gauze vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. IO handed over rukka to him for registration of FIR. He got registered the FIR and came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Anoop Rana who was present at the spot. SI Anoop Rana collected the blood stained marble stone, bed-sheet of white and purple colour, one dupatta and seized the said items vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/C. On secret information, they went to Holy Chowk and apprehended the accused. IO conducted the casual search of the accused and from the right side of the dub, one country made pistol and two live cartridges were found. One empty fired cartridge was found and also one Samsung mobile was found from the accused. IO prepared the sketch of the pistol and the cartridges Ex.PW5/D and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/E, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW5/F, conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW5/G, recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex. PW5/H. The counsel for accused has not disputed the identity of the case property. The pistol was already Ex.P1.
In cross-examination by counsel for accused, he stated that he does not remember the names of persons who were gathered at the spot. He does not remember whether IO had recorded the statement of the children of the injured. The sketch of the pistol and live cartridges were prepared at FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 6 of 23 Holy Chowk itself and denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
13. PW-6 HC Suresh Kumar Yadav was photographer of Crime Team who proved the 16 photographs of the spot Ex.PW-6/A (colly) and certificate u/s. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-6/B.
14. PW-7 ASI J. K. Thomas was the first IO and deposed about the investigation conducted by him and proved DD No.43A as Ex.PW-7/A and his endorsement on the statement of complainant Poonam as Ex.PW-7/B and the investigation conducted by him. He deposed about the arrest of the accused and recovery of pistol and live cartridges from him.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that the sketch of the pistol and cartridges were prepared at Holy Chowk and after arresting the accused, they went to police station along with the accused and denied all the suggestions given to him.
15. PW-8 Sh. V. R. Anand, Asst. Dirctor (Ballistics), FSL, Rohini deposed that he examined the country made pistol .315 inch bore which was marked as 'F1'. The countrymade pistol as in working order and test fire conducted successfully. The bullet EB-1 corresponded to the bullet of 8mm/.315 inch cartridge. The cartridge case marked Ex.EC-1 was a fired empty cartridge. The cartridges A-1 and A-2 were test fired through the countrymade pistol. The test fired cartridges were marked as TC-1 and TC- 2 and recovered bullets were marked as TB-1 and TB-2. The individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on EC-1 FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 7 of 23 and on TC-1 & TC-2 were compared under Comparison Microscope and were found identical. Cartridge case EC-1 has been fired through the countrymade pistol marked Ex.F-1. Individual characteristics of striation marks present on EB-1 and on TB-1 and TB-2 were compared under Comparison Microscope and were found identical. The bullet marked Ex.EB-1 has been discharged through the countrymade pistol marked Ex.F-
1. Ex.F-1/A-1, A-2, EC-1 and EB-1 were fire arm / ammunitions as defined under Arms Act, 1959 and proved his report dated 20.03.2020 as Ex.PW- 8/A. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he made the report in casual manner.
16. PW-9 SI B. K. Bharti collected the FSL report from MHC(M) and obtained the Sanction from DCP and filed supplementary charge-sheet against the accused.
17. PW-10 HC Vikash Choudhary brought the register of Sanction order against the accused for prosecution of accused u/s 39 Arms Act. On 15.02.2021, the case file of FIR no. 823/18, was received for sanction under Arms Act against the accused. The said letter is Ex. PW-10/A(OSR). After going through the entire case file, and after satisfaction, additional DCP, Vikram Singh had given Sanction U/s 39 Arms Act against accused Ravinder Singh. Same is Ex. PW-10/B. He had seen the signatures of SI B. K. Bharti and additional DCP Vikram Singh as he had worked with them. He was fully acquainted with the writings and signature of him.
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 8 of 2318. PW-11 SI Anup Rana was the second IO who conducted the further investigation and filed the charge-sheet in the court.
In his cross-examination by counsel for accused, he stated that he recorded statement of Kanika and Inder Singh and the remaining police witnesses. He admits that the tenants of the said premises were present in the house but he had not recorded their statements as the incident occurred inside the house and he had not made inquiries from the tenants who were not eye-witnesses.
19. Accused admitted the MLC and Crime Scene Report as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
20. As all relevant witnesses were examined, therefore, at request of Ld. Addl. PP for State, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 17.12.2022 and the matter was fixed for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
21. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded with the assistance of counsel for accused and accused wants to lead defence evidence. Matter was fixed for defence evidence.
22. Accused examined Sh. Anoop Singh as DW-1. He deposed that he knows the accused from his childhood. On 04.09.2018, accused was with him in his office at Gandhi Chowk near Holy Chowk, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 9 of 23In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he stated that accused came to him on 04.09.2018 at about 10:00 a.m. and left his office at about 7:00 p.m. He was a property dealer and used to deal in rent of houses. Accused used to assist him. He used to pay the accused as he was assisting him. He does not maintain any account of his income and expenditure and any salary account. There was no other employee in his office. There were no CCTV installed around his office. He denied the suggestion that accused is not working in his office. After examining DW-1, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 15.02.23 and, thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
23. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
24. In order to prove the offense U/s 307 IPC against accused person, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ravinder Singh fired from countrymade pistol on his wife complainant Poonam and caused injury with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if his wife had died due to injury, he would have been guilty of murder. For the offence u/s. 25/27 of the Arms Act, prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ravinder was found in possession of countrymade pistol with live cartridges and used the countrymade pistol. Henceforth, court shall now proceed further to evaluate the evidence available on record to find out if the prosecution has succeeded in its task or not.
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 10 of 2325. Sec.307 IPC is reproduced hereinbelow :
"Sec.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 1 [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
26. PW-3 is the complainant / injured of the present case and she specifically deposed that on 04.09.2018 when she returned home at around 1:30 p.m. with her daughter / PW-2, her husband / accused had altercation with her because of which he went to another room and brought a pistol and fired upon her stomach. Testimony of PW-3 is corroborated by PW-2, who is the daughter of the accused and injured / complainant as PW-2 deposed similar to the PW-3. Additionally, the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 / injured / complainant shows that they were consistent and despite cross- examination, no contradiction in material aspect could be brought in their testimonies.
27. In fact during the cross-examination of PW-3, accused brought out his motive to hit the complainant on record as he gave the suggestion that complainant wants to grab the property of his mother, which he denied to transfer in the favour of complainant.
28. In 'Jodhan vs. State of M.P.', Crl. Appeal No.1683 of 2010 decided on 08.04.2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 11 of 23"22. From the aforesaid summarization of the legal principles, it is beyond doubt that the testimony of the injured witness has its own significance and it has to be placed reliance upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and inconsistencies. As has been stated, the injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury sustained by him as an inbuilt-guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence. Thus perceived, we really do not find any substance in the submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the injured witnesses have been appositely discarded being treated as untrustworthy by the ld. Trial Judge.
29. In the present case, not only testimony of PW-3 is consistent but also no contradiction was brought in her cross-examination. Further, deposition of PW-3 is also corroborated by medical evidence i.e. MLC, Ex.A1, wherein it is clearly mentioned that injured Poonam / PW-3 have received gunshot injury and the bullet entered near umbilical region and bullet exits from right glueteal region. This shows that bullet hit at the stomach of the PW-3 / injured.
30. Deposition of PW-3 is also corroborated by deposition of PW-2 i.e. her daughter and also by deposition of PW-4 / Inder Singh, who is the brother of the accused, who deposed that PW-2 came to him and told him while crying that her mother had received gunshot injury and he was the one who brought the injured to the Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital. So, in view of consistency in testimony of PW-3 and corroboration by PW-2 and PW-4 and medical evidence, it is reliable and trustworthy.
31. In his defence, during arguments, Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that accused was present at the shop of DW-1 when the alleged incident occurred and same is proved by the testimony of DW-1.
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 12 of 2332. Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act is reproduced below for reference:
8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. - Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. Explanation 1.- The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Illustrations
(i) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession or property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.
So, as per Section 8 of the Evidence Act, conduct of the accused which includes the statement made by him immediately after the offence are relevant and an important circumstance that can be proved against or in favour of the accused.
33. The conduct of the accused that after his wife received injury, he absconded and did not take her to the hospital and was arrested at some other place i.e. Holy Chowk is a relevant fact which is squarely covered by illustration (i) of Sec.8 of Indian Evidence Act and is duly proved against the accused.
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 13 of 2334. On the other hand, the conduct of his daughter i.e. PW-2 that she went to house of her uncle PW-4, who is elder brother of accused instead of calling her father after the incident supports the case of the prosecution that accused fired upon his wife as, in case, someone else have fired upon accused's wife and he was not at home then in normal circumstances, his daughter / PW-2 first of all would have called upon him and told him about the incident but rather than calling the accused she went to the house of her uncle / PW-4.
35. Also, in case accused has not fired upon his wife then PW-4, when got aware about the incident, should have called firstly his brother i.e. accused about the incident but instead of that PW-4 went towards the house of accused and on way found PW-3 in injured condition and took her to the hospital and never called his brother / accused. Further, the non presence of accused along-with his injured wife or with his children and not taking his injured wife to the doctor for the treatment is a relevant fact and this conduct of the accused alongwith the conduct of PW-2 and PW-4 corroborates that accused is the one who shot his wife i.e. PW-3/injured.
36. Considering that DW-1 knew accused since childhood and his testimony is not corroborated by any evidence rather contradicted by the conduct of accused, PW-2 and PW-4 and therefore, testimony of DW-1 has no weightage and cannot be relied upon and the defence of the accused that at the time of incident he was present at the shop of DW-1 is rejected.
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 14 of 2337. Also, during final arguments, counsel for the accused made submission that no public witness got examined by the prosecution regarding the incident despite the fact that there were tenants in the house of the complainant and accused at the time of incident and in her cross- examination PW-3 / injured has admitted that at the time of incident, there were tenants on the upper floor of the house. As the incident had occurred within the four boundary walls of the house of complainant and accused, therefore, it is not possible for any other public person including their tenants to saw the incident and therefore, they are not the eyewitnesses of the case. Further, in addition to injured there is eyewitness to the incident i.e. PW-2, who is daughter of accused and complainant. Also, prosecution examined PW-4, who is the brother of the accused and no motive for falsely implicate the accused by PW-2 or PW-4 or contradiction in their testimony could be brought by the defence during cross-examination. It is not the number of witnesses which matters but the quality of witnesses. This defence of the accused that no independent public witness was examined by prosecution has not effect on the outcome of the case and prosecution has been successful in proving that accused fired at stomach of his wife.
38. Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute culpable of FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 15 of 23 homicide not amounting to murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention.
39. From the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 / injured what emerges is that accused had altercation with PW-3/injured as they came late from school because of which accused got angry and went inside another room and brought pistol and fired upon PW-3. Accused went inside the room and brought the pistol in the living room and then fired upon his wife, this shows that he intentionally did the act and if someone is fired upon with pistol then it is a common knowledge that act will be sufficient in normal course to cause the death of a person.
40. Further, everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and the act of the accused was that he fired upon his wife and natural consequence of this act could be the death of his wife / PW-3. From this it is quite evident that accused did have intention to cause death of his wife. Therefore, all the ingredients of offence u/s. 307 IPC are proved and accused is held guilty for the offence.
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 16 of 2341. The second offence for which the accused is charged is u/s. 25 of the Arms Act.
"Sec.25. Punishment for certain offences ........................................................................ ........................................................................ (1B) whoever
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3 ........................................................................
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [one year] but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [one year]."
42. Countrymade pistol falls within the definition of firearms as provided u/s. 2(e) of the Arms Act and cartridge falls within the definition of ammunition as provided u/s. 2(b) of the Arms Act. As per the seizure memo Ex.PW-5/E, countrymade pistol along-with two live cartridges and one used cartridge were recovered from the possession of the accused person in the presence of PW-5, PW-7 and PW-11.
43. Ld. defence counsel argued that no independent public person was joined by the police i.e. PW-5, PW-7 and PW-11, at the time of alleged recovery of these arms and ammunitions and in the absence thereof, recovery of pistol, two live cartridges and one used empty cartridge shell at the instance of accused Ravinder becomes doubtful. The said argument of ld. defence counsel is liable to be rejected for the reason that IO / PW-11 and PW-5 and PW-7 has duly explained that efforts were made by IO / PW- 11 to join passersby during proceedings but none agreed. They also give the FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 17 of 23 name of two public witnesses i.e. Surender and Golu who refused to join the investigation after giving reasonable excuses and also refuse to give their addresses.
44. Law is not that testimony of police officers is absolutely untrustworthy or that it can never be acted upon. Rather, the law is that even the testimony of a police officer can be acted upon and a conviction can be based on such testimony if the testimony is unimpeached and found to be trustworthy. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Anil @ Andya Sadashiv Nandorkar Vs. State", reported at J.T. 1996 (3) SC 120, has held that testimony of the police officials cannot be discredited merely because they are police officials if otherwise, their testimony is found to be cogent, trustworthy and reliable. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Akmal Ahmad Vs. State of Delhi", reported at J. T 1999 (2) SC 388 held as under:
''it is now well settled that evidence of search and seizure made by police will not become vitiated only for the reasons that the evidence is not supported by independent witnesses.''
45. In the matter titled as "State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil & Anr." reported at (2001) 1 SCC 652, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"...................................... This Court examined a similar issue in a case where no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document. The Court observed that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be viewed with initial distrust. At any rate, the Court cannot begin with the presumption that police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. The wise principle of presumption, which is also FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 18 of 23 recognized by the legislature, is that judicial and official acts are regularly performed. Hence, when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the Court to believe that version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. The burden is on the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is unreliable. If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the Court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume that police action is unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions ......................".
46. Ld. defence counsel could not bring any material contradiction during cross examination of relevant recovery witnesses i.e. PW-5, PW-7 and PW-11, with regard to recovery of arms and ammunitions from the possession of accused Ravinder, during their respective cross examination. After considering the testimonies of those recovery witnesses, Court is of the view that said witnesses have duly corroborated each other and have successfully withstood the test of cross examination. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in establishing that pistol Ex.P1 containing two live cartridges and one empty cartridge Ex.P2 (colly) were got recovered from the accused Ravinder.
47. On reading of Sec.25 of the Arms Act, it is apparent that in order to bring home the guilt of accused Ravinder Singh u/s. 25 of the Arms Act, the prosecution was required to prove that the possession of firearms and FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 19 of 23 ammunition i.e. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 (colly) respectively was in contravention of Sec.3 of the Arms Act. The relevant portion of Sec.3 of Arms Act is reproduced hereinbelow :
"Sec.3. Licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition. (1) No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder."
48. It is not the case of accused Ravinder that he was having any valid licence to possess the said pistol and cartridges at that time. In other words, the possession of the said arm and ammunition with accused Ravinder is proved to be in violation of Section 3 of Arms Act.
49. The FSL report Ex.PW-8/A proves that desi katta Ex.P1 is a countrymade pistol of .315 bore and designed by standard 8 mm / .315 cartridge and it is firearm as defined in the Arms Act and it also proves that two live cartridges A1 and A2 and used cartridge EC1, which were proved in the court as Ex.P2 (colly) are ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. No discrepancy in the FSL result Ex.PW-8/A could be brought during the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused and so FSL result Ex.PW-8/A is duly proved.
50. Sec.39 Previous sanction of the district magistrate necessary in certain cases. No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the district magistrate.
For any offence u/s.3 of the Arms Act previous sanction of the concerned authority is required. PW-4 HC Vikas Chaudhary prove the Sanction given by the FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 20 of 23 concerned Authority i.e. Additional DCP Vikram Singh u/s 39 of the Arms Act and same is Ex.PW-10/B. The Ex.PW-10/B went unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of the accused person. In view of the above discussion, prosecution has proved that accused was found in possession of countrymade pistol and two live cartridges and one used cartridge in contravention of Sec.3 of the Arms Act and therefore liable to be punished u/s. 25 of the Arms Act.
51. The third offence for which accused was charged was for offence u/s. 27 Arms Act, 1959. The relevant section is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"27. Punishment for using arms, etc. (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".
52. On reading of above provision, it is apparent that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused Ravinder Singh under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the prosecution is required to establish that the use of the ammunition EB1 i.e. used bullet by accused was in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act.
"Section 5 of the Arms Act read thus:
Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition. - (1) No person shall -
(a) [use, manufacture], sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or
(b) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder :
(b) A period of not less than forty-five days has expired after the giving of such information]"FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 21 of 23
53. Ex.PW-5/A i.e. seizure memo of bullet led i.e. Ex.EB1 which shows that same was seized from the house of the accused and complainant where firing incident took place and as discussed above it is proved by prosecution that firing was done by the accused Ravinder. Ex.EB1 was deposited in FSL vide RC No. 384/21/1B. Ex.PW-5/E is the seizure memo of one desi katta Ex.P1 along-with two live cartridges and one empty cartridge, which were recovered from the accused and these were also sent to FSL vide RC No. 384/21/1B.
54. In FSL report Ex.PW-8/A it is mentioned at point :
(2) The bullet marked exhibit 'EB1' corresponds to the bullet of 8mm/.315" cartridge.
(6) The individual characteristics of striation marks present on evidence bullet marked exhibit 'EB1' and on test fired recovered bullets marked as 'TB1' & 'TB2' were compared and examined under comparison microscope model Leica DMC and were found identical. Hence, the evidence bullet marked exhibit 'EB1', has been discharged through countrymade pistol .315" bore marked exhibit 'F1' above.
The countrymade pistol Ex.F1 was exhibited during trial as Ex.P1 and used bullet Ex.EB1 was exhibited during trial as Ex.P2 (colly). Therefore, the FSL report Ex.PW-8/A proves beyond any doubt that recovered used bullet Ex.EB1 were fired from the countrymade pistol Ex.P1 recovered from the possession of the accused.
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 22 of 2355. As discussed above, it is proved by the prosecution that accused fired upon his wife / complainant and used bullet Ex.EB1 was recovered from his house. The Ex.EB1 is fired from the countrymade pistol recovered from the possession of accused and same is proved by the testimony of police witnesses and seizure memo Ex.PW-5/E. As per FSL report, Ex.EB1 is ammunition and accused had no licence to use it and he has used it in the contravention of Sec.5 of the Arms Act and therefore, liable for the punishment u/s. 27 of the Arms Act.
56. In view of the above discussion, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed offence u/s.307 IPC, offence u/s. 25 Arms Act and offence u/s. 27 Arms Act. Hence, accused Ravinder is convicted for the offence u/s. 307 IPC and u/s. 25 & 27 Arms Act.
VIPIN Digitally signed
by VIPIN KHARB
KHARB 17:01:38 +0530
Date: 2023.07.06
Announced in open Court (Vipin Kharb)
today on 06 July, 2023 Additional Sessions Judge-04
South-West, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi
FIR No. 823/2018 State Vs Ravinder Singh Page 23 of 23