Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This petition has been filed for challenging the Order dated 13.10.2015(Annexure P-16) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat; whereby the application of the petitioner/accused for examining Ballistic Expert ( Dr.R.K.Koshal, Assistant Director Ballistic, FSL, Madhuban) of FSL, Madhuban; as a witness in evidence in FIR No.310 dated 12.12.2007 under Section 302 IPC (ultimately report under Section 173 Cr.P.C filed under Sections 304,307,148,149,452,34 IPC), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonepat, has been rejected.

The brief facts which form the basis of the present litigation are that a complaint was made to the Police that one boy namely, Rajesh son of Kuldeep-the present petitioner, was studying in class XII and used to go to attend coaching classed at Model Town, Sonepat. On 12.12.2007 Rajesh had not come back to home at usual timing. Thereafter, at about 5:00 pm 1 of 9 telephonic call was received by his mother, namely, Sunita, informing her that Rajesh was being beaten up by some persons at Sai Market, Model Town, Sonepat. Sunita called her brother, Veer Sen on telephone. Veer Sen came to house and took along him another Rajesh son of Vijay Singh. Both of them went to the spot, which was stated as a place where the said Rajesh son of Kuldeep was being beaten. There Veer Sen and Rajesh son of Vijay Singh came to know about the persons who had given beating to Rajesh son of Kuldeep. Therefore, when the assailants who had given beating to the Rajesh son of Kuldeep came face to face to the above said Veer Sen and Rajesh son of Vijay Singh then one person; named, Parveen took out his revolver/pistol and aimed at them. Another person amongst the accused ran into House No. 251-A and brought out baseball bat and sticks. The above said Parveen and other persons started giving beating to Veer Sen and in his companion Rajesh. They also smashed their car with bats and bricks. In the mean-time, father of Rajesh, namely, Kuldeep(the present petitioner) arrived at the place of occurrence in his car driven by his driver Lokender Singh @ Lokesh. When he saw the Veer Sen and Rajesh being beaten by the accused, the petitioner shouted at them exhorting them to stop beating the said two persons. At this moment, Kuldeep was hit from behind with a bat on his head by the accused Anil. Due to this Kuldeep fell down and his licensed pistol also fell on the ground. The pistol belonging to Kuldeep was picked up by Anil and he used the pistol and fired a shot at the back of right thigh of Kuldeep, who at that time was lying on the ground. Thereafter, the accused Anil and Parveen, who was also carrying another revolver/pistol as mentioned above, started indiscriminate firing at Kuldeep, Veer Sen and their companion Rajesh. In the process, Veer Sen was shot in his chest, stomach and other parts of the body while Rajesh got shot on his left shoulder and 2 of 9 chin. Subsequently these three persons were shifted to hospital. As per the allegation, these persons were not fit to make the statements, therefore, the Police Officer, namely, SHO Rajesh Saini came to the hospital and he obtained their signatures on some papers including some blank papers. Pursuant to that the petitioner and the other injured persons were expecting an FIR being registered on their complaint. However, they were not being informed of any action taken on the complaint. Nobody was arrested. Therefore, the representations were made by the side of the petitioner to IG and DGP, Haryana on 17.12.2007, 04.01.2008 and 10.01.2008. However, still nobody was arrested. In the mean-time, the injured Veer Sen had succumbed to the injuries.

On the other hand, reply was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sonepat on behalf of the State of Haryana, in which it is alleged that the mention of recovery of different kind of bullet from the place of occurrence, as is mentioned in the FSL, is irrelevant because no weapon of different caliber has been recovered by the Police. The Expert has already given his opinion. It is further pleaded that the case has gone to the stage of defence witness and accused has examined one defence witness as well. Therefore, it won't be appropriate to call the Expert at this stage. Learned State counsel has buttressed the pleading in the reply in his argument and has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.