Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State v. Satguru Dass Maheshwari and others Page no. 40 of 60

71. In view of discussion above, this incriminating circumstance also cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

WEAPON OF OFFENCE:-

72. As per the case of prosecution, victim Dharmender Arora was found shot dead and during his postmortem an evidence bullet Ex. PW1/P9 was recovered from his body. It is relevant to note that the country made pistol allegedly recovered from the accused Gurudarshan @ Darshu does not connect as a weapon of offence in this case as the evidence bullet recovered from the body of the deceased corresponds to the bullet of 7.65 mm cartridge whereas the country made pistol shown to have been recovered from the possession of the accused Gurudarshan @ Darshu is of 0.32 bore. Above all, the investigating agency has failed to obtain sanction order u/s 39 of The Arms Act and no such document has been lead in evidence that was necessary to establish the offence u/s 25 of The Arms Act.

73. It is further relevant to note that the improvised pistol allegedly recovered from the accused Lokesh Gupta also does not connect as a weapon of offence in this case as the evidence bullet recovered from the body of the deceased though correspond to the bullet of 7.65 mm cartridge but as per the FSL report dated 10.06.2010 it has been opined that EB1 has not been discharged through the exhibit F2 i.e. the pistol shown to have been recovered State v. Satguru Dass Maheshwari and others Page no. 41 of 60 from the possession of the accused Lokesh Gupta. Above all, the investigating agency has failed to obtain sanction order u/s 39 of The Arms Act and no such document has been lead in evidence that was necessary to establish the offence u/s 25 of The Arms Act.

74. As far as recovery of the the pistol from the accused Satguru Dass Maheshwari (since PO) is concerned it also does not connect as a weapon of offence in this case as the evidence bullet recovered from the body of the deceased though correspond to the bullet of 7.65 mm cartridge but as per the FSL report dated 10.06.2010 it has been opined that individual characteristic of striation present on evidence bullet marked EB1 are insufficient for comparison and opinion whether it has been discharged through the exhibit F1 i.e. the pistol shown to have been recovered from the possession of the accused Satguru Dass Maheshwari (since PO).

State v. Satguru Dass Maheshwari and others Page no. 47 of 60 Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC)". In view of the discussion above, this circumstance also could not be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

FORENSIC EVIDENCE

85. The car bearing no. UP80AJ1646 belonging to the accused Satguru Dass Maheshari (since PO) was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW32/D being the signature of witness PW32. The independent witness namely Inderjeet Malhotra PW32 has turned hostile and denied the recovery in his presence. He even denied to have recorded his statement to the police and stated that his signatures were obtained on blank paper claiming it to be a formality by the police. In view of his statement, the recovery of the aforesaid vehicle cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Be that the case may be, the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the accused Satguru Dass Maheshwari (Since PO) is not disputed by the accused and has also been proved on record by the witness PW26 Maharaj Singh. The blood stained rear seat belt of the car bearing no. UP80AJ1646 belonging to accused Satguru Dass Maheshwari (since PO) was examined by the forensic expert and vide FSL report Ex. PW42/B it was concluded that the blood stains though detected could not be found matched with the blood group of the deceased. Report remained inconclusive and the blood could not give reaction to ascertain its group. It has already been held in the previous paragraphs that the evidence bullet recovered from the body of the deceased at the time State v. Satguru Dass Maheshwari and others Page no. 48 of 60 of post mortem could not be found to be discharged from the weapons allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused persons. Hence, none of the scientific evidence collected is found incriminating against the accused persons connecting their role as perpetrator of the crime.