Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI & SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) – Appellant
Versus
AMIT & ANR – Respondents
CRL. A. 80/2016
Decided On : 04-04-2016
Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State with SI Ramesh Kumar, PS – Sultan Puri.
Mr. M.K. Gahlot, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey and Mr. Shiv Chopra, Advocates for R-2.
The importance of a cautious approach in dealing with appeals against acquittals and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Sections 307/34 IPC, Section 27 and 25 Arms Act - The court discussed the testimonies of witnesses, the presence of the accused at the spot, and the lack of evidence connecting the accused to the injury of the victim. The court emphasized the importance of cautious approach in dealing with appeals against acquittals and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent Naresh, who was charged under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 27 and 25 Arms Act for his alleged involvement in a shooting incident during a marriage procession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence connecting Naresh to the injury of the victim and no evidence to show that the victim was hit with a bullet loaded by Naresh. The trial court's acquittal of Naresh was upheld.
Issues: Presence of the accused at the spot, connection to the injury of the victim, and the evidence linking the accused to the shooting incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal and the importance of a cautious approach in dealing with appeals against acquittals.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of Naresh was dismissed.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by State against the judgment of the trial court dated 20.10.2014 by which respondent Naresh has been acquitted.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the present appeal are as under :
“A boy namely Krishan s/o Jagmer aged about 14 years r/o Village Karala was admitted in Saroj Hospital on 09.03.11 with the history of sustaining a bullet injury in marriage procession (barat). DD no. 18A was registered at 12.15 pm and its investigation was assigned to SI Dhirender Singh who alongwith staff reached the hospital but Krishan was unfit for statement. No witness was available there but SI came to know that firing incident had taken place in the lane of house no. 450-456 of P4 Block Sultanpuri. No eye witness was available even at the spot. SI Dhirender Singh prepared rukka and sent Ct. Sribhagwan to PS who got case FIR registered u/s 307 IPC. During investigation, SI came to know that Ravi s/o Vijender Singh r/o Village Karala was married with Asha d/o Naresh R/o P-4/450, Sultanpuri on 08.03.11 and a person namely Amit alongwith his friends was dancing in the marriage party and was also firing in the air simultaneously. He was the son of bua of Ravi. Amit was arrested at 1.50 am on 10.03.11 and he pointed out the place of incident. Co-accused Naresh was arrested at the instance of accused Amit on 11.03.11 and a mouser was removed from his personal search. He also pointed out the place of firing. Accused Abhimanyu @ Mintu @ Musa was arrested on 04.09.11. Injured Krishan remained unfit for statement. After recuperation, he was discharged from the hospital on 03.04.11. His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 02.04.11 in which he told IO that he was studying in 8th class. He joined the barat of Ravi in the night of 08.03.11 in P-4 Block Sultanpuri. Several boys including Mintu, his friends and Amit, a relative of Ravi, were dancing in marriage procession. Mintu, his friend and Amit were firing in the air. While dancing, accused Mintu started abusing him in indecent language and when he was going to complain to the elders of the village, accused Amit took a revolver from his friend and fired a bullet which hit in his head and he fell down. He regained consciousness after several days. He could not recollect the name of the boy who had given revolver to accused Amit after loading the same but he told his description as a long boy wearing black jeans jacket. Accused Mintu was his co-villager.”
3. Charge under Sections 307/34 IPC was framed against all the accused on 10.07.11. Additional charge against accused Amit and Naresh is under Section 27 and 25 Arms Act respectively. All accused claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. Accused examined three witnesses in defence.
5. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for State submits that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the testimonies of PW-3 Bijender and PW-9 Rakesh, a photographer, who was covering the Barat function on 08.03.2011 would show that Naresh was present at the spot and he was loading the gun which was fired by Amit which led to hitting the victim on his head resulting in grievous injuries.
6. Ms.Tiwari further submits that the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-9 clearly establish the presence of Naresh at the barat. Ms.Tiwari further contends that the testimonies of the above witnesses also establish that Naresh was loading the revolver while dancing in the party and Amit was firing from the weapon. Counsel next contends that minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses should be overlooked as the discrepancies, if any, are on account of the fact that witnesses have deposed after a considerable long gap. Counsel also submits that merely because Amit was acquitted under the Arms Act cannot be a ground by itself to acquit Naresh under Section 307 of the IPC. Ms.Tiwari also contends that the trial court has overlooked the mat
