Delhi District Court
State vs Ramvaran Singh on 30 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, MM-
03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW02-000213-2018
FIR No. : 938/2015
U/s : 336 IPC & 30/54/59 Arms Act
P.S. : Bindapur
State versus Ramvaran Singh
a) ID. No. of the Case : 395/2018
b) Name & address of the : Sh. Rag Lal
complainant S/o Sh. Goru Lal
R/o H.No.E-219,
Vishwas Park, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi.
c) Name & address of : Ramvaran Singh
accused person (s). S/o Sh. Bhikam Singh
R/o H.No.45A, Ist
Floor, Jain Colony,
Part-I, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of : 01.07.2015
offence
e) Offence complained of : 336 IPC & Section 30
Arms Act.
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 1 of 12
Cr. Case No.395/2018
g) Final Order : Acquitted.
h) Date of Institution : 03.01.2018
i) Final arguments heard on : 02.06.2022
g) Judgment Pronounced on : 30.06.2022
JUDGMENT:-
Brief facts
1. The prosecution version in brief is that on 01.07.2015 at about 08:45 PM, the complainant Mr. Rag Lal was standing near his plot's gate and Vinit and Sonu were also standing near his gate with some other boys and they were talking to each other. One of the boys had a rifle in his hand and he was shouting 'jija jija' and he pointed the rifle towards the sky. The complainant asked him what he was doing with the rifle to which that boy replied "I do like this only" and while saying this, he fired a shot towards the sky. The complainant asked him as to why did he fire in the air. On this, that boy pushed him and said "do whatever you want to do, I will fire like this only". Thereafter, when the complainant was calling the police on 100 number, both the boys had run away. The investigation of the case was first conducted by the Investigating Officer ASI Devender Singh and thereafter by SI Kartar Singh.
Proceedings before the Court
2. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s 336 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'IPC') and 30/54/59 of State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 2 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/2018 Arms Act was filed against the accused Ramvaran Singh. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet alongwith documents were supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding prima facie case against the accused, a charge under section 336 IPC and 30 Arms Act was framed against him, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution has examined eight witnesses viz. complainant Rang Lal as PW-1, ASI Deepak as PW-2, HC Bhim Singh as PW-3, ASI Devender Singh as PW-4, Ct. Vikram as PW-5, SI Kartar Singh as PW-6, SI Vikas Kumar as PW-7 and Sh. Jitender Singh as PW-8.
5. Complainant Rang Lal who was examined as PW-1 has deposed that he does not remember the exact date or month of the incident, however, the same occurred in the year 2015 and at that time he was present at his shop at F-1, Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar and he had heard some noise like bursting of crackers. Hearing the said sound, he had come out and came to know that the person who had fired had fled from the spot. He thereafter made a PCR call and the police officials reached the spot. He further stated that he did not witness the incident and he cannot identify the accused. The witness failed to identify the rifle, two fired rounds, one live round and one more fired round. The witness was thereafter declared hostile at the request of Ld. APP for the State and was cross- examined at length. However, nothing beneficial to the State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 3 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/2018 prosecution has emerged out of the same. Ld. Defence counsel also cross-examined the said witness.
6. PW-2 ASI Deepak has deposed that on 01.07.2015, he was posted at PS Bindapur as constable and on that day, on receipt on DD No. 82B, he along with ASI Devender Singh went to the spot i.e., F-1, Vishwas Park where he met complainant Rang Lal who told the IO that one boy had fired in the air. IO recorded his statement and prepared the rukka and handed over it to him and he went to the police station and got the FIR registered. At the spot, one fired round was found and the same was sealed in a pulanda with the seal of DS and taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW1/E. Accused was not found at the spot and despite efforts, he was not traceable. Thereafter they returned to the police station and deposited the case property in Malkhana. He further deposed that on 02.07.2015, he again joined the investigation in the present case with ASI Devender Singh and along with the secret informer and beat Ct. Gaurav and they went to Jain Colony, Part-I, House No. T-45A where at the instance of the complainant, accused was arrested and one rifle and three live rounds were recovered from his possession. Accused also produced one license and same was also taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F. IO prepared the sketch (Ex. PW2/X) of the above-said arms and sealed them in a pulanda with the seal of DS and seized them vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/I and his disclosure statement (Ex. PW1/H) was also recorded. Accused along with case property were State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 4 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/2018 brought to the police station and the case property was deposited in malkhana. The witness correctly identified the accused as well as the license (Ex. X-1). He further exhibited the rifle and total four rounds (including three fired rounds) are Ex. P-1. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
7. PW-3 HC Bhim Singh has deposed that on 01.07.2015 he was posted at PS Bindapur as DD Writer from 4pm to 12 midnight and at about 9:20PM, one information was received regarding firing in the air. The same was reduced into writing vide DD No. 82B and marked to ASI Devender for further action. The DD Entry is Ex. PW3/A. This witness was not cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite being given an opportunity.
8. PW-4 ASI Devender Singh has deposed that on 01.07.2015 on receipt of DD No. 82B, he along with Cr. Deepak went to the spot, i.e., F-1, Vishwas Park, where he met the complainant Rang Lal who told him that one boy had fired in the air. He recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the rukka which is Ex. PW4/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Deepak. He further deposed that one fired round was found at the shop and he had placed the same on a white paper and prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex. PW1/C and seized it vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/E at the instance of the complainant. He also made efforts to apprehend the accused and recover the arms, but could not do so. He deposited the case property in Malkhana and recorded the statement of Ct. Deepak. On 02.07.2015, he received secret information about the presence of accused at Jain State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 5 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/2018 Colony, Part-I, Uttam Nagar and he along with complainant, Ct. Deepak and Ct. Gaurav went to the House No. T-45A, 1 st floor, Jain Colony, Part-I and arrested the accused there vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/G at the instance of the complainant, conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/I and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW1/H. One rifle was recovered from the possession of the accused and when it was checked, it was found containing three live rounds and a sketch of the same was prepared which is Ex. PW2/X and the rifle and live rounds were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D after sealing the pulanda with the seal of DS. On demand, accused produced one license Ex. X-1 for the aforesaid rifle issued from Agra and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F. Accused was thereafter sent to judicial custody. During investigation, he got verified the license Ex. X-1, which was found to be valid. He sent the recovered arms and ammunitions Ex. P-1 for test through Ct. Vikram to FSL, Rohini. Thereafter, he was transferred from PS Bindapur. The witness correctly identified the accused. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. PW-5 Ct. Vikram deposed that on 18.02.2016, he was posted at PS Bindapur and on that day he was handed over two sealed pulandas sealed with the seal of DS and one FSL Form by MHC(M) vide RC No. 32/21/16 for depositing the same with FSL. He had received the copy of RC which was handed over to the MHC(M) on the same day. He further stated that as long as the case property remained in his possession, it was State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 6 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/2018 not tampered with. IO had recorded his statement. He has placed on record copy of RC which is Ex. PW5/A. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
10. PW-6 SI Kartar Singh, who was the third IO in the present case deposed that after completion of the inivestigation, he had prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite being given an opportunity.
11. PW-7 SI Vikas Kumar, who was the second IO in the present case deposed that he had prepared the draft challan in the present case and he was thereafter transferred and relieved from the present case. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite being given an opportunity.
12. PW-8 Sh. Jitender Singh who was working as Arms Clerk in the office of ADM City, District Agra, UP had produced the record pertaining to Arms License (Ex. PW8/A) issued in favour of accused Ramvaran Singh. He deposed that as per the record, the Arms license was issued to Ramvaran Singh for NPV Rifle and his license was valid till 22.07.2015. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused despite being given an opportunity.
13. The prosecution evidence was closed on 24.05.2022 and the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.05.2022 wherein all the incriminating evidence against the accused was put to him and he denied the same and submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated and further stated State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 7 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/2018 that he did not wish to examine any witness in his defence and therefore, D.E. was closed.
14. It is argued by Sh. Manish Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that the evidence of hostile witness, i.e., PW-1 Sh. Rang Lal can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the prosecution version. It was, therefore, argued that the accused be held guilty and convicted for the above-said offences.
15. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that the accused already had a valid license for the rifle recovered from his possession. Moreover, no eye-witness has been examined by the prosecution who would have proved the presence of the accused at the spot. It was argued that since nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused and he be, therefore, acquitted for the offence charged.
16. I have heard Sh. Manish Kaushik, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
Findings of the Court
17. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and it has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 8 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/2018 cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
18. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the complainant (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution version in his testimony and was declared hostile by the Ld. APP for the State. According to Ld. Defence counsel, since the main witness of the prosecution has turned hostile, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence and, thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
19. Perusal of the statement of PW-1, i.e., the complainant, who is the main witness of the prosecution, reveals that he was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution version. Though it is a settled law that evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded completely as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, however, in the present case, the complainant has clearly stated that he had not seen the accused firing as he was inside his shop at the time of incident and when he heard a sound like bursting of crackers, he came out and found that someone had fired in the sky. He has further deposed that he had not witnessed the incident. He also failed to identify the rifle, one fired round, two test fired rounds and one unfired round. Thus, the entire testimony of the complainant (PW-1) is hearsay and, therefore, cannot be relied upon at all for holding the accused guilty. Thus, in the present case, the testimony of PW-1 does not help the prosecution.
State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 9 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/201820. Let this court now consider the fact whether the other evidence appearing on record helps the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
21. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has a valid license and, therefore, the accused has not committed any offence. This court has given its thoughts to the above contention of Ld. Defence counsel. No doubt, the accused was was having a valid license (Ex. X-1) on the date of incident for the rifle recovered from his possession, however, the case of the prosecution is not that the accused was in possession of an arm without license. Rather, the case of the prosecution is that the accused has acted in contravention of the condition of the license and in violation of the provisions of Arms Act. Therefore, the fact that the accused had a valid license for the rifle recovered from him on the date of the incident does not help him if he has violated the conditions of the license or provisions of the Arms Act.
22. Ld. Counsel for the accused has next argued that the FSL report (Ex. A-2) does not help the prosecution as the same only states that the fired round found at the spot can be fired from the rifle .315", which is the same type of rifle recovered from the accused but it has failed to prove the fact that the fired round recovered from the spot was fired by the accused from his rifle. This court has given its thoughts to the above contention. The relevant portion of the FSL report Ex. A-2 is reproduced hereunder:
"The individual characteristics of firing pin marks present on cartridge case marked 'EC1' and on test fired cartridge cases marked as 'TC1' and 'TC2' were examined and compared under the Comparison State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 10 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/2018 Microscope Model Leica DMC and were found identical. Hence the evidence cartridge case marked exhibit 'EC1' has been fired through the rifle .315"
caliber marker exhibit 'F1' above".
Though, the perusal of the FSL report reveals that the fired round found at the spot could have been fired from the rifle . 315" which was in the possession of the accused, since the individual characteristics of firing pin marks present on the fired round as well as the test round were found to be identical, however, no cogent independent evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the said round was fired by the accused and from the very rifle which belonged to him. It is a settled law that report of FSL is not a substantive piece of evidence, it has to be corroborated by some independent evidence by the prosecution. Thus, FSL report alone cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused. The possibility that round could have been fired from some other rifle of similar kind belonging to some other person cannot be ruled out since no one has seen the accused firing and the only eye-witness PW-1 Rang Lal has not supported the prosecution version and has categorically stated that he had not witnessed the incident and cannot identify the accused. Though perusal of the first statement of the complainant given to the police on 01.07.2015 reveals that he had named two other persons Vinit and Sonu who were also present at the time of incident, however, IO has not even recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. nor the prosecution has produced them as witnesses for the reasons best known to it. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 11 of 12 Cr. Case No.395/2018 round was fired by the accused from the very rifle which belongs to him.
23. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had acted rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others by firing in the air from his rifle. The accused Ramvaran Singh is, therefore, acquitted of the offence u/s 336 IPC and u/s 30 Arms Act.
24. This judgment contains (12) twelve pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
25. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
Digitally signed ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT by Deeksha
Deeksha Sethi
TODAY i.e. ON 30.06.2022 Sethi Date:
2022.06.30
16:48:56 +0530
Deeksha Sethi
Metropolitan Magistrate-03
South-West District/New Delhi
30.06.2022
State v/s Ramvaran Singh Page 12 of 12
Cr. Case No.395/2018