Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The prosecution case as has come up in the FIR lodged by PW1-Ghurai Lal who submitted a written report on 13.12.2006 (Ext. Ka.1) narrating therein that he is a permanent resident of Quazi Tola West, Kasba and Police Station Bewar,District Mainpuri. On 12.12.2006 at about 4.35 p.m. in the evening he along with his wife Smt. Ram Khushi and his son Ambarish Kumar Gupta alias Guddu was returning after taking medicine on his car from Mainpuri to their house. As soon as his car had come down to District Hospital and entered in the Kasba, Nishu, son of Lalit Dixit, Lalit Dixit son of Bal Kishan Dixit, resident of Mohalla Markichiya, Kasba and Thana Bewar, Chandan Kumar son of Nand Kishore Gupta, resident of Mohalla Brahmnand, Kasba and Thana Bewar, District Mainpuri, who were armed with country-made pistols stopped his car by giving a call. As soon as the car stopped, the aforesaid three accused came to the window of the car and after opening the window, Nishu Dixit and Chandan Kumar forcibly took out Ambarish Kumar from the car and by hurling abuses uttered that he poses himself to be a big ration dealer, he will have to give them ration and kerosene oil without any ration card and further have to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to them. On which, Ambarish told that he will distribute the ration as per the rules and he will not pay any form of Chauth (Gunda Tax). On this, Lalit Dixit while hurling abuses stated that since he is becoming a leader, he will not concede and exhorted to kill him and then Nishu Dixit and Chandan Kumar fired shot with their respective country-made pistols with an intention to kill Ambarish, on account of which Ambarish was seriously injured. Thereafter the informant raised alarm to save his son and the aforesaid three accused persons had fled away by displaying their firearms which they were carrying in their hands and by firing shot in the air and because of the terror of the accused persons, all the shop keepers fled away by closing down the shutter of their shops. The informant and his wife took his seriously injured son to the District Hospital, Mainpuri on their own car from where his son was referred to Agra as his condition was critical and in Kamayani Hospital, Agra his son died during treatment. After bringing back the dead body he has come to report.

45. This witness denied the suggestion that on the day of the incident she was not having the car. The distance of her house from the place of occurrence is one furlong and the distance of police station from her house is 200 paces. There are 15-16 shops between the place of occurrence and police station. On the day of incident the market was opened and after the shot was fired, it hit her son. Many persons of the nearby area had gathered. The vehicle was not stopped and her son was also not dragged. The shot hit on the right side of the vehicle. When the Ambarish was shot, she along with her husband was sitting inside the car. The first shot which was fired by Chandan Gupta hit the right hand of the deceased and the hand was above the waist. On receiving the first shot Ambarish did not fall and his blood had fallen on one place and after 2-3 minutes the second shot was fired. On hearing the first shot no police personnel had arrived at the place of occurrence and after the shot was fired they came out of the car. They did not pick up Ambarish and she did not know the names of the persons who had picked him up. At the place of occurrence Ambarish was seriously injured and he remained alive for 10-12 hours. She did not see any cartridge on the ground as they had taken the deceased to the hospital. From Mainpuri they proceeded for Bewar at 5 p.m. in the evening and reached at Mainpuri probably at about 5 p.m. It took about 20-25 minutes to reach at Mainpuri. At Mainpuri Hospital the police personnel had arrived. The police arrived within 2-3 minutes after they had arrived Mainpuri Hospital. She did not see whether Sub Inspector was there. The police personnel did not made any interrogation from them. The police did not ask them to lodge a report and it might be possible that the police had asked her husband for the same.

55. P.W.4 Shyam Singh has deposed before the trial court that on 13.12.2006 he was posed at police station Bewar, district Mainpuri as Head Constable. On the said day at about 4 a.m. in the morning Ghurai Lal Gupta along with Pradeep Kumar, Suresh, Ajay and Jitendra had come to the police station with the written report against Nishu Dixit, Lalit Dixit, Chandan Kumar with respect to an incident in which it has been stated that the said accused had attempted to kill Ambrish Kumar by fire-arm shot and had given the report at the said police station which was shown to him as Ext. Ka-1. On the basis of the said report, he prepared Chik FIR and registered as Case Crime No.541 of 2006 under Section 302, 384, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and endorsed the same in the G.D. No.4 on 13.12.2006 at 6 p.m. The papers for conducting panchayatnama was given to S.O Udaibhan. He proved the Chik FIR in his handwriting and signature as Ext. Ka-3. In his cross-examination he has stated that prior to 13.12.2006 Ghurai Lal Gupta had never come to him at police station with the written report. He stated that he was at police station on duty for last 24 hours. All the entries were made on 13.12.2006 were not in his handwriting and were of Assistant Moharrir and Sub-Inspector. The incident has taken place on 12.12.2006 at 4 p.m. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence is 200 meters. The place of occurrence is between district hospital and kasba Bewar. On 12.12.2006 he was on duty as Head Moharrir at the police station. Photocopy of the G.D dated 12.12.2006 was produced on behalf of accused persons which was shown to the witness and he stated that G.D. No.22 (time 16.37) is in the handwriting of his assistant C.C.580 Mohd. Ashfaq and G.D. No.21 (time 16.31) is in his handwriting and G.D. No.12 (time 16.37), an endorsement was made regarding the fact that S.I. Om Pal has given an information which has been endorsed in the said G.D. He denied the suggestion that after receiving the information which was endorsed in G.D. No.22 dated 12.12.2006 he took Ambrish Gupta to District Hospital, Mainpuri instead his family members took Ambrish Gupta to Mainpuri Hospital and thereafter he along with police officials had followed him to the hospital for security purposes. He further denied the suggestion that he took injured Ambrish to the police station and the doctor had conducted the medical examination of the injured at his instance. There was signature of the witness in the bed head ticket. He further submitted that from the police station no chitthi majroobi was taken by him. It was stated by him in his cross-examination that he had returned back to the police station on 12.12.2006 which was also endorsed in the G.D. No.22 (time 16.37). Prior to it the information was already given by the Station Officer through wireless at the police station. In G.D. No.22 (time 16.37) endorsement about the said fact has been given. He had not submitted the medical examination report of Ambrish Gupta at the police station and he remained at Mainpuri Hospital till he was referred to district Agra. Thereafter from the hospital he came back to police station Bewar. Ghurai Lal did not met him near the injured at the hospital. Ghurai Lal met him till he remained in the hospital. The mother of the injured was crying and he did not have any conversation with her who also did not tell him anything. The injured was sent to Agra along with S.I. Ompal Singh and constable for security purposes. On 13.12.2006 at 7.15 in the morning Ompal returned to the police station Bewar. The Investigating Officer of the case returned to the police station after investigation on 13.12.2006 in the night at 21.40 hours. In the G.D. no endorsement of the statement of any witness was mentioned. In the hospital, the medical examination report of the injured was taken by his family members which was received by him and given to his family members. The said fact was endorsed by him in the G.D. He denied the suggestion that the medical examination report of the injured was concealed by him and was falsely deposing. The Investigating Officer had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he had not asked from him about the medical treatment of the injured nor he disclosed about the said fact to him that he got the medical examination of the injured done. He did not inform the Investigating Officer that he had accompanied the injured nor he had told that he had given the copy of the medical examination report to the family members of the injured. The Investigating Officer was aware about the incident from before.

57. In his cross-examination the witness has stated that the distance of police station from the place of occurrence is 200 meters and while he was making spot inspection of the place of occurrence, he had interrogated the shop keepers whose shops were near the place of occurrence. In this regard he recorded the statement of shop keeper Anoop Singh and Roop Lal who have stated that at the time of incident they were present at their shop but have not witnessed the incident. The distance of the shops of Roop Lal and Anoop Singh was 8-10 paces from the place of occurrence. Prior to the registration of the present case at the police station he did not take any action. He was not present at the time of incident at police station as he was busy in some other place. He could not remember as to which place he had gone. He had conducted the panchayatnama of the deceased on 13.12.2006 at 6 p.m. and concluded by 7.35 a.m. While conducting the panchayatnama he did not ask the names of the accused. He has seen the injuries three in number. No money was found in the pocket of the deceased. At the time of conducting of panchayatnama, the deceased was only wearing underwear and found no other clothes on his body. On further cross-examination he has stated that on 12.12.2006, he has received an information about the incident at about 3-4 p.m. On receiving the information of firing, constable S.I. Yashpal Singh and Head Constable Shyam Singh and Constable Kunwar Singh were informed to have gone to the place of occurrence. In the night of 12.12.2006 he received an information that Head Constable Shyam Singh had gone to the injured in District Hospital, Mainpuri. This witness did not go to the hospital at Mainpuri and on 12.12.2006 he did not proceed with the investigation about the incident. In the night of 12.12.2006, he had reached the place of occurrence but did not remember the time. He did not remember whether any shop keeper had told the name of the injured or the accused. He further did not remember that on 12.12.2006 he contacted S.I. Yashpal, Head Constable Shyam Singh and Constable Kunwarpal. During investigation he had recorded the statement of Head Constable Shyam Singh but did not record the statement of S.I. Ompal Singh and Constable Kunwarpal. He recorded the statement of Head Constable Shyam Singh on 13.12.2006. He stated that in the statement of Shyam Sing recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it was not stated by him that he had admitted the injured. Head Constable Shyam Singh had given him the statement regarding registration of the FIR. Head Constable Shyam Singh has not given his statement that he had admitted the injured in the hospital or he was with him. He does not remember whether he interrogated Head Constable Shyam Singh that he was with injured or he had admitted him on 12.12.2006 in the hospital. After perusing the case diary he stated that he has not mentioned that Shyam Singh had admitted the injured. He also did not remember whether he had asked from Head Constable Shyam Singh that who was accused involved in the incident or the deceased in the injured condition or his father had disclosed the name of any accused or not. The statement of Head Constable Shyam Singh in this regard has not been mentioned in the case diary. The shop keepers of the nearby areas had not given an eye-witness account and they have only given hearsay evidence. He has not mentioned in the case diary whether the informant has stated in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. for taking medicines from Dr. Pramod Gupta. In the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of informant Ghurai Lal Gupta and his wife does not find fact about taking the medicines from Dr. Pramod Gupta. He did not record the statement of Dr. Pramod Gupta under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has given the supurdagi of the car which was used in the incident to the informant and he does not remember who is the owner of the said car. He did not remember whether he has seen the papers of registration or not. In the case diary he also could not mention about the registration of the vehicle. He has seen that blood-stains were found on the seat inside the car but did not take the same in his custody. He did not remember whether Ghurai Lal Gupta or Smt. Ram Khushi had shown blood-stained clothes or not. He further stated that if the blood-stains were found on their clothes then he did not think to be relevant to make a mention of the same. He did not remember whether he had made a query from the informant regarding the conspiracy hatched by Chandan Tiwari or not. He had seen the chik FIR and tehrir FIR in which it was written that the deceased was taken in an injured condition to District Hospital, Mainpuri for treatment and from where he was referred to Agra. The medical certificate of the deceased from District Hospital was not collected by him during investigation. He was not present at the time of the incident at the police station, hence he had not mentioned about the said fact in the G.D. He had met Head Constable Shyam Singh and in his presence the FIR was registered. He did not remember whether he had made any query from Head Constable Shyam Singh regarding the injured. The witnesses of the incident had told him that the injured was medically examined at District Hospital, Mainpuri. He did not collect any papers of the injured regarding his treatment at Agra. He stated that during the course of investigation it was necessary to collect the papers but he did not collect the same. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not collect the papers regarding his medical treatment. He had seen the place of occurrence and distance of the place of occurrence from the police station is 200 meters He has further seen the house of the informant. He could not tell approximate distance of the police station from the house of the informant. He visited the house of the informant on several occasions and the distance of the house of the informant from the place of occurrence is 300 meters towards North East. The place of occurrence from the police station is towards South-West. It is correct that the incident has taken place on old G.T. Road. He could not tell that from how much distance the fire shot can be heard. It is not necessary that the fire shot can be heard at the police station from the place of occurrence. He admitted the fact that on 12.12.2006 at 16.37 hours in the G.D. there is an endorsement of fire shot from the side of District Hospital. S.I. Ompal Singh on receiving the information of firing had left towards place of occurrence. The information was received at the police station by wireless and the higher officials were also informed about the incident from the police station by wireless. S.I. Ompal Singh and Head Constable Shyam Singh had not disclosed the names of the accused persons. He did not come to know about the medical examination of the injuries of the injured Ambarish at the time of the registration of the FIR and when he had recorded the statement of the informant he came to know about the said fact. He did not remember that when the deceased was injured, he was speaking or not and he did not ask any witness about the said fact. He further did not remember whether he had asked Head Constable Shyam Singh that whether the injured Ambarish while being admitted to the hospital was speaking or not. He did not go to the doctor who had medically examined the injured Ambarish while he was in District Hospital, Mainpuri. He further did not record the statement of the doctor who had medically examined the injured. He further did not remember whether any declaration was made by the injured to the doctor or not. He further did not take the statement of Anoop Kumar Gupta, the brother of the deceased. He did not remember that who were the persons who got the deceased medically treated while he was alive. It is a relevant fact that the informant and his wife had taken the deceased while being injured for medical examination. Blood-stains were found in the car but he did not take the same in his custody. He took the blood from the place of occurrence. The informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that Nishu Dixit, Lalit Dixit, Chandan Kumar Gupta had got the car stopped. It was further stated by the informant that the deceased was dragged from the car and he did not got down himself. He did not remember that whether he made any query that who were the persons who had picked up the injured and kept him in the car. He did not remember whether he made a similar query at the place of occurrence. He had recorded the statement of Head Constable Shyam Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 13.12.2006. He admitted the fact that in the statement of Head Constable Shyam Singh it has not been mentioned that by which vehicle the injured was taken to the hospital. He further stated that it is correct fact that on each day the copy of the G.D is signed by the Station Officer and sent to the higher authorities and he was the Station Officer of the concerned police station. On 12.12.2006 also he must have countersigned the G.D. and sent to higher authorities. When the G.D. dated 12.12.2006 was shown to the witness then he identified and proved his signatures on the same. On 12.12.2006 he had read the G.D and then signed the same. He did not take the blood-stains on the seat of the vehicle by cutting the same in his custody and further did not think it necessary for taking any documents. Rs.5,000/- per month was being demanded as Chauth (goonda tax) by the accused Chandan Gupta from the deceased on account of which his mobile was snatched. He denied the suggestion that at the behest of the informant he has not carried the impartial investigation. He further denied the suggestion that during the course of investigation the real culprits have not been brought to book.