Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Sandeep on 30 September, 2022
FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIPLAV DABASS: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : FAST TRACK COURT: SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI SC No. 108/2017 State Vs. 1. Sandeep S/o. Sh. Suresh Kumar R/o. House No.509,Village Mitroan, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 2. Ranjeet S/o. Sh. Suresh Kumar R/o. House No.509,Village Mitroan, Najafgarh, New Delhi. FIR No. :37/2014 Police Station :BHD NAGAR Under Sections :307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act Date of institution :28.07.2017 Date of committal to Sessions Court :26.08.2017 Date of transfer to this court :16.09.2022 Date on which judgment was reserved :30.09.2022 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 30.09.2022 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. On 23.01.2014 at about 10.00am a call was received State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 1 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act that one revolver fire had occurred at Plot No.29A Braham Enclave and same was reduced in writing vide DD no.16A dated 23.01.2014 which was marked to SI Rajesh. On receiving above said DD, IO SI Rajesh alongwith Ct. Somveer went to the spot, where they met with Surender Singh, Dharampal and Dharamveer and came to know that the injured had shot himself a gun shot injury and went to RTRM Hospital. IO SI Rajesh along with Ct. Somveer reached at RTRM Hospital, where IO collected MLC of injured Sandeep and the injured had handed over his licensed revolver to him, who prepared sketch of the same and kept in pullanda and seized.
Thereafter, they along with accused Sandeep came back to the spot and recorded statement of Surender and made endorsement and handed over the same to Ct. Somveer. On the basis of allegations made, IO SI Rajesh got FIR registered under Sections 307/34 IPC and 30 Arms Act. Thereafter, IO SI Rajesh arrested accused Sandeep and conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement along with statement of witnesses and deposited case property in malkhana and accused Sandeep was produced before the Court and sent to JC.
2. On next day, the complainant had stated that at the State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 2 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act time of incident, brother of accused namely Ranjit was also involved in the offence, who obtained anticipatory bail. IO SI Rajesh formally arrested the accused Ranjeet Singh and on furnishing bail bond Ranjit was discharged.
3. During investigation, IO directed Ct. Brijmohan to collect the case property from MHC(M) and deposit the same with FSL for examination. Thereafter IO had obtained FSL result. In the meanwhile IO got transferred and handed over the case file to MHC (R).
4. Thereafter, further investigation of the present case was marked to IO ASI/Baljeet Singh, who after doing necessary formalities, filed the charge-sheet in the court. The Court of Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and committed the matter to Ld. Sessions Court after compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing detailed arguments on behalf of the accused persons and the State, as a prima facie case was made out, charge for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC framed against both accused persons:-
" That on 23.01.2014 at about 10.02am at plot no.29-A, Braham Enclave, near Petrol Pump, Mitrao Extn. Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS BHD Nagar, in furtherance of your common intention of State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 3 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act you both, you accused Sandeep fired with a revolver aiming complainant Surender Singh with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances to kill him that if by that act you had caused death of the complainant Surender, you both accused would have been guilty of murder and thus thereby you both accused committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and within cognizance of the court.
6. Separate charge for the offence punishable under Section 30 Arms Act framed against accused Sandeep as under:-
"That on 23.10.2014 at about 10.02am at plot no.29-A, Braham Enclave, near Petrol Pump, Mitrao Extension, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS BHD N agar, you accused Sandeep contravend the provisions of the Arms Act by using your licenced revolver with intention to kill complainant Surender and thereby committed an offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act."
7. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses to substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused persons.
8. PW-1 Dr. S. Das, RTRM Hospital deposed that on 23.01.2014 he was on emergency duty and on that day, patient Sandeep was brought to casualty at about 10.15am by PCR official with alleged history of physical assault. On local examination, 3 superficial linear inscised wounds on flexor surface of left wrist and two superficial State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 4 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act abrasions on flexor surface of left wrist. He prepared the MLC of the patient and proved the same on record as Ex.PW1/A. This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of accused and discharged.
9. PW-2 Dr. Parvinder Singh, HOD Department of Forensic Medicine, RTRM Hospital, Delhi deposed that on 23.01.2014, IO SI Rajesh Kumar moved an application seeking an opinion regarding injury of patient Sandeep whether injury was self inflicted or not. He proved his opinion regarding injury of patient Sandeep as Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
10. PW-3 WASI Harvinder Kaur, who was working as Duty Officer at PS BHD Nagar from 8.00am to 4.00pm. On that day, at about 3.55pm, Ct. Somvir produced rukka to him on the basis of which he recorded FIR no.37/2014 under Section 307/34 IPC Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. After registration of FIR, he made endorsement on tehrir Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point A. He proved certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW3/C. After registration of the case, he handed over the copy of FIR and original State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 5 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act rukka to Ct. Somvir for handing over the same to SI Rajesh for investigation. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
11. PW-4 Surender Singh who is alleged material/eye witness deposed that on 23.01.2014 he came to his plot and saw that Sandeep and 2-3 other boys started fighting. His brother made a call at 100 number. Police came there and his signatures were obtained on some papers. Thereafter he went away. He correctly identified the accused Sandeep. He further deposed that he did not want to say anything more.
12. PW-4 has been cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the witness has resiled from his earlier statement and the relevant part of the same would be discussed in the later part of this judgment. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
13. PW-5 ASI Baljit Singh filed the chargesheet before the court after completing necessary formalities. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 6 of 24FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act
14. PW-6 Harpal, who is alleged material witness deposed that he did not know anything about the incident, however, he received a phone call from his brother Surender about the incident from his plot at Bharam Enclave. When he reached there, he found nothing. He did not see any quarrel between his brother Surender and Sandeep. He further stated that police did not inquire from him about the incident, nor his statement was recorded. PW-6 has been cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the witness has resiled from his earlier statement and the relevant part of the same would be discussed in the later part of this judgment. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
15. PW-7 Dharambir alleged material witness deposed that he did not know anything about the case and police never recorded his statement. PW-7 has been cross- examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the witness has resiled from his earlier statement and the relevant part of the same would be discussed in the later part of this judgment. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 7 of 24FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act
16. PW-8 Ct. Brij Mohan, who deposited the exhibits pertaining to this case along with forwarding letter and other requisite documents from MHC(M) concerned to FSL and handed over the copy of RC and acknowledgment of FSL to MHC(M). This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of accused and discharged.
17. PW-9 HC Somveer deposed that on 23.01.2014 he was posted at PS BHD Nagar. On that day, he was on emergency duty. At about 10.00am a call was received to SI Rajesh that revolver fire had occurred at Plot no. 29 A Brahmin Enclave and they reached to the said spot, where they met with caller Dharampal and also Surender Singh and Dharamveer, who had stated that the injured had shot himself a gun shot injury and went to RTRM Hospital. He along with IO reached to RTRM Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Sandeep and injured had handed over his licensed revolver. IO had opened the revolver which consisting of 4 live cartridges and 1 empty cartridges. He prepared the sketch of the same. IO prepared sketch Ex. PW9/A bearing his signature at point A and same was kept in pullanda and seized vide memo Ex. PW9/B bearing his signature at point A. IO had made inquiries from doctor. Doctor had stated to IO that State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 8 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act self inducted injury cannot be ruled out. Thereafter they along with Sandeep came back to the spot. IO had recorded statement of Surender and IO made endorsement on the same and handed over the same to him and he got registered the FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him and arrested the accused Sandeep (present today in the court and correctly identified) vide memo Ex. PW4/B bearing his signature at point B and personal search of the accused Sandeep by IO vide memo Ex. PW9/C bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex.PW9/D bearing his signature at point A. Accused has submitted his license to IO. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/E bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his statement. He correctly identified the revolver Ex. P1 and three empty cartidges Ex.P2 and two live cartidges Ex. P3.
18. PW-10 Dr. Puneet Puri, Assistant Director, Ballistics, FSL Rohini who examined the case property and proved detailed report as Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A on both sides of his report and the report along with revolver with cartridges which was sealed by him was sent to SHO through forwarding letter dated State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 9 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act 31.03.2014 through our Director vide letter Ex. PW10/B. He correctly identified the case property. This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of accused and discharged.
19. PW-11 SI Rajesh Kumar IO of the present case deposed that on 23.01.2014 he was posted at PS BHD Nagar. On that day, he was on emergency duty. At about 10.00am a call was received to me by DD No.16A Ex. PW11/A bearing signature at point A regarding that revolver fire had occurred at Plot no. 29 A Brahmin Enclave and he along with Ct. Somveer reached to the said spot, where they met with caller Dharampal and also Surender Singh and Dharamveer, who had stated that the injured had shot himself a gun shot injury and went to RTRM Hospital. He along with Ct. Somveer reached to RTRM Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Sandeep and injured had handed over his licensed revolver to him. He had opened the revolver which consisting of 4 live cartidges and 1 empty cartidges. He prepared the sketch Ex. PW9/A bearing his signature at point B and same was kept in pullanda and seized vide memo already Ex. PW9/B bearing his signature at point B. He made inquiries from doctor about the accused Sandeep as he received injuries on left side wrist. Doctor had stated to State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 10 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act me that self inducted injury cannot be ruled out. Thereafter they along with Sandeep came back to the spot. He had recorded statement of Surender and he made endorsement Ex. PW11/B bearing his signature at point A on the same and handed over the same to Ct. Somveer who got registered the FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Surender Singh. The site plan is Ex. PW11/C bearing his signature at point A. He arrested the accused Sandeep (present today in the court and correctly identified) vide memo Ex. PW4/B bearing his signature at point C and personal search of the accused Sandeep was conducted by him vide memo Ex. PW9/C bearing his signature at point B. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Sandeep vide memo already Ex.PW9/D bearing his signature at point B. Accused Sandeep has submitted his license to him. He seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW9/E bearing his signature at point B. He recorded statement of witnesses and he deposited the case property in malkhana and accused Sandeep was produced before the Court and sent him to JC. He further deposed that on the next day, the complainant had stated that at the time incidence the brother of accused namely Ranjit was also involved in State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 11 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act the offence and accused Ranjit had obtained anticipatory bail and he came to PS on 18.02. 2014. He made formal arrest vide memo Ex. PW11/D bearing his signature at point A. After furnishing the bail bond, accused Ranjit was discharged. He further deposed that on 28.02.2014, he directed Ct. Brijmohan to collect the case property from MHC(M) for depositing the same at FSL. He got deposited the case property and handed over the acknowledgment to MHC(M) and I recorded the statement of Ct. Brijmohan and MHC(M) in this regard, who had stated that samples were intact and no tampering was made by them. He had obtained the result of FSL and subsequently He got transferred and handed over the case file to MHC (R). He correctly identified the case property. This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of accused and discharged.
20. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 16.09.2022 at the request of the Ld. (Sub) Additional Public Prosecutor and the matter was fixed for recording statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for 17.09.2022.
21. On 17.09.2022, the statements of accused persons State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 12 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and all incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence were put to them and they replied that the facts alleged by the prosecution are incorrect, that they are innocent, that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and the witnesses are the interested witnesses. They did not opt to lead defence evidence and therefore, defence evidence was closed. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
22. This court heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. (substitute) Additional PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and perused the record of the case.
23. Ld. Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the police witnesses have clearly established the prosecution version of sharing of common intention by both the accused persons to kill the complainant and the factum of happening of the alleged incident of quarrel and firing/ shooting in the alleged manner and the fact that the accused Sandeep contravened the provisions of Arms Act punishable u/s 30 of the said Act by using his licensed revolver with intention to kill the complainant Surender Singh. He stated that the fact that the accused Sandeep State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 13 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act fired from his licensed revolver is also established by the police witnesses as well as from the testimony of PW-10 Dr. Puneet Puri. He further argued that the fact that the complainant and other eye witnesses have turned hostile qua the identity of the accused persons as offenders and the alleged incident does not in any manner effect the veracity of the consistent testimony of the police witnesses as they did not have any previous enmity with the accused persons. He further stated that moreover the complainant/eye witnesses in such cases turn hostile due to fear of future enmity with the offenders, so the firm testimony of the police cannot be discarded in such circumstances and in these facts, both accused be convicted for the offences charged.
24. Ld. counsel for the accused argued that the complainant and other eye witnesses who are the Star witnesses of the prosecution have not supported its version qua happening of the incident in the alleged manner, presence of accused persons at the spot, identity of the accused persons as assailants and use of the country made pistol for killing the complainant. He argued that the testimony of the police witnesses is of no consequence in view of hostility of the main witnesses/complainant. He State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 14 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act further stated that the hostility of the complainant and other eye witnesses substantiates the defence version of false implication of the accused persons by manipulating the documents for working out the case. He further submitted that the accused persons in these circumstances should be acquitted.
25. In order to prove the offense U/s 307/34 IPC against both accused persons and offence U/s 30 Arms Act against accused Sandeep, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of both the accused persons as assailants, the factum of sharing of common intention by both the accused persons to kill the complainant and the factum of happening of the alleged incident of quarrel and firing/ shooting in the alleged manner and the fact that the accused Sandeep contravened the provisions of Arms Act punishable u/s 30 of the said Act by using his licensed revolver with intention to kill the complainant Surender Singh. For proving the aforesaid ingredients, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses out of which PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 are the most important witnesses being the eye witnesses of the incident and the remaining witnesses are the police and medical/FSL officials who carried out the investigation based on the State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 15 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act version of the complainant and examined the accused and his revolver respectively.
26. 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.
27. Complainant being the eye-witness/victim of the alleged incident was examined as PW-4. The complainant/victim was the star witness on which prosecution was relying but he did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile qua the allegations made by him in his statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C as well as on the aspect of happening of the incident in the alleged manner and involvement of the accused persons in the alleged incident. Perusal of the testimony of PW-4 reveals that he deposed that on 23.01.2014 he came to his plot and saw that Sandeep and 2-3 other boys started fighting. His brother made a call at 100 number. Police came there and his signatures were obtained on some papers. Thereafter, he went away. He correctly identified the accused Sandeep. He further deposed that he did not want to say anything more. This testimony of PW-4 shows that he has turned hostile regarding the factum of State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 16 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act happening of the entire incident with him as well as involvement of the accused persons in the incident reported by him to the police. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. P.P for the State but he firmly denied all the leading questions put by the prosecution.
28. He specifically denied the suggestions put to him in cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. The relevant part of said cross examination is reproduced as:-
"It is wrong to say that when I objected to the accused Sandeep of demolishing the wall or that accused started quarreling with me or that his 2-3 associates also reached there or that they started abusing and quarreling with us or that accused Sandeep threatened to kill me or that on the instigation of his associates by saying that 'iska kaam tamam kar do' or that Sandeep pulled out a revolver or that he threatened to kill me or that he fired pointing towards me or that the bullet passed from near my ear or that my brother Harpal made a call to police at 100 number or that accused Sandeep threatened us to implicate today itself in a false case or that he caused injury on his wrist with some sharp object or that Sandeep caused self inflicted injury on his hand or that when PCR van reached at spot, accused Sandeep started screaming or that his associates ran away from spot or that he can identify his associates......"
29. PW-4 Surender Singh further denied the site plan and photographs filed on record to be of his plot and nearby his plot. He specifically denied the suggestion put to him in cross examination by Ld. APP for the State that State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 17 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act accused Sandeep fired upon him with intent to kill him or that he along with his brother and associates were present at the scene of crime or that Ranjit was also also involved in the quarrel or that Ranjit and his associates instigated accused Sandeep to fire upon him. He further stated in his cross- examination that he had not seen accused Ranjit on 23.01.2014 at plot no.29-A Braham Enclave, Near HP Petrol Pump and stated that he had not seen accused Sandeep and Ranjit firing shots. It is clear from the aforesaid testimony that the prosecution failed to extract any material in its favour despite detailed cross- examination as the witness firmly denied all the material suggestions. It is further seen that PW-4 completely shattered the prosecution version by affirming in the cross examination that he had not seen accused Ranjit on 23.01.2014 at plot no.29-A Braham Enclave, Near HP Petrol Pump and that he had not seen accused Sandeep and Ranjit firing shots which has the impact of exonerating both the accused from the allegations levelled against them.
30. It follows from aforesaid testimony that factum of commission offence punishable u/s 307 IPC read swith section 34 IPC by the accused persons and offence State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 18 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act punishable u/s 30 of the Arms Act by the accused Sandeep by using the pistol is not established at all.
31. PW-6 Harpal and PW-7 Dharambir are also the eye witnesses of the alleged incident as they were present at the spot at the time of the alleged quarrel and firing. Perusal of the testimony of PW-6 reveals that he deposed that he did not know anything about the incident, however, he received a phone call from his brother Surender about the incident from his plot at Bharam Enclave. When he reached there, he found nothing. He did not see any quarrel between his brother Surender and Sandeep. He further stated that police neither inquired from him about the incident nor his statement was recorded. Perusal of testimony of PW-7 reveals that he deposed that he did not know anything about the case and police never recorded his statement. PW-6 and PW-7 have been cross-examined by the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as they resiled from their earlier statement. In the cross-examination conducted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, they denied having made any statement to the police. PW-6 denied the suggestion that on 23.01.2014 he was called by Surender and that accused Sandeep, was putting mud in the plot of his State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 19 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act brother and on his refusal he started quarreling with his brother. He denied the suggestion to the effect that when he reached there, accused Sandeep took out a revolver and threatened his brother and fired upon him. He denied the suggestion that he made a call at 100 number or that accused fired with a revolver aiming towards Surender with intention or knowledge to kill him. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately concealing the facts of his statement mark Ex.PW6/A and deposing falsely being won over by accused persons. Similarly, PW-7 denied that he is deliberately concealing facts or that he has been won over by accused.
32. These testimonies of PW-6 and PW-7 further shattered the prosecution version as both the witnesses have turned hostile with respect to the happening of any quarrel or incident, presence of accused Sandeep and Ranjeet as the spot as well as firing of any shot by the accused Sandeep with intention to kill PW-4.
33. Perusal of the record shows that PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 are the only eye witnesses of the incident. Mere reading of testimony of police witnesses PW-9 HC Somveer and PW-11 SI Rajesh Kumar who went to the State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 20 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act spot for investigation after receiving information of the alleged incident, shows that they are not even eye witnesses of the incident and have merely conducted the investigation based on the version stated by the complainant/victim after reaching the spot on the happening of the alleged incident. Furthermore, the testimonies of the eye witnesses i.e PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 wherein they have firmly denied about giving any statement to the police and witnessing the preparation of various arrest, personal memos etc. indicate that chances of manipulation of the documents by the police are not ruled out. It further creates grave doubt upon the fairness and impartiality of the investigation which renders the same nugatory. So, testimonies of police witnesses, in view of the hostility of the complainant, are of no consequence to incriminate the accused persons for the alleged offences.
34. Record shows that medical witnesses PW-1 and P W-2 established that the injury of patient/accused Sandeep can be sustained by self infliction. The FSL witness PW- Dr. Puneet Puri proved his report mentioning that the revolver and cartridge are Fire Arm and ammunition defined under Arms Act 1959 and the evidence fired State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 21 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act cartridge case has been fired through the revolver marked Ex. F-1. It implies that the gun shot may have been fired from the revolver of the accused Sandeep. But in view of hostility of the prime/eye witnesses, PW-2, PW-4 and PW- 6 with respect to the happening of alleged incident of quarrel and firing as well as presence of the accused persons at the spot, the testimonies of medical/FSL experts are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons as the same are merely opinions.
35. It is already evident from the aforementioned discussion that identity of the accused persons as offenders and factum of happening of the alleged incident has not been established. It is further pertinent to mention that the prosecution did not bring any material suggesting the sharing of common intention by the accused persons for commission of the alleged offences. Neither any telephonic record or nor any other electronic evidence or other direct evidence has been brought on record suggesting even their presence at the spot so as to assume that there was ever an occasion for the accused persons to share common intention for committing the alleged offences at the spot.
State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 22 of 24FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act
36. It thus emerges from the aforesaid discussion and perusal of testimonies of PWs as well as record that there is neither any reliable eyewitness of the incident nor any other circumstance to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of both the accused persons as assailants, the presence of both the accused persons at the spot, the factum of sharing of common intention by both the accused persons to kill the complainant, the factum of happening of the alleged incident of quarrel and firing/ shooting in the alleged manner, the fact that accused Sandeep had fired at the spot from his revolver with intention to kill the complainant and the fact that the accused Sandeep contravened the provisions of Arms Act punishable u/s 30 of the said Act by using his licensed revolver with intention to kill the complainant Surender Singh, which are essential elements for completion of offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC and offence punishable u/s 30 Arms Act.
37. Considering the afore-discussed testimonies, this Court is of the view that arguments advanced by the Ld. Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients necessary for completion of the alleged offences do not have any force State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 23 of 24 FIR No. 37/2014 P.S. BHD Nagar U/s. 307/34 IPC & 30 Arms Act whereas the arguments made on behalf of defence that the accused has been falsely implicated are found to be justified.
38. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused persons Sandeep and Ranjeet are hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 307/34 IPC and accused Sandeep is hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 30 Arms Act levelled against him. Bail bonds stands cancelled and Sureties be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
39. Fresh bail bonds and surety bonds already furnished in compliance of Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C are considered and accepted for a period of six months from today.
40. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court (Viplav Dabass)
today on 30.09.2022 Additional Sessions Judge:
Fast Track Court
Dwarka Courts, South-West /New Delhi
State V/s Sandeep & Anr. Page 24 of 24