JUDGMENT

R.K. GAUBA, J:

"...A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being

Crl. A. No.1284/2015 & connected matters Page 2 of 140

punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish..."

[Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 and Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 4 SCC 161]

1. These five appeals challenge the judgment dated 02.07.2015 and order dated 26.08.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in sessions case no.07/2009. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court held the appellants guilty for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and by the impugned order awarded as punishment imprisonment for life with various amounts of fine to each of them. By the impugned judgment, one of the appellants, viz Sonveer @ Pinku (Crl. Appeal no.283/2016) was acquitted of the charge under Section 27 Arms Act 1959, which had been additionally framed against him and against another appellant Vishnu (Crl. Appeal no.1338/2015), on the ground no proof had been adduced with regard to the grant of sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act.

2. I had penned this opinion in September - October last year, drafting it for the bench to return a decision dismissing all the appeals thereby upholding the conviction. Upon receiving copy of a totally divergent opinion, prepared with great labour and erudition by my learned senior colleague on the bench, Gita Mittal, J, I am obliged to suitably modify the document and also now present it as "my" opinion and consequently replacing such words as "we" and "our", wherever they occur in the

Crl. A. No.1284/2015 & connected matters Page 3 of 140

original draft with "I" and "my". Aside from such cosmetic changes, I must say that having accorded anxious and careful consideration to the reasons set out in the said separate opinion proposing acquittal for all the five appellants, I, however, do not stand persuaded to revise my view. I wish to express some additional thoughts at the end of the original draft to explain why I respectfully disagree with the opinion commending benefit of doubts to be accorded and the appeals to be allowed.

POLICE REPORTS

3. The sessions case in which the impugned judgment and order were passed from which these appeals arise relates to the first information report (FIR) that had been registered (Ex.PW25/A) at 7.00 p.m. on 22.02.2009 in police station Chanakya Puri (police station) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on the basis of rukka (Ex. PW26/A) that had been sent at 6.30 p.m. on the same evening by Inspector Surender Singh Rana (PW-26) of the police station respecting an incident that had statedly occurred at a place described as Ridge Road, near Simon Boliver Marg, T Point, it essentially being founded on the statement (Ex. PW1/A) of Sunil (PW-1), the first informant (presented as an eye witness), the investigation into the FIR brought out that in the subject incident a young person named Ankit, son of Mr. Rajiv Minocha, aged about 23 years resident of a house in Ward no.4, Mehrauli, New Delhi had suffered fire arm injuries to which he had succumbed during treatment in the Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the trauma centre” or “the Hospital”). It has

Crl. A. No.1284/2015 & connected matters Page 4 of 140

been the case of the prosecution that in the same incident Surender (PW- 8), a resident of a village