Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 186 353 IPC in State vs . Pawan @ Diggi on 12 August, 2010Matching Fragments
State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi By this common judgment, I shall decide two cases viz. State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi, SC No. 212/09 (FIR No. 167/05, U/s 302/392/397 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC, PS Badar Pur) and State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi, SC No. 211/09 (FIR No. 174/05, U/s 307/186/353 IPC and Sec. 25/27 of Arms Act). Both these cases are connected in the sense that the trial in both these cases has been held together. The FIR No. 174/05, U/s 25/27 of Arms Act and Sec. 186/353/307 IPC, PS Badar Pur (SC No. 211/09) was registered against the accused Pawan @ Diggi when in connection with FIR No. 167/05, PS Badar Pur, he was being apprehended by the police party and he threatened to fire at the police party with a country made revolver. The police party had a secret information regarding the accused involved in the commission of the offence in FIR No. 167/05, PS Badar Pur and pursuant thereto the police party along with complainant had gone to apprehend the accused. The accused Pawan @ Diggi, however, had resisted the apprehension and assaulted the police party by pointing a revolver at the police officials. This led to registration of the FIR no. 174/05, PS Badar Pur, U/s 307/186/353 IPC. This, therefore, is the nexus between both the FIRs and it is State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi deemed appropriate to dispose of both the cases arising out of these FIRs together.
10. The Sanction under Sec. 39 of Arms Act was obtained by the IO. The complaint under Sec. 195 Cr.PC was also filed in the court and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi FIR No. 174/05, PS Badar Pur.
11. The charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sec. 307/186/353 IPC and Sec. 25/27 of Arms Act. The Ld. Predecessor of this court on 14.10.05 passed the order on charge and it was held that Sec. 307 IPC was not made out and the case was sent to the court of Ld. ACMM, New Delhi. The Ld. Magistrate framed the charge for the offences under Sec. 186/353 IPC and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act. The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial. However, Ld. Magistrate committed the case for trial under Sec. 323 CrPC for trial along with FIR No. 167/05, PS Badar Pur.
State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi
18. Arguments have been heard from Ld. Addl. PP for State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused in both cases together.
19. Ld. Addl. PP for State had argued that the prosecution case is based on the statement of a eyewitness who has narrated the incident by giving all the details and specifically described the role played by the accused Pawan @ Diggi in the commission of the offence. He argued that the accused was armed with a country made revolver at the time of commission of the offence. It was further argued by him that the apprehension of the accused in FIR No. 174/05, PS Badar Pur led to the accused making disclosure statement. Pursuant to this disclosure statement, a black colour raxin bag which the deceased Sanjay was having, was recovered and this recovery of the bag further connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Therefore, it was argued by Ld. Prosecutor that the statement of the eyewitness coupled with the recovery of a black colour bag belonging to the deceased, prove the offence against the accused beyond doubt. He further argued that accused when arrested in FIR No. 174/05, PS Badar Pur, was found in possession of a country made State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi revolver which was opined as a 'fire arm' in the FSL report. Recovery of this country made revolver from the accused has been proved by the police officials as well as public witness Naresh (PW 8 in FIR No. 174/05, PS Badar Pur). He further argued that since the accused had obstructed government servants in discharge of their duty when they were acting on a secret information about the persons involved in the commission of the offence, therefore, the accused Pawan @ Diggi is also liable for the offence under Sec. 186/353 IPC. He further argued that in FIR No. 174/05, PS Badar Pur (SC No. 211/09), Sanction under Sec. 39 of Arms Act has been proved vide Ex. PW 9/C whereby the then DCP, South had given the Sanction on 21.06.05. He further argued that the complaint was also filed under Sec. 195 CrPC for the offence under Sec. 186/353 IPC and the said complaint Ex. PW 9/A has been proved by Sh. Sanjay Tyagi, the then ACP, examined as PW
41. Copy of this judgment be placed in both the case files. Announced in the open court (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR) on 9 Aug 2010 Addl. Sessions Judge02: South East th Patiala House Court: New Delhi State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02: SOUTH EAST PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI IN RE: Sessions Case No. 212/09 ID No. 02403R0376352005 PS Badar Pur U/s 392/302/34 IPC State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi S/o Sh. Gaya Prasad R/o 882, Jhuggi Gautampuri, PH1, Badar Pur, New Delhi And IN RE: Sessions Case No. 211/09 ID No. 02403R0727422005 PS Badar Pur U/s 186/353 IPC & Sec. 25 of Arms Act State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi State Vs. Pawan @ Diggi S/o Sh. Gaya Prasad R/o 882, Jhuggi Gautampuri, PH1, Badar Pur, New Delhi ORDER ON SENTENCE By this common order, I shall consider the sentence of the convict Pawan @ Diggi in FIR No. 167/05, U/s 392/302/34 IPC, PS Badar Pur and FIR No. 174/05, U/s 186/353 IPC & Sec. 25 of Arms Act, PS Badar Pur, for the reason that both the cases have been decided together by a common judgment.