Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

 that the FIR and the merg intimations are anti-timed which makes the whole prosecution case doubtful.

 that the merg intimation, inquest and the memo sent for postmortem do not contain the crime number whereas by the time these documents were prepared, FIR was already registered at 2.30 am on 9.6.2010.

 that while lodging FIR, name of accused Hani was shown as one of the accused persons, on 9.6.2010 he was served with a notice u/s 91 of CrPC vide Ex.P/48 and instead of arresting him, he was asked to produce documents in relation to the seized weapon and ultimately, he was arrested on 13.6.2010, the date on which licencsed weapon was seized from him. According to the defence, it shows that till the time of issuance of notice to accused Hani u/s 91 of CrPC, FIR was not registered.

(viii) that PW-13 (IO) has admitted the fact that he was instructed by the higher officer to send 0.9 MM pistol to the ballistic expert and this shows that the eyewitnesses are not narrating the correct facts in the Court.

(ix) that according to the learned counsel, the pistol of 0.9 MM has been suppressed by the prosecution  that the pistol which was seized from accused/appellant Jai @ Gudda bears body No.5323404 whereas as per report of the armourer Ex.P/30, the pistol examined by him bears body No.392344 and the CFSL also examined weapon bearing No.392344 and has opined that the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased persons were fired from the pistol bearing No.392344. According to the counsel for the appellants, it is thus clear that the weapon seized has not been sent for examination and some other weapon and cartridges have been sent for examination. According to them, weapon bearing No.392344 has been planted by the prosecution. The prosecution did not explain as to how they came in possession of the actual weapon of murder.

 that as per IO, two seizure witnesses namely Ravindra Nirmalkar and Baran Yadav were planted witnesses whereas according to him, actually the witnesses were Tarachand and Abdul Sattar (vide para 72 of the evidence of IO.)  that the investigation has been done in a casual manner and no effort has been made even to collect fingerprints from the weapon of offence and get them examined.

 in respect of conviction of the appellants under the Arms Act, it has been argued that from the possession of accused/appellant Jai @ Gudda, one pistol of 7.66 MM was seized vide Ex.P/13 but the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. As regards weapon seized from accused/appellant Vijay @ Hallo i.e. one 315 bore rifle (Ex.P/22); from accused/appellant Rishiraj 12 bore double barrel gun (Ex.P/15); accused/appellant Ajay .22 bore rifle (Ex.P/14) and from accused/appellant Hani 12 bore double barrel gun (Ex.P/26), all the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and most importantly, the weapons so seized were licensed weapons, which is evident from Ex.P/5 & P/6 i.e. application for sanction and the sanction order for prosecution under the Arms Act.

It is relevant to note that this seized weapon, according to the prosecution, was used in commission of the offence and all the gunshots were made from this weapon only.

On the same day from accused/appellant No.6 Ajay @ Chhotu, one .22 rifle bearing body Number CAL22LONG/RIFLE/ 0147064JGANSCHITZGMBHWAFFENABRIK/UIM/D/GERMANY, with three live cartridges of .22, on the bottom of which CBC was written, were seized vide Ex.P/14. Likewise, from accused Rishiraj, one double barrel 12 bore rifle of Royals Arms & Company, bearing No.9895A/2- Y2002 was seized vide Ex.P/15 from his house situated at Rajendra Nagar. Similarly, from the house of accused Hani @ Koustubh Samdaria one 12 bore double barrel gun bearing body No.MPABR/1- 159/52-Z1, having two live cartridges, on the bottom of which "Shaktiman 12 Express" has been written, were seized vide Ex.P/26. The aforesaid seizure memos bear signatures of this witness.