Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Gun shot in Sc No. 66/12 State vs Ranjeet Etc. Page No. 1 Of 54 on 3 April, 2014Matching Fragments
Ocular Evidence:
60. Now let us consider the evidence led by prosecution to prove that accused Ranjeet with one accomplice (not arrested) had caused the murder of deceased Manoj.
61. To prove that accused Ranjeet had caused the murder of deceased the material witnesses are PW3 Neeraj and PW11 Rinku who both are the eye witnesses of the incident. As per the story of the prosecution the deceased along with his father Om prakash, who is the maker of the FIR, were coming together when accused Ranjeet @ Sonu had put the pistol on the neck of Manoj and fired the gun shot as a result of which Manoj sustained injuries and died. PW 3 Neeraj had specifically deposed that when he along with PW11 Rinku were coming from front of Shauchalaya and were present at the gate of Shauchalaya he saw that his brother Manoj and his father were coming and in the meantime Ranjeet @ 'Sonu put pistol on the neck of Manoj and fired a gun shot as a result of which Manoj sustained injuries and fell down on the road. PW 3 further deposed that his father raised alarm. Accused Ranjeet along with the pistol and h is a ssociate ran away from there. He further deposed that he chased the accused for some distance and thereafter he along with his friend Rinku and his father lifted Manoj and shifted him near Shauchalaya and from there they took him to the Hospital. He further deposed that on the way Manoj succumed to his injury. On the similar Line PW SC No. 66/12 State Vs Ranjeet etc. Page No. 36 of 54 11 had deposed that on 06.04.2006 he along with his brother Neeraj were present near the CRPF block side. Then one boy told them that their brother Raman was searching for them and when they were coming from the side of toilet towards their basti then from the front side they saw Om Prakash and Manoj were coming. In the meantime Sonu whose real name was Ranjeet came out of the gali and two three boys were there with him then Ranjeet fired a shot on the back side neck of Manoj. He further deposed that seeing this they ran behind Ranjeet and others but could not apprehend them. So they came back and picked up Manoj and moved him near the toilets and he along with Om Prakash and Neeraj took Manoj in a TSR to Safdarjung Hospital.
63. The above statement of both the eye witnesses are consistent on the material points. It is pertinent to mention that the identity of the accused Ranjeet is already known to the witnesses as the accused party as well as the complainant party are related to each other. Both the eye witnesses have stated specifically about the act of accused Ranjeet in causing gun shot injury on the back side neck of the deceased Manoj. Both of them have stated that they have chased accused Ranjeet @ Sonu to some distance. Both have stated that when the deceased fell down on the ground they moved him near the toilet that is why the crime team had found the blood at two points on the spot. The testimony of both the witnesses on the material point of causing gun shot injury by the accused is consistent. There is a minor discrepancy in the statement of PW11 with regard to the number of accomplice who was accompanying accused Ranjeet at the time of offence but the said minor discrepancy does not go to the root of the testimony of PW3 and PW11 who both have attributed the same role to accused Ranjeet that he had given gun shot injury to the deceased which proved fatal. The difference in the number of persons accompanying accused Ranjit at the time of incident, as came in the statement of PW11 can be attributed to the fact that human memory is fallible and fades away with the passage of time. In the statement to the police PW11 had mentioned the presence of one accomplice with Ranjeet. This discrepancy does not make the presence of PW11 doubtful on the spot, nor shatters his testimony.
SC No. 66/12 State Vs Ranjeet etc. Page No. 40 of 54
69. Even if, we go by this argument of Ld. counsel for the accused, the recovery of a weapon in a case of such like nature is not fatal as the case is of the direct evidence where the accused was seen giving gun shot injury to the deceased by a fire arm. Even if, the weapon is not recovered the fact is otherwise proved from the postmortem report that the death has resulted from the gun shot injury caused to the deceased. In the present case, after the arrest of the accused Ranjeet in this case, at his instance the police had recovered the blood stained clothes which the accused was wearing at the time of offence. The recovery of clothes was effected from a house which place was not a public place and the place of recovery was within the special knowledge of the accused. The argument that the said place is the residence of coaccused Rattan Singh is not a material circumstance in view of the fact that the recovery of the clothes were effected from the said house at the instance of the accused Ranjeet Singh. Moreover, the FSL result Ex.PW27/H show that blood stains which were found on the clothes of accused Ranjeet i.e. Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B was containing 'O' Group which is the blood group of the deceased and found on his clothes, floor pieces as well as on the clothes of all the three eye witnesses. Since the blood of the deceased was found on the clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of offence, the turning of PW15 Vijay, the recovery witness of the clothes, as hostile is not making the recovery doubtful. The accused could not account for as to how blood of deceased came on his clothes.
MOTIVE:
71. So far as the motive is concerned, it is an admitted fact by both the sides that a case under section 308 IPC is pending between the complainant party and the accused party and in the said case the complainant party herein is an accused for causing injuries to the father of accused Ranjeet i.e. accused Inderjeet Singh. Though the complainant of this case Om Prakash could not be produced in the court due to his death to prove the rukka which is proved by the police officials and the said rukka also mentions that while causing gun shot injury to the victim, the accused Ranjeet has referred to the said case. The pendency of the said case between the parties for causing of injury to the father of accused by victim and his family is obviously a motive for the accused to commit murder of the victim. Causing gun shot injury by a firearm from a close range and that to in the head by the accused must be with the intention of causing death and the act of the accused is squarely covered by the first illustration of Section 300 IPC. From the statement of eye witnesses, medical and other evidence and recovery of blood stained clothes, the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt that accused Ranjeet with one accomplice (not arrested) had committed murder of the victim Manoj and is liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC.