SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 2170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
Suraj Parkash @ Chikka - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Crl.A. 157/2015 & 236/2015
Decided On : 02-06-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate instructed by Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Varun Goswami, APP

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies, medical evidence, and ballistic reports to establish guilt in criminal cases.

Headnote:

IPC - Criminal Law - Section 323, Section 307, Section 25/27 of the Arms Act - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellants under Section 323 and Section 307 of the IPC, as well as Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. It also highlights the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and ballistic reports, to establish the guilt of the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the conviction of the appellants for offenses under Section 323 and Section 307 of the IPC, as well as Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The judgment discussed the testimonies of witnesses, including the injured party, and the evidence presented, such as medical and ballistic reports, to establish the guilt of the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellants guilty based on the testimonies of witnesses, medical evidence, and ballistic reports. It upheld the conviction of Rakesh for attempt to murder and the offense under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for four years and three years, respectively. It also upheld the conviction of Suraj Prakash but released him on probation of good conduct.

Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the admissibility of evidence, and the interpretation of medical and ballistic reports to establish the guilt of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of witnesses, medical evidence, and ballistic reports to establish the guilt of the accused. It emphasized the importance of scrutinizing witness testimonies and corroborating evidence to arrive at a decision.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by Rakesh, upholding his conviction and sentencing him to imprisonment. It upheld the conviction of Suraj Prakash but released him on probation of good conduct. The judgment directed the necessary actions to be taken in relation to the appellants' imprisonment.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Sanjay @ Kala, Suraj Prakash @ Chikka and Rakesh; the latter two being the appellants because vide impugned judgment dated January 08, 2014 Suraj Prakash has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and for which vide order on sentence dated January 16, 2015 he has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and Rakesh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC as also Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and vide order on sentence of even date has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the former offence and RI for a period of 3 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the latter offence. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been extended. It is obvious that Sanjay @ Kala has been acquitted and the reason is neither the victim Sunil Sherawat who appeared as PW-9 nor the two eye witnesses Dharmender Dabas PW-11 and Amit Kumar PW-13 identified him as the third person.

2. It all commenced when Amit Kumar PW-13, carrying on business of manufacturing surgical goods in partnership with Dharmender Dabas PW-11, was sleeping in the office at his factory in Kanjhawala and his sleep was broken when Sunil Sehrawat PW-9 came to his office with blood profusely oozing from the right side of his chest and an injury on his head. He informed him that Rakesh Rohidiya had fired at him. Amit Kumar rang up the police control room using a mobile phone having No.9212074240 and the police control room in turn passed on the information to PS Kanjhawala where the duty officer SI Ashwani Kumar recorded DD No.3A, Ex.PW-5/A, that a coach in a gym had been shot at Udai Vihar, Kanjhawala. Investigation was marked to ASI Narender Singh PW-20, who accompanied by Ct.Naresh Kumar PW-19 reached the spot and learnt that the injured had been removed to the hospital in a PCR van. Ct.Satish PW-17 was also directed to proceed to the spot and on reaching there he met ASI Narender Singh and Ct.Naresh Kumar.

3. In the meanwhile the injured Sunil Sehrawat had been removed in a PCR Van to Maharishi Balmiki Hospital. Enroute, the police personnel in the PCR van kept on passing on information to the police control room which was duly recorded in the PCR form Ex.PW-1/A, duly proved at the trial by Ct.Prem Pal PW-1. It records that the PCR reached the spot at 1:18 hours and that the injured told the PCR personnel that one Rakesh had fired at him. The cryptic information recorded in the form is ‘…. from – Kanjhawala Chowk 26.2.2011 at 1:18:28 ek injd. Hai goli lagi hai lekar hospital ja rahe hain, 26.2.2011 at 1:21:45 Libra 51 RCD 4 min., 26.2.2011 at 2:06:41 injd. Sunil S/o Shri Bhagwan R/o Singhu Gaon, age 26 years, bataya ki Kanjhawala Chowk se Ladpur ki taraf XXX naam se Gym chalta hai, gym khali karne ko lekar Sanjay, Rakesh ur Cheta ne aa kar jhagra kiya aur Rakesh ne goli mari hai jo right kandhe se peeche side se mari hai jo chest ki taraf se nikli hai, jisko Balmiki Hospital Pooth Khurd me Duy Constable ke hawale hose me kiya ……. complainant bata raha hai ek he goli chali hai, Addl. SHO Kanjhawala aur Night GO Outer District ACP Spl. Staff mauka par hain, doctor ne bataya ki baki details X-ray ke baad pata lagegi.’

4. ASI Narender Singh learnt that the injured had been taken to Maharishi Balmiki Hospital and thus leaving the constable behind to guard the place of the occurrence he proceeded to the hospital where he found Sunil Sehrawat admitted in the casualty and had been treated by Dr. Ajay Keshari who drew up the MLC Ex.PW-18/A, proved at the trial by Dr. Yudhvir Singh because Dr. Ajay Keshari was not available and Dr. Yadhuvir Singh was familiar with the writing and signatures of Dr. Ajay. The MLC records that the pati



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top