$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 16.02.2023 Pronounced on: 18.04.2023 + CRL.A. 419/2022 VINOD KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy (DHCLSC), Mr. Manish Vashist, Mr. Varun Bhatnagar and Mr. Roshan Kumar, Advocates versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP.

Inspector Rajbir Singh, PS:

Punjabi Bagh.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

J U D G M E N T

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C‟) impugning the Judgment dated 24.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟) and Order on sentence dated 08.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟) passed by Sh. Pooran Chand, learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (West), Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Trial Court‟) in Sessions CRL.A. 419/2022 Page 1 of 35 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Case No. 57716/2016, titled as „State Vs Vinod Kumar & Anr.‟, emanating from FIR No. 154/2016, registered in PS Punjabi Bagh under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.

2. By way of Impugned Judgment, the Appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Court for committing the offences under Section 302/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. Vide the Impugned Order, the Appellant was sentenced to: (a) rigorous imprisonment for life for offences under Section 302/34 IPC along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which a further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months; (b) to rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 25 Arms Act along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months; and (c) to rigorous imprisonment for four years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment for three months. It has further been ordered by the learned Trial Court that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

FACTS GERMANE FOR ADJUDICATION OF PRESENT APPEAL

3. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-11, ASI Sardar Singh, who was posted at PP Madipur, PS Punjabi Bagh, received DD No. 38PP on 18.02.2016. Thereafter, he along with PW-13, Ct. Banwari Lal reached at the spot of crime i.e., 194-A, Lal Quarter, Punjabi Bagh. On enquiry, it was found CRL.A. 419/2022 Page 2 of 35 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed that a boy was shot and he was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. PW-13, Ct. Banwari Lal was directed to remain at the spot of crime in order to protect the site of crime and PW- 23, Inspector Ajmer Singh („IO‟) and SI Nafe Singh, who had reached at the spot by then, along with PW-11, ASI Sardar Singh left for the hospital.

4. Upon reaching the hospital, they got to know that the deceased boy, namely Yash, aged two years, was declared brought dead by the doctors. Consequently, PW-23, Inspector Ajmer Singh collected MLC No. 150/16 of the deceased from the doctor. A parcel, which was sealed by the doctor, containing T-shirt, vest, sweater, etc. of the deceased boy was seized by IO Ajmer Singh vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-11/A. He recorded statement (Ex. PW-1/A) of father of deceased, PW-7, Lalit Kumar (also the complainant) at the hospital.

5. PW-7, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that on

18.02.2016, the Appellant came to his house at about 8 PM and asked him to accompany him to consume liquor. The wife of PW-7 objected to the same. The Appellant got angry and left the house of PW-7. PW-7 further stated that the Appellant again came to his house on the same day at about 10 PM, when he was lying on charpai and his deceased son was playing on his chest. A bullet was fired from the window which hit his son. PW-7 immediately ran outside his house and saw that the Appellant was sitting on a motor cycle as a CRL.A. 419/2022 Page 3 of 35 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed pillion rider and fl