CRL.L.P. 13/2011

Page 1

$~1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

DECIDED ON: 06.04.2011

+

CRL.L.P. 13/2011

CRL. M.A.220/2011

STATE

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP.

versus

HITESH

...... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers

YES

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

YES

3. Whether the judgment should be

YES

reported in the Digest?

MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)

%

Crl. M.A.220/2011 (U/S 5 of the Limitation Act) in Crl. L.P.13 /2011

There is a delay of 228 days in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned for the reasons as

mentioned in the application.

CRL.L.P. 13/2011

1. In this petition, the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 23.01.2010 in Sessions Case No.78/2009.

The respondents were charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section-307

IPC read with Sections-25, 54 & 59 of the Arms Act.

2011:DHC:2104-DB

CRL.L.P. 13/2011

Page 2

2. The prosecution’s case was that one Kuljeet Singh went to the Jawala Heri Market for

daily collection (he professionally being the money lender) and was attacked by the 4

respondents after one of them i.e. Hitesh questioned him why he has quarreled with one of his

friend two days ago. It is stated that the arguments were between the said Kuljeet Singh

(hereafter mentioned as complainant) and the accused. On public intervention, the respondent -

accused went away and Hitesh threatened to “see the complainant”. It was further alleged that

while the complainant was conversing with PW-4 Charanjit Singh, all the 4 respondents reached

there; Yogesh and Ravinder caught hold of the complainant and the respondent accused gave

him 2-3 blows with an iron pipe on the foot of the complainant and the accused Hitesh told him

“TU JAWALA HERI MEIN DADA BAN RAHA THA, AB TUJHKO SABAK SIKATE

HAIN” and took out a katta and fired at him with a view to kill him. The complainant alleged

that he narrowly escaped. It was also alleged that PW-4 chased the accused but the accused

persons fled from the spot. Upon the matter being reported to the police, the FIR was lodged

and the respondent was subsequently apprehended. The prosecution alleged that the desi katta

and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Hitesh.

3. On the basis of the investigation, the prosecution filed a charge-sheet. The

accused/respondents were charged for having committed the offence.

4. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of 10 witnesses, the principal being PW-4 and

PW-7. After considering the material on record, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused.

5. Learned APP argues that the Trial Court committed an error in not considering the

deposition of PW-7 closely. It is argued that the said witness had clearly implicated Hitesh and

the others and had even described them in the statement recorded under Section-161 Cr.P.C. at

the earliest point in time which was exhibited as PW-7/A. Learned counsel pointed out that not

only the identity but also the description of the accused particularly Hitesh was disclosed as well

as the specific role played by them. In the circumstances, the Trial Court ought not to have given

the verdict of acquittal.

6. The Trial Court considered the evidence of PW-4 & PW-7. PW-4 who is alleged to have

been an eye witness to the incident and with whom the complainant PW-7 was conversing did

not support the prosecution story at all. He flatly denied having been witness to the incident or

even chased and raised alarm. As far as the complainant is concerned, the Trial Court noticed

2011:DHC:2104-DB

CRL.L.P. 13/2011

Page 3

that though he named Hitesh in his deposition in the proceedings before the Court, he