Delhi District Court
State vs . Karan Sethi on 3 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 360/14
P.S. Connaught Place
State Vs. Karan Sethi
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 50254/16.
Date of Institution : 20.10.2015.
Date of Commission of Offence : 24.10.2014.
Name of the complainant : Const. Guman Singh,
No. 1671/ND.
Name & address of the accused : Karan Sethi,
S/o Sh. Satish Sethi,
R/o A-27, Street No. 3,
Upper Ground Floor,
Laxman Park, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 336 IPC and u/s 30 Arms Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Convicted.
Date on which judgment reserved : 03.02.2020.
Date of announcing of judgment : 03.02.2020.
Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused Karan Sethi on bail with ld. counsel Sh. Vivek Sharma.
State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 1 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
1. The abovesaid accused has been sent by the police of P.S. Connaught Place to face trial for commission of offences punishable u/s 336 of IPC and u/s 30 of Arms Act.
2. Briefly stating, prosecution's case is that on the intervening night of 23/24.10.2014, at about 1.00 am, while Const. Guman Singh and Const. Ashok Kumar were on patrolling duty then as they reached near shop/restauran namely 24X7 situated near Regal Cinema, Outer Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi, then they saw one person holding a pistol who then fired a gun shot in the air. That they apprehended that person, who then disclosed his name as Karan Sethi S/o Sh. Satish Sethi. That a complaint was made by Const. Guman Singh against the said Karan Sethi for the rash and negligent use of the said pistol and prayer was made that necessary legal action be taken against accused Karan Sethi.
3. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR was registered and investigation was set into motion. Accused Karan Sethi was arrested and was produced before the Court to face trial.
4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid accused, copy whereof, was duly provided to him as per the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of charge-sheet, charge was framed against the accused u/s 336 of IPC and u/s 30 of Arms Act, to which he pleaded State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 2 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, prosecution was asked to lead its evidence, wherein it got examined complainant Const. Guman Singh as PW1, SI Ramesh Tirkey as PW2, Const. Ashok Kumar as PW3, Santosh Tripathi (Senior Scientific Officer {Chemistry}, FSL, Rohini) as PW4, Const. Ram Bhajan as PW5, SI Sanjiv Kumar as PW6 and ASI Basti Ram as PW7.
7. Statement of accused Karan Sethi was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein entire incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to him, to which he stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case in hand.
8. Opportunity was granted to the accused to lead his defence evidence, wherein he got examined Vikas Juneja as DW1, himself as DW2 and Narender Kumar (Record Clerk, MRD Section, RML Hospital) as DW3.
9. Final arguments advanced by ld. APP for State and ld. defence counsel were heard. Case file perused carefully.
10. PW1/complainant Const. Guman Singh reiterated the prosecution's version in his testimony and proved the statement Ex.PW1/A given by him to the IO in the case in hand. He further stated that they searched for the empty cartridge and found the same. That they took the accused alongwith the pistol and empty cartridge to State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 3 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
the P.S. Connaught Place and handed over them to the Duty Officer and that they had also informed regarding the incident on beat net. That he had taken the accused to RML Hospital for his MLC, where the blood sample of the accused was also collected by the doctor and he had handed over the same to the IO. As such, he proved the sketch Ex.PW1/B of the pistol and empty cartridge prepared by the IO in his presence, arrest memo Ex.PW1/C of the accused vide which the accused was arrested by the IO in his presence, personal search memo Ex.PW1/D vide which personal search of the accused was conducted in his presence, memo Ex.PW1/E vide which blood sample of accused was seized by the IO, memo Ex.PW1/F vide which the pistol and empty cartridge were seized by the IO in his presence. He further identified the accused and the case property (Ex.P1) i.e. the said pistol and empty cartridge, present before the Court.
11. In his cross examination, he stated that the said shop/restaurant used to remain open for 24 hours and that it was Diwali on the date of incident and there were about 10-12 public persons present on the spot at that time. He could not state as to whether the accused had come to the said shop/restaurant alongwith his 7 friends namely Vikas Juneja, Raju, Sannu, Bhuvan, Rajesh Suneja and Kapil Budhi Raja, but he volunteered that he had seen the accused alone outside the said shop/restaurant, however, he was surrounded by other public persons, although he could not say as to whether they were the friends of the accused or not. He denied that on the date of incident, he was in an inebriated condition and had hit the car of the accused with a danda by saying that this is no parking State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 4 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
zone and thus, had asked the accused to remove his car immediately. He also denied that this misbehaviour of his was also objected to by the other public persons, who were present on the spot or that the accused alongwith his friends had objected to for this behaviour and just to teach a lesson to the accused, he called other police officials from the police station. He further denied that the accused did not fire any cartridge from his pistol or that the empty cartridge was planted upon the accused. He denied that he had taken accused and his friend Vikas Juneja to the hospital for medical examination and could not recall as to whether the MLC of Vikas Juneja was prepared at RML Hospital or not. He further stated that he had stayed on the spot for about 1½-2 hours after informing the police till the accused was taken to the police station and denied that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case in hand.
12. PW2 SI Ramesh Tirkey proved the endorsement Ex.PW2/A made by him upon the rukka received by him in the case in hand nd the FIR Ex.PW2/B registered by him on the basis of the said rukka. He also led into evidence a certificate (Ex.PW2/C) u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in support of the FIR (Ex.PW2/B) as well as the DD No. 5A (Ex.PX1) and DD No. 43B (Ex.PX2). In his cross examination, he admitted that DD No. 43B (Ex.PX2) was not recorded by him and that he does not have any personal knowledge thereof.
13. PW3 Const. Ashok Kumar supported prosecution's version as he stated that on the intervening night of 23/24.10.2014, he and complainant/Const. Guman Singh were on patrolling duty and at about State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 5 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
1.00 am, when they reached at said shop/restaurant then they saw the accused firing from his pistol whereafter both of them apprehended the accused and the complainant/Const. Guman Singh gave in intimation to the police station from beat net. That the IO SI Sanjeev Kumar reached the spot and they handed over the accused alongwith pistol and used cartridge to the IO, sketch (Ex.PW1/B) whereof was prepared by the IO in his presence. That the IO had handed over the tehrir to him for registration of FIR, which was accordingly got registered by him. He identified the accused as well as the case property Ex.P1 (colly) present before the Court. In his cross examination, he deposed on the lines of the complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh and the same is not being reiterated here in order to avoid repetition.
14. PW4 Santosh Tripathi (Senior Scientific Officer {Chemistry}, FSL, Rohini) proved the report Ex.PW4/A prepared by him in respect of blood sample of accused stating that the same was containing ethyl alcohol 166.2 mg per 100 ml of blood. In his cross examination, he stated that the blood sample of the accused was not collected in his presence and the specimen signatures of accused were also not received in the FSL and he had received one sealed parcel from the IO.
15. PW5 Const. Ram Bhajan stated that on 25.02.2015, he was posted at P.S. Connaught Place and he had taken a sealed pulanda bearing seal of "SK" and FSL form vide RC No. 8/21/15 from the MHC(M), P.S. Connaught Place, and had deposited the same in the State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 6 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
FSL, Rohini, Delhi, against case acceptance acknowledgement Mark PW5/A. That no tampering was done with the sealed pulanda by anyone till the time the pulanda remained in his custody. In his cross examination, he stated that the sealed pulanda contained one pistol, magazine, empty cartridge and five live cartridges. He denied that no road certificate was issued to him or that he had not deposited any case acceptance acknowledgement receipt with the MHC(M).
16. PW6 IO SI Sanjiv Kumar proved the investigation conducted by him in the case in hand as he deposed that on 24.10.2014, upon receiving DD No. 5A regarding firing in front of shop/restaurant 24X7, Outer Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi. That he reached the spot, where the complainant/Const. Guman Singh and Const. Ashok Kumar had already apprehended the accused. That he recorded the statement of complainant/Const. Guman Singh and endorsed the same and handed it over to Const. Guman Singh for registration of FIR, which was accordingly registered. That Const. Guman Singh also handed over to him one pistol, one empty cartridge and the accused. That he prepared the sketch of the said pistol and magazine as well as the site plan of the place of occurrence and he further seized the case property, recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, arrested him, conducted his personal search and then got conducted the medical examination of accused from the RML Hospital. That he seized the blood sample of the accused as well as his original license in respect of the said pistol and sent the same to the FSL and department concerned, respectively. He identified the accused, the case property and the blood sample (Ex.P3) of the accused present State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 7 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
before the Court and as such, he proved the following documents: -
(i) Ex.PW1/B - sketch of pistol and magazine.
(ii) Ex.PW1/C - arrest memo of accused.
(iii) Ex.PW1/D - personal search memo of accused.
(iv) Ex.PW1/E - seizure memo of blood sample of accused.
(v) Ex.PW1/F - seizure memo of pistol, empty magazine and one empty cartridge.
(vi) Ex.PW6/A - statement of complainant/Const. Guman Singh.
(vii) Ex.PW6/B - site plan of place of occurrence.
(viii) Ex.PW6/C - disclosure statement of accused.
(ix) Ex.PW6/D - seizure memo of original license of pistol.
17. In his cross examination, he stated that on 23/24.10.2014, his duty timing were from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am, and he received the DD No. 5A (Ex.PX1) on 24.10.2014, at about 1.05 am. That no public person was present on the spot when he had reached there. He expressed his ignorance as to whether at about 12.00 am, on 24.10.2014, complainant/Const. Guman Singh and Const. Ashok Kumar were in a drunken state and had hit a danda on the car of the accused. He further expressed his ignorance as to whether a quarrel had occurred between the accused alongwith his 4-5 friends on one hand and the complainant/Const. Guman Singh and Const. Ashok Kumar on the other hand because the complainant/Const. Guman Singh and Const. Ashok Kumar had abused the accused and his friends and had asked them to remove their vehicle and stated that the accused did not disclose any such thing to him. He denied that he intentionally did not disclose regarding the inebriated condition of complainant/Const.
State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 8 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
Guman Singh and Const. Ashok Kumar or that he intentionally did not cite as witness the friends of the accused. He further denied that the place of occurrence was crowded on account of Diwali or that he had also got conducted the MLC of Vikas Juneja (accused's friend) or that initially he had arrested the accused alongwith his friends or that the documents were prepared by him in police station or that the accused has been falsely implicated by him.
18. PW7 ASI Basti Ram (Licensing Unit, P.S. Defence Colony, New Delhi) proved the letter dated 27.08.2015 (Ex.PW7/A) in respect license verification report of arms license bearing no. EDGC/11/2012/14 of the accused, which was valid upto 01.11.2015 within the area limit of Delhi only.
19. On the other hand, DW1 Vikas Juneja stated that on the intervening night of 23/24.10.2014, at about 12.00-12.30 am, he alongwith his 6-7 friends including accused Karan Sethi had gone to a restaurant namely 24X7. That Const. Guman Singh and Const. Ashok Kumar came there in a drunken state and gave a danda blow on their car and abused them and asked them to remove the same as it was a no parking zone. That they objected to the behaviour of the said police officials, whereupon they lost their temper and abused them (DW1 and his friends including accused) in a filthy language. That other public members, who were also present there objected to this behaviour of the said two police officials, but both of them threatened them (DW1 and his friends including accused) to face dire consequences. That they (Const. Guman Singh and Const. Ashok Kumar) called the police, State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 9 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
who illegally detained him and his friends including the accused in the P.S. Connaught Place and gave beatings to them. That they found a pistol with the accused and falsely implicated him in the case in hand. He led into evidence the copy of his MLC (Mark A) and stated that the police had taken him and the accused to RML Hospital, where their MLCs were conducted, however, the police falsely implicated only the accused. In his cross examination, he stated that the accused was under the influence of alcohol on the date of occurrence and that there was rush at the said restaurant. He could not state as to whether any fired cartridge was recovered from the spot or not on the ground that the accused had not fired any gun shot. He further stated that he did not make any complaint against the police officials in respect of seizure of his mobile phone or against the beatings given to him by the police officials. He further stated that he did not get himself medically examined regarding the beatings given to him by the police officials. He denied that on account of Diwali, the accused was drunk and so he had fired a gun shot or that he is deposing falsely.
20. DW2/accused Karan Sethi deposed on the lines of DW1 Vikas Juneja in his examination in chief and led into evidence the copy of his MLC (Mark B). In his cross examination, he admitted that because it was Diwali, therefore, to celebrate, he alongwith his friends had gone to 24X7 restaurant. He also admitted that there was crowd at the said restaurant and at the nearby restaurant and that at that time, he was carrying a pistol. He stated that they had not consumed liquor at the said restaurant, rather they had consumed the same at their home and that he had shown to the police his license in respect State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 10 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
of his pistol when they had conducted his search. He expressed his ignorance as to whether any fired cartridge was recovered from the spot or not by the police officials. He also admitted that the cartridge of the measurement as shown in sketch Ex.PW1/B can be fired from the pistol recovered from him.
21. DW3 Narender Kumar (Record Clerk, RML Hospital, Delhi) proved MLC dated 24.10.2014 (Ex.DW3/1) of DW1 Vikas Juneja as he identified the signatures of Dr. Tapash Kr. Baikar thereupon. In his cross examination, he stated that DW1 Vikas Juneja was not examined in his presence, but he denied that the said patient was not examined in the RML Hospital or that the MLC (Ex.DW3/1) is fabricated.
22. Ld. APP for State has argued that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution's case and so the prosecution has proved its guilt against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts, therefore, the accused is liable to be held guilty.
23. On the other hand, ld. defence counsel has contended that the accused alongwith his 5-6 friends had gone to the said shop/restaurant and had parked his car at the Outer Circle. That accused and his friends/DW1 Vikas Juneja had gone to take food then the complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh and PW3 Const. Ashok Kumar came there and gave a danda blow at his (accused's) car and asked him to remove the car. That the accused had only objected to State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 11 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
the manner in which they (PW1 and PW3) were talking and for giving a danda blow at his car and even the public members present nearby had objected to the same, but instead they (PW1 and PW3) falsely implicated the accused in the case in hand. That none of the said public members has been joined into investigation of the case in hand rather the IO/PW6 SI Sanjiv Kumar did not even depose that he had asked them (public members) to join the same. That there are several contradictions in the prosecution's version since as per the charge- sheet, the IO had reached the spot and had arrested the accused and had seized the pistol and cartridge, whereas the complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh has deposed that he had taken the accused to the police station and had handed over him to the Duty Officer. That PW3 Const. Ashok Kumar has deposed that he had taken the rukka to the police station, whereas the IO/PW6 SI Sanjiv Kumar and PW2 SI Ramesh Tirkey have stated that the complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh had taken the same to the police station. That as per the DD entry Ex.PX2, complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh and PW3 Const. Ashok Kumar were on duty in different divisions then how both of them were together for night patrolling is not explained by the prosecution. Further, that the complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh and PW3 Ashok Kumar have stated that there were 10-12 persons present on the spot, whereas the IO PW6 SI Sanjiv Kumar has stated that no public person was present on the spot when he had reached there. That if there were public members present on the spot then why were they not joined into investigation by the IO and if there was no such public person present on the spot then whose life was endangered so as to attract Section 336 of IPC has also not been explained by the State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 12 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
prosecution. That merely because a cartridge can be fired from the gun of the accused does not amount to admission on the part of the accused that he had fired the same. It has further been argued that the FSL report cannot be relied upon since no witness has been examined to prove the same and it does not state as to whether on the said date of incident any firing was done from it or not. That the prosecution has failed to prove that the pistol of accused was used and that the cartridge was fired from the same and so in these circumstances, the accused is liable to be acquitted since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts.
24. On careful perusal of the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses, it is evident that the accused has admitted that on the intervening night of 23/24.10.2014, at about 1.00 am, the complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh, PW3 Const. Ashok Kumar and the accused Karan Sethi alongwith his 5-6 friends were present at said restaurant/shop i.e. namely 24X7. Therefore, even if both the complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh and PW3 Const. Ashok Kumar had patrolling duty in different divisions or even if the complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh and PW3 Const. Ashok Kumar have stated that there were 10-12 public members, whereas, the IO PW6 SI Sanjiv Kumar has stated that no public member was there on the spot, even then the same does not help the accused since he himself has admitted the presence of PW1 and PW3 on the spot alongwith his (accused's) 5-6 friends and so the question as to how PW1 and PW3 could be together and as to whether firing of a gun shot State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 13 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
in the air in absence of any public member does not arise. Moreover, merely because PW1 and PW3 had duty in different divisions and still they were together or merely because they could not state the exact number of public members, who were present on the spot or merely because they could not state as to whether the said public members were friends of the accused or not, does not lead to the conclusion that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case as these are not material lapses on the part of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, neither PW1 nor PW3 have been cross examined by the accused to the effect as to why or how they happened to be together if they had duty in different divisions.
25. Further, the fact that the said pistol is of the accused is admitted by the accused. Its license was got released on superdari by the accused vide order dated 29.10.2015. Now, the incident is stated to have occurred on the intervening night of 23/24.10.2014 and as per the complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh, PW3 Const. Ashok Kumar and the IO PW6 SI Sanjiv Kumar, the said pistol and the empty cartridge was seized from the spot and was seized by the IO PW6 SI Sanjiv Kumar. Complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh and PW6 IO SI Sanjiv Kumar have also proved the seizure memo Ex.PW1/F in respect thereof as per which the pistol and the empty cartridge were sealed with the seal of "SK". They have also proved the sketch Ex.PW1/B of the pistol and empty cartridge perusal whereof reveals that the said pistol has mark KF 7.65. Accused/DW2 Karan Sethi has also admitted this sketch Ex.PW1/B to be that of his pistol. As per the license verification report Ex.PW7/A, the accused had a valid license State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 14 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
in respect of the said pistol upto 01.11.2015. Also, as per this report Ex.PW7/A, the said pistol had .32 bore pistol no. 621795 endorsed upon it. It is the version of defence that the accused did not fire any gun shot from the said pistol. However, perusal of the FSL report present on record reveals that one sealed cloth packet containing one pistol bearing no. 621795 without magazine, one empty magazine and one empty cartridge case having head stamp mark KF 7.65 and one unsealed polybag containing 05 cartridges for test firing were sent to the FSL and as per the FSL expert the empty cartridge case of 7.65 mm was fired from the pistol bearing no. 621795, which is the pistol of the accused. As such, this FSL report present on record corroborates the prosecution's version that the accused had fired a gun shot from his pistol bearing no. 621795. This FSL report was put to the accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC to which he has stated that this report has been prepared by the FSL officials in collusion with the IO. As such, it is also not the case of the accused that the police officials had fired a gun shot from his pistol. As far as the testimony of DW1 Vikas Juneja is concerned then if he was also beaten up by the police officials then why did he not get himself medically examined and why did he not make any complaint against the erring police officials has not been reasonably explained by him. The only explanation put forth is that he was under the fear of police so that he may not be falsely implicated by the police. This Court is of the view that if the police had to falsely implicate the accused and DW1 Vikas Juneja, then it would have charge-sheeted DW1 Vikas Juneja as well in the case in hand since as per the accused, he and his friend DW1 Vikas Juneja were together and the alleged altercation had occurred with both of them.
State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 15 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
Therefore, the story of false implication of accused does not inspire any confidence with this Court and on the basis thereof the prosecution version cannot be discarded.
26. Section 336 of IPC provides for punishment for an act endangering life or personal safety of others. It says that whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment as provided u/s 336 of IPC.
27. In the case in hand, admittedly accused was present on the spot alongwith his 5-6 friends and two of the eye witnesses i.e. complainant/PW1 Const. Guman Singh and PW3 Const. Ashok Kumar have deposed that they had seen the accused firing a gun shot in the air from his pistol. Firing of a gun shot in the air at a public place, even if no one was injured, is in itself a rash and negligent act and since 5-6 friends of the accused were also present on the spot then it is all the more rash and negligent on the part of the accused to fire a gun shot in the air since it endangered their life as well. This further amounts to violation of the provision of Section 5 of the Arms Act even though the accused was holding a valid license in respect of the said pistol.
28. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that prosecution has been able to establish beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts that accused Karan Sethi had fired a gun shot on the date of incident, which is a rash and negligent act on his part as it endangered the human life/personal safety of others. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 16 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.
Karan Sethi is hereby held guilty for commission of offences punishable u/s 336 of IPC and u/s 30 Arms and is convicted thereunder.
29. To come up for arguments on quantum of sentence qua convict on 13.02.2020 at 2.00 pm. Announced in the open (PRAGATI) Court on 03rd February 2020. MM-01 (NDD), PHC, NEW DELHI/03.02.2020 Note: -
This judgment consists of 17 pages and the same have been duly checked and signed by me.
(PRAGATI)
MM-01 (NDD), PHC,
NEW DELHI/03.02.2020
State Vs. Karan Sethi. FIR No. 360/14.
Page No. 17 of 17. P.S. Connaught Place.