Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.) Present criminal appeals are directed against the judgement and order dated 14th December, 2007 passed by Sri Lukmanul Haq, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No.407 of 2006 (State Vs. Aslam & Others) under Sections 302, 307 IPC case crime no.162 of 2005, Sessions Trial No.408 of 2006 (State Vs. Aslam) under Section 25 Arms Act case crime no.163 of 2005, Sessions Trial No.409 of 2006 (State Vs. Parminder) under Section 25 Arms Act case crime no.164 of 2005, Sessions Trial No.410 of 2006 (State Vs. Ankur alias Bobby) under Section 25 Arms Act case crime no.162 of 2005, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Ghazibad, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 3 months; further to undergo R.I. for 7 years u/w 307/34 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for two months; further to undergo R.I. for one year u/s 25 Arms Act to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 15 days.
Brief background of the case as has been unfolded by the first informant Amit Tyagi s/o Karamveer Tyagi is to the effect that his mother Smt. Kamla Devi w/o Karamveer Tyagi was a candidate for being elected as BDC Member and election of the same was scheduled for 14.10.2005 and a day before on 13.10.2005 at about 11:30 p.m., he, his brother Sudip and cousin brother Yogendra alongwith some other co-villagers making contact with the voters were returning back to their home, at the said point of time, Sunder Singh s/o Fakir Chand Tyagi, who has recently been elected as Pradhan and has been supporting candidature of Smt. Leelawati w/o Ramraj Jatav, alongwith his son Ankur @ Bobby, Kalu s/o Karan Singh Jaat and Aslam Nut @ Islam was standing near the house of Dilsher and all of them were armed with countrymade firearm and the moment they saw the informant and others, it was mentioned by them that how they have dared to contest election in front of them, and they would get taste of the same, at the said point of time, the informant contended that they are contesting their elections and they have no concern with the informant and the moment these words were mentioned, Sunder exhorted to fire and then all four of them with the countrymade firearm with which they were armed with, opened fire and the said fire in question hit Sudip s/o Karamveer Tyagi and Yogendra @ Mantu s/o Munish Tyagi and both of them were injured and then on the spot after hearing the noise of the fire Raju s/o Surendra and Vipin s/o Hariraj and others came on the spot and have seen all of the four accused persons brandishing the countrymade firearm and fleeing away from the spot. The injured were taken for treatment and by the time they could reach the hospital, they succumbed to the injuries and it was also mentioned that in the same incident Puppal s/o Vijendra Jatav, who was also accompanying them, was also injured and accordingly, needful be done. The First Information Report was registered as Case Crime No.106 of 2005 u/s 302/307 I.P.C.
After the First Information Report in question was lodged chick F.I.R. was prepared by Bheekam Singh Bhati and the Investigating Officer, Samarpal Singh entrusted S.I. Ranjeet Singh for inquest proceedings being undertaken and thereafter statement of Amit Tyagi, Raju and Vipin was got recorded and the spot inspection report was also made. Statement of injured Pappal was also taken and from the crime scene blood stained earth and plain earth was also taken. Not only this, from the spot empty cartridges were also recovered and fard was prepared. On 13.10.2005, accused-appellant [email protected] Bobby was arrested and on his pointing out a countrymade firearm of 315 bore was recovered alongwith two live cartridges on 18.10.2005 and fard was also prepared. On 15.10.2005, accused-appellant Islam @ Aslam was arrested and from his possession, a countrymade firearm and two live cartridges were recovered. On 16.10.2005, accused-appellant Kalu was arrested and from his possession, a countrymade firearm and two live cartridges were recovered. Thereafter on 21.10.2005, the report of inquest and postmortem report were entered in case diary and statement of panch witnesses was also got entered. Spot map was prepared of the place, from where countrymade firearm from Ankur has been discovered. After the investigation in question has been carried out, then chargesheet in question has been filed and as the case in question was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, committal proceedings took place and the matter has been sent to Sessions Judge for being tried.
The Sessions Judge in its turn on 3rd April, 2006 framed charges and the accused-appellants denied their participation in the crime in question and requested for trial.
Before the Trial Court, in order to support the case of prosecution Amit Kumar Tyagi, the first informant, has appeared as PW1; Raju appeared as PW2; Budh Singh, who had prepared the chick F.I.R. appeared as PW3; Pappal, who was also one of the injured appeared as PW4; Dr. Munshi Lal who had proceeded to examine Pappal has appeared as PW5; Dr. M.M. Tripathi appeared as PW6, who had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased; Head Constable Anil Sharma appeared as PW7 and he has proved the documents prepared; Head Constable Bheekam Singh Bhati appeared as PW8; S.I. Samar Pal Singh appeared as PW9, who has conducted the investigation; S.I. Mahtab Singh appeared as PW10 and S.I. Prem Chandra Verma appeared as PW11. Thereafter statement of accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been got recorded and the Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced has proceeded to record conviction as against the accused-appellants and same has impelled the accused-appellants to be before this Court.
Shri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants contended before this Court that;
1. Prosecution story ex-facie cannot be accepted, as there is hardly any motive to commit the crime in question and here PW1 and PW2 both have proceeded to mention that incident in question has taken place at the point of time when they were returning from canvassing and 11:30 pm cannot be said to be appropriate time for canvassing, as such, the reason for their presence on the spot is in itself of great doubt and completely discredits the prosecution case.
2. The witnesses who have been examined and whose evidence has been relied upon namely PW1 and PW2 are enimical and partisan witnesses being close relative of deceased and in view of this, no reliance can be placed on the testimony that has been adduced by them.
3. The conduct of PW2 Raju Tyagi, in the present case, is totally abnormal and same also fortifies the situation that he was not at all present on the spot and has been planted subsequently after great deliberation and consultation as such his testimony cannot be relied upon by any means.
4. The sole independent injured witness Pappal has not nailed the accused-appellants and has given altogether different storyline of the incident in question and has been declared hostile, in view of this, once there are no independent witness to corroborate the prosecution story, then the prosecution story has to be turned down on account of its apparent contradictions and inconsistencies.
5. The medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular evidence, as here specific case of the prosecution has been that four persons have fired whereas there are only three gun-shot injuries and injury no.2 on the body of Yogendra is a blast injury, in view of this, it is clearly reflected that no one has witnessed the incident as alleged and claimed by the prosecution.
6. There has been no sufficient light to recognize the assailants as the incident in question has taken place at dark night and once no one has witnessed the incident in question as has been claimed, the entire prosecution story would fall to the ground.
7. The conviction and sentence recorded under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act is per se bad and is not at all supported by any evidence In view of the abovementioned reasons, prosecution story cannot be said to be credible one and this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the accused-appellants.
The issues raised has been countered by learned A.G.A. Smt. Raj Laxmi Sinha and by Shri M.D. Mishra, Advocate representing complainant in the present case, by submitting that in the present case, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the prosecution case, the prosecution story is not only consistent but a credible one with no inherent inconsistencies being there and there is no conflict of evidence viz-a-viz statement made by both the prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2 respectively and viz-a-viz the medical evidence and as far as Pappal is concerned, he was a minor boy of 10 year when incident took place and 11 year when he has been examined in Court and for the reasons best known to him he has choosen not to support the case of prosecution and on this score that merely because he has choosen not to support the prosecution case, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot be doubted and discarded and specially when the evidence adduced by hostile witness is also corroborating the storyline as has been given by PW1 and PW2, then merely because PW4 Pappal has been declared hostile it will have no dent in the case of prosecution.
It has also been mentioned that at no point of time any suggestion or challenge has been made that there has been blast injury and the medical evidence on the face of it is in-consonance with ocular evidence and accordingly, once, the ocular evidence is in-consonance with the medical evidence and here this is a glaring case of criminalization of politics wherein on the eve of election i.e. just one day before the election, two family members of a candidate have been killed and as such, the charges in the present case have been brought home and no interference should be made by this Court in the judgement of the Trial Court, and conviction and sentence should be affirmed. Conviction and sentence recorded under Section 25 of Arms Act is justifiable conviction.
After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is emerging in the present case is that this fact is not disputed that Smt. Kamla Devi w/o Karamveer Tyagi was a candidate for being elected as BDC Member and the said election was scheduled for 14.10.2005 and the case of the prosecution has been that on 13.10.2005 at about 11:30 in the night, the informant alongwith his brother Sudip and cousin brother Yogendra @ Mantu alongwith some others, making contact with the voters, has been returning back to his home and at the said point of time incident in question has taken place and has been executed.
Appellants have tried to contend before this Court that canvassing at about 11:30 pm was not at all a proper time and in view of this, no credibility whatsoever worth name should be attached to the case of the prosecution as has been set up.
This Court is not at all going to accept this particular argument that has been advanced before this Court that canvassing at 11:30 pm cannot be conceived of as it was not at all proper/appropriate time, for the reason that this much is accepted position that 14.10.2005 was the date fixed for the election and in case on 13.10.2005 at about 11:30 pm in the night after canvassing i.e. after making contacts with the voters, informant and the deceased and others were returning back home, then it cannot be said that it was an unusual time for canvassing. Canvassing is systematic initiation of direct contact with individuals used during political campaigns, and same is an integral part of get the vote operation wherein voters are contacted before and on the polling day to garner support and persuade voters to cast their vote in favour of a particular candidate. Canvassing process is carried out strategically and once the family members of Smt. Kamla Devi, had gone out of their house for campaigning and had been returning at 11:30 pm, then it cannot be termed unusual as how much time and at what time election campaign is to be carried out, same is the sole prerogative of incumbents who are associated with the election campaign.
PW1 and PW2 are the near and dear ones of the incumbent Smt. Kamla Devi who was contesting the election of BDC Member. Sudip-deceased was the son of Smt. Kamla Devi and Yogendra was the nephew of Smt. Kamla Devi and Amit Tyagi (PW1) had been there to canvass for his mother alongwith his brother Sudeep and cousin brother Amit Tyagi, who have been killed. Raju (PW2) was also in the campaign process of his aunty (chachi) and had been returning, then to say that it was an abnormal time, cannot be accepted and specially when precise case of the prosecution has been that after the canvassing, they have been returning home and while returning home, the accused-appellants were found standing on the path near the house of Dilsher, in view of this, the criticism of the prosecution story on the ground that 11:30 pm was not a proper time for canvassing cannot be accepted in the facts of the case and same will not at all weaken the prosecution case.
Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that PW1 and PW2 are close relatives and near and dear one of deceased, and as sole independent injured witness Pappal has not supported the case of prosecution, the prosecution story be discredited.
Can this be a ground to discard the testimony of such eye-witnesses who are near and dear ones of deceased has to be found out, on the parameters as has been settled by Apex Court.
The testimony of an eye-witness merely because he happens to be a relative of the deceased cannot be discarded as close relatives would be the last one to screen out the real culprit and implicate innocent person, as per the Apex Court in the case of Dilip Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 and this aspect of the mater has further been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2010) 7 SCC 759) as follows:
"12. There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In Jayabalan v. UT of Pondicherry (2010) 1 SCC 199, this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 213, paras 23-24)
23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.
13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 704, where the Court stated the dictum of law that a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same."
Apex Court in the case of Thoti Manohar vs. State of A.P. 2012 (7) SCC has stated as follows:
"39. No evidence can ever be perfect for man is not perfect and man lives in an imperfect world. Thus, the duty of the court is to see with the vision of prudence and acceptability of the deposition regard being had to the substratum of the prosecution story. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, wherein H.R. Khanna, J., speaking for the Court, observed thus:
"23. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by a yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."
40. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the eyewitnesses should be rejected solely on the ground that they are close relatives and interested witnesses."
Law on the subject is thus, clear that in reference to appreciation of evidence of witnesses who are near and dear one of victims, version of such witnesses cannot be thrown outrightly out but the same has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. The testimony of an eye-witness if found truthful, cannot be discarded merely because the eye-witnesses are relatives of the deceased. Where the witness is wholly unreliable, the Court may discard the statement of such witness, but where a witness is wholly reliable or neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable (if his statement is fully corroborated and supported by other ocular and documentary evidence), the Court may base its judgment on the statement of said witness. Of course, in the latter category of witnesses, the court has to be more cautious and see if the statement of witnesses is corroborated by other attending circumstances. Such a view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kuria v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 10 SCC 433.
On the issue of independent witnesses not being examined, Apex Court in the case of Ram Pratap Vs. State of Haryana 1983 (SCC) 327 has proceeded to mention that experience reminds that civilized people generally where crime is committed in their presence, try to keep themselves away unless it is inevitable. They think that crime is between two parties and they should not involve themselves. This apathy of general public is unfortunate everywhere, in village and cities. This handicap can not be ignored with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses, must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and search for the suggest of truth with due regard to probability suggested by the accused. The discrepancies which do not shape the basic prosecution version may be discarded. Normal errors of perception should not be given due importance. Errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. Court must evaluate entire material on record by excluding exaggerated version of the witnesses. If doubt arises on certain facts given by any witness, proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter demolishing the entire prosecution story.
In the light of such principles it is to be seen as to whether once independent witness has turned hostile can statement of these witnesses PW1, PW2 be accepted as credible, as to whether they were present at the place of occurrence as claimed by them and their statement on the said score of witnessing the crime is reliable or not?
Amit Tyagi is the first informant and in his statement before the Court, he has precisely proceeded to mention that his mother was contesting for the post of BDC Member and election in question was scheduled to be held on 14.10.2005 and on 13.10.2005 at about 11:30 pm, he alongwith Sudeep, Yogendra, Vipin and Raju was returning back doing canvassing and when they reached near the house of Dilsher, then Sunder, Ankur @ Bobby, Kalu and Aslam Nut asked them as to how they have dared to contest the election in front of their candidate and their candidate was Smt. Leelawati who was being sponsored by Gram Pradhan Sunder. This saying was resisted by Amit Kumar Tyagi by contending that they should contest their own election and should not keep connection. After hearing this, Sunder exhorted to fire and then all of them opened fire. Precise mention has been made that firstly firearm injury was caused to Sudeep and then to Yogendra and then he alongwith others have proceeded to take the deceased persons to the hospital on tractor-trolly wherein en-route, Sudeep and Yogendra died and accordingly, instead of going to the hospital, they went to Police Station and lodged First Information Report. This much has also come up on record that at the gate of Police Station, inquest proceedings has been carried out, as inquest proceedings of Sudeep has commenced at 1:15 am and inquest proceedings of Yogendra has commenced at 2:15 am. It was precisely mentioned by him that at the point of time when firing was opened, it was a moon lit night and they have proceeded to recognize each one of the appellants and out of the said appellants Aslam Nut, Kalu and Ankur @ Bobby are present in the Court.
In the cross-examination that has been so carried out, details have been given of the inquest proceedings that has been so undertaken and he has also proceeded to mention that the IO has gone with him on the spot and thereafter graphic picture has been given by him that the accused-appellants have met him near the house of Dilsher and details have also been given qua the placement of Sudip and Yogendra and it was also specifically mentioned that first Sudip was fired upon and thereafter Yogendra was fired upon and it was also precisely mentioned that while they were returning back home such an incident has taken place and both of them were full of blood and with the aid of villagers they were kept in the tractor-trolly and there has been blood on his hands but no blood was there on his cloth. Statement of PW1 has given graphic picture of the way and manner incident in question has been executed by accused-appellants.
The statement of PW1 has been criticized by mentioning that in his cross-examination PW1 has proceeded to mention that both the injured persons were in unconscious position and on account of the same, he did not ask them as to who has fired upon them and he has also proceeded to mention that the persons who lifted them to tractor trolly, there were no blood stains on their cloths but there was blood on their hands and the hands in question were shown to the Investigating Officer. In view of this, it is being contended that PW1 was not actually on the scene of occurrence and had he been there, such a statement would not have been there.
PW1 in the present case has given reasons for his being present on the spot and i.e. that on the fateful day after canvassing they were returning back home and he has also given details as to where all the accused-appellants were standing i.e. near the house of Dilsher. In his statement he has clearly proceeded to mention that first Sudip was fired upon and thereafter Yogendra and thereafter he has proceeded to mention that as to who has fired at Sudip and Yogendra, he was not at all sure and subsequently on account of unconsciousness of deceased persons, he could not ask them as to who had fired upon them. PW1 knew this fact that it was Sudip, who had been fired first and then Yogendra was fired but whose shot has hit them was not known to him, in this background he has proceeded to mention that as both of them were unconscious, he could not ask them as to who has fired and this fact clearly fortifies that there is no contradiction and accordingly, the criticism that has been made that PW1 has not witnessed the incident, cannot be accepted rather from his evidence it is clear that PW1 has been in the company of the deceased persons and this is the reason that after the incident in question has taken place, thereafter they have been put on the tractor-trolly and en-route to Hospital, both the injured persons have died then tractor-trolly has been taken at the gate of the Police Station wherein F.I.R. has been lodged and inquest proceedings have commenced, in view of this, to say that PW1 has not witnessed the crime in question cannot be believed.
Criticism of PW1 has also been made on account of fact that the PW1 and other villagers have proceeded to shift the injured persons on the tractor-trolly and their ought to have been blood stains on their dress and this circumstance also reflects that untruthful story is being disclosed by him before the Court.
PW1 has clearly proceeded to mention that he with the help of villagers had proceeded to lift the injured persons and put them in tractor-trolly at the said point of time there was blood on his hand and blood has been shown to the investigating officer and on his dress there has been no blood. He had wept but had not clinged with the deceased. He has also stated that blood was there in the hand of others who helped in lifting and pulling the injured, and same was shown to the police, but even on their dress, no blood stains were there. In the entire cross-examination of PW1, at no point of time any question has been posed at to how the injured persons were handled when they were being put in the tractor-trolly and taken to hospital that there has been no blood on their dress.
Apex Court in the case of Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1994 (Suppl.) (2) SCC 26, wherein presence of witness at the crime scene has been found to be natural, and their testimony has been sought to be impeached on the premises that once witnesses were attending bleeding deceased, there should have been blood stains on their clothes and absence of blood stains on their clothes clearly reflects that they were not present. Apex Court ruled that it can not be definitely said that there clothes should necessary have got blood stained and same is clearly dependent upon how they have handled the injured deceased. Here qua the way and manner, how PW1 Anil Tyagi has handled the bleeding injured, no questions have been put. In view of this, once testimony of eye-witness is sought to be discredited on this score, that though he was attending bleeding deceased there are no blood stains on the clothes, then specific questions ought to have been put to the said witness as to how he handled the bleeding deceased, that there are not blood stains on his dress. In the present case as no questions have been put, as to how PW1 handled the bleeding deceased, that there are no blood stains on his dress, as such, on this score testimony of PW1 Amit Tyagi cannot be doubted, as had such a question been put up, then he would have explained as to in what way and manner he alongwith others lifted the injured persons to be placed in tractor-trolly that there was blood soaked hand of his but there was no blood on the dress. The criticism on this score cannot be accepted and there is no reason to dislodge the ocular evidence as has been stated by PW1.
In the present case, much criticism has been made of the statement of PW2 Raju by contending that his conduct is completely abnormal in the facts of the case and his presence on the spot is highly doubtful and he from his own showing is a chance witness.
There is no fixed formula provided for, as to how a horror stricken witness of a dastardly crime is to react, but one thing is certain that witness to a serious crime may not react in normal manner, and may react differently. Apex Court in the case of Appabhai vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 686 has proceeded to mention, that even a man of process may become pusillanimous by witnessing a serious crime. Apex Court in the case of Rana Pratap vs. State of Haryana (1983) SCC 372 has taken the view that evidence of a witness of dastardly crime cannot be rejected merely on the ground, that they have behaved or reacted in unusual manner. Apex Court observed as follows:
"Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for helf, Others run away to keep themselves as far as removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is not set rule of natural reaction. To discrd the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealiable and unimaginative way."
This Court proceeds to examine the statement of PW2 Raju and finds that he has clearly proceeded to mention that on 13.10.2005, he had been canvassing alongwith others in support of their candidate and it was at 11:30 pm when he alongwith Vipin was there and when they reached near the house of Sunil, then they heard the noise of fire and Sunder, Ankur @ Bobby, Aslam Nut and Kalu opened fire and the said fire hit Sudip, Yogendra and Pappal and then accused persons escaped from the spot. He has also proceeded to mention that Ankur @ Bobby, Aslam Nut and Kalu are present in the Court and he has seen them opening fire in the moon lit night. He has also proceeded to mention that Sudip, Yogendra and Pappal were taken to hospital and in said incident Sudip and Yogendra died and it was also specifically stated by him that his aunty (chachi) Kamla Devi was being supported by them whereas accused persons were supporting candidature of Leelawati, and in order to restrain them from canvassing and with a view to get their candidate elected, firing has been done. In the cross-examination, he has proceeded to accept this fact that as far as he is concerned, neither he has gone to the Police Station and nor he has gone to the hospital and he has also precisely proceeded to mention as to how he knew the other co-accused persons and he has clearly proceeded to mention that canvassing process was undertaken w.e.f. 8:30 pm to 9 pm and alongwith him there were other villagers and they have started their canvassing from the house of Sharda s/o Kashiram and they have approached various voters. He has also proceeded to mention that after Pappal has received injury, then Dwesh appeared. He has also proceeded to mention that he was at the distance of 7-8 steps away from the spot when he heard the noise of fire.
In the present case conduct of PW2 is being criticized on account of fact that he has not extended any help to the injured in placing them on tractor-trolly and had the incident in question taken place before him, then he would have done so and as to why he has not gone to the Police Station nor to the Hospital, has not been explained by him and various factual statement are to his knowledge, even then he has denied them.
The incident in question has taken place inside the village in most dare devil manner and once there were family members and other persons there to put and carry the injured persons on tractor-trolly to hospital, then merely because PW2 has not choosen to go alongwith them, cannot be said to be abnormal conduct and specially when other family members have proceeded alongwith injured persons on tractor-trolly to the hospital.
Specific question was put to him that he was not present and to the said question, there has been specific denial and he also specifically stated that he stayed on the spot for 5-7 minutes and then came back home. No further questions were posed as to why on the relevant date, he alongwith injured did not go to hospital. Once no questions have been put and PW2 in his wisdom has choosen to stay at home, then in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that conduct of PW2 has been abnormal.
Criticism of PW2 has also been made on the ground that he is a chance witness also cannot be accepted in the facts of the case, as admittedly the election was to be held the next day and Smt. Kamla Devi had been contesting election and this is an accepted position that PW2 is the real nephew of Smt. Kamla Devi and in the said direction, he has been in the canvassing process and he has also detailed the name of persons with whom they have met and once he was there and witnessed the crime in question, then he cannot be treated to be a chance witness, rather he has to be accepted as a natural witness who was there on the crime scene and has witnessed the crime in view of this, the testimony of PW2 cannot be discredited and his presence on the spot also cannot be doubted.
In the spot inspection report, full details have been specified, wherein point 'A' has been specified as the place where Sudeep has been shot; 'B' is the point and the place where Yogendra has been shot, 'C' is the place and the point where Pappal has been shot. 'W1' is the place from where witness Raju, PW2 has witnessed the incident and 'W2' is the place from where Vipin witnessed the incident. 'W3' is the place from where Amit Tyagi PW1 witnessed the incident. 'F' is the place from where accused person fired and 'K' is the place from where empty cartridges were recovered.
We have examined the statement of PW1 and PW2 in the light of spot inspection report noted above and find that the storyline narrated by PW1 and PW2 is one and the same, to the extent of place of incident, the role attributed to each one of the appellant and the way and manner in which the incident in question has been executed. The statement of fact mentioned by PW1 and PW2 does inspire confidence and same does lead to the conclusion that the way and manner they have described the incident in question, the same cannot be doubted and there is apparently no dent in the prosecution case. In the case in hand the discrepancies or improvements, if any does not materially effect the case of prosecution and are insignificant for doubting the case of prosecution.
Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that in the present case Pappal, who is an injured eye-witness, as per the own statement of PW1 and PW2, Pappal (PW4) has not at all supported the case of the prosecution and in effect he has been declared hostile and in view of this, once sole independent witness has choosen not to support the case of prosecution, then the testimony of PW1 and PW2 should also be discredited.
The law on the subject is clear that even the evidence of hostile witness can be taken into account to the extent it corroborates the story of the prosecution. Apex Court in the case of M. Saruna vs. State of Karnataka 2012(7) SCC 636 has clearly ruled that the Court can take into consideration the part of the statement of hostile witness which supports the case of prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be said that whenever prosecution witnesses are declared hostile, it must prove fatal to the case of prosecution.
In this background, the statement of PW4 has been examined and it is found that as far as time of the incident is concerned i.e. fixed as he has proceeded to mention that it was in between 10-11 p.m. when he had gone to urinate on kharanja then he received injuries of firearm in neck and further after receiving injuries he has proceeded towards his house and not returned back to place of occurrence and he has not seen any injured witness and he was being taken to hospital by his uncle, then police jeep met him in the way and took him and his uncle to Hapur Dehat Police station and from where he was sent for doctor's examination alongwith police. The statement of PW4 fixes the time of incident, with slight difference of half hour, and the Doctor who has examined him has mentioned that injuries could be caused at 11:30 pm, the place of incident and the factum that Pappal had been taken to police station and from there he was sent for medical examination. PW1 has in his statement clearly and categorically mentioned that at the point of time when incident has taken place, Pappal has also received injuries and he was also taken to the hospital on the tractor-trolly alongwith injured Sudip and Yogendra and en-route they died and thereafter they went to the police station and thus this part of the story is also fully corroborated that Pappal had gone to the Police Station and from there he was sent for medical examination, as inquest of Sudeep started at 1:15 pm and he has been examined by Doctor at 1:15 pm, in view of this, Pappal who was a young minor child of 10 years when incident has taken place and of 11 years when he has made statement before the Court, has tried to keep him away and accordingly has been declared hostile but the fact of the matter is that he also corroborates the date, time and place of incident in question.
Arguments have been advanced, that there is no motive to execute the crime in question, and motive suggested is too trivial to impel them to commit such an offence.
This Court at this juncture takes note of judgement in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh 1999(4) SCC 370 wherein Apex Court has proceeded to mention that no doubt it is sound principal to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed, if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire swelled in the mind of the offender to such a degree to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed to be a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of mental disposition of an offender to wards the person whom he offended. Relevant para nos. 33 is being extracted below:-
"33. No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended. In this context we may extract the observations made by a two Judge Bench of this Court (Dr. A.S. Anand, J as the learned Chief Justice then was and Thomas, J) in Nathuni Yadav vs. State of Bihar (1978 9 SCC 238):
"17. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive.It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Champbell struck a note of caution in R.V. Parlmer (Shourthand Report at p.308 CCC May 1856) thus:
But it there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know, from experience of criminal courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives; not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties.' Though, it is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant."
Time and again it has been mentioned that absence of motive does not weaken the prosecution case, though existence of the same may strengthen the same. Absence of motive is of no consequence and same pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime as often motive is locked in the heart of offender. Motive looses its significance in case of direct evidence being there in crime, has been held by Apex Court in the case of Lokesh Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Karnatka 2012(3) SCC 196. Motive may be known to assassin and no one else may know what gave birth to such evil thought in his mind as per the Apex Court in the case of Munish Mubar vs. State of Haryana 2012(10) SCC 464.
On these parameters, the facts of present case is being adverted to. Here clear cut motive has been described that has impelled the appellants to execute the crime in question. The First Information Report clearly mentions that Smt. Kamla Devi was the candidate against Smt. Leelawati, who was being supported by Sunder Lal, the newly elected Pradhan, and this was not appreciated by Sunder, as to how someone has dared to contest election in front of his candidate. Here the election has close proximity with the incident in question, then to say that there has been no motive cannot be accepted in the facts of case and specially when there is unimpeached ocular testimony of PW1 and PW2.
Much emphasis has been placed in the present case on the factum that incident in question has taken place in the dark night and no one has witnessed the incident in question. In the present case, at the very outset, PW1 and PW2 have clearly proceeded to mention that it was a moon lit night and the two accused-appellants namely Kalu s/o Karan Singh Jaat and Aslam Nut though were not at all the resident of the village but they were close associates of Ankur @ Bobby and have been coming to him and they were accordingly known to the prosecution witnesses and they have been duly recognized in moon lit night.
On this score, initially, it was sought to be contended that it was not a moon lit night rather it was dark night and to counter this situation from the side of complainant a "Patra" was produced wherein on the said date i.e. 13.10.2005 at 11:30 pm, moon rise was mentioned from 10-11pm as "Shukla Paksha" and moon remained there in the sky till 3.31 a.m. that was indicative of the fact that it was a moon lit night, in view of this, the issue of there being no light has been given up and criticism that has been made next is to the effect that the medical evidence is in-conflict with ocular evidence.
This Court finds that PW1 and PW2 have been consistent in their story that all the four accused-appellants were armed with countrymade firearm and they have opened fire. In the said incident in question, Pappal has been examined on 14.10.2005 at about 1:15 am and on his body neck injury was found. The medical examination report of Pappal is as follows:
"MLPC 14.10.05 time 1.15 AM .......666 Examined Pappal aged about 10 yrs. M S/o Bijander R/o Vill. Vazilpur. P.S. Hapur Dehat Distt. GZB on dated 14.10.05 at 1.15 AM BB- CP 5112 UPHG Vinod Kumar MI -Tiny black mole on Rt. chest upper part. 3 cm below to Rt. clavicle.
Injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x depth not probbed on lt. Clavicle inner end adv. X ray.
Opinion. Injury is KUO adv. x ray for caused & nature of injury duration is fresh.
Sd/ Illegible Dr. Munshi Lal seal Casuality Medical Officer UPHC Hapur (G.Bad) LTI of Pappal.
Sd/ Illegible 14.10.05 seal Casuality Medical Officer UPHC Hapur (G.Bad) Ext. Ka. 6"
On 14.10.2005 at about 11 am, postmortem has been done on the body of deceased Sudip, the postmortem report of Sudip is as follows:
"P.M. done on the body of Sudip S/o Karmveer Singh Tyagi R/o Vajhilpur P/S Hapur Dehat Ghaziabad. Body sent by SO P/S Hapur Dehat in a sealed cloth bundle . Seal tallied with sample seal.
1. Fire arm wound of entry with abraded collar on rt. side chest 4th interspace 5 cm. (paper torn) the median plane. Wound is 3 x 2.5 cm deep penetrating into thorax and (paper torn) Blood started flowing? out when changing the body prone.
2. Multiple wounds of tattoing & burn each (paper torn) 1-2 mm over the area of 30 cm x 21 cm surround the injuries no. 1 more (paper torn) side & lower abdomen. No other ext. injuries noted.
Internal Examination ¼vkUrfjd ijh{kk½ 1- Head and Neck:
1- Bones of Scalp and skull: Normal 2- Membranes: Normal 3- Brain Pale 4- Base of skull 5- Vertebrae Normal. 6- Spinal Cord No opened. 7- Addl. Remark 2- Thorax ¼mjl½ a. Walls, ribs & cartilage: b. Pleura: Punct (paper torn) normal & punctured at (paper torn) site c. Larynx, Trachea and Bronchi: d. Right lung: Punct (paper torn) e. Left lung: Normal (paper torn) ..llapsed. f. Pericardium: Normal. g. Heart with wt.: empty (paper torn) chamber of heart h. Large vessels: i. Addl. Remark 3- Abdomen ¼mnj½ Diaphragm punctured liver medial lobes. Stomach & small intestine punctured.. extravasation of fluid into visara 9- Liver with wt. & Gall Bladder: GB ½ B(sic) liver. 10- Pancreas 11- Spleen with wt Normal ............ bullet recovered 12- Kidneys with weight Normal & sealed from Rt. side 13- Bladder Normal Loin 10 cm to of median plane. Subcutaneously. 14- Organs of Generation Normal Gha. Opinion as to cause and manner of death: About ½ day back due to antemortem homicidal firearm wound (shock & haemorrhage) Place: Ghaziabad Date: 14.10.05 Sd/- Illegible Dr. M.M. Tripathi SMO I/c T.B.Clinic Ghaziabad Seal Medical Officer Incharge Distt. Mortury Ghaziabad. ENCL: 10 One sealed Bullet Handed over to C.P. Pant-1, Shirt-1, Underwear-1, Baniyan-1 Ex. Ka 7"
It has been sought to be contended from the side of appellants that four persons have been attributed the role of firing and there are only three gunshot wounds, and further, a perusal of the postmortem report of Yogendra would go to show that as far as injury no.2 is concerned, same on its face value is blast injury and not a gun shot wound and once precise case of prosecution has been that there has been firing by all four persons whereas there are only three gun shot wounds and in view of this, there is apparent conflict viz-a-viz medical evidence and ocular evidence. The Doctor concerned who has proceeded to conduct postmortem examination on the body of Sudip has found firearm wound of entry and a firearm wound of exit and cause of death has been clearly mentioned due to firearm injury and due to shock and haemorrhage. In reference to Yogendra firearm wound of entry has been found and bullet has also been recovered and apart from this multiple wounds of tattoing and burn has been found in each of 30cm x 21 cm. Once, injury no.1 is a firearm injury and in respect of injury no.2 it is being submitted by appellants that it may be a blast injury, then at the point of time when Doctor was being examined then either question or suggestion ought to have been put to the Doctor as to whether the said injury in question could be a blast injury or not. Once no such suggestion has been given and no question has been put on the said score and the weapon used are countrymade, who have no specifications and fixed directions, then to guess that injury no.2 may be blast injury cannot be subscribed. In respect of countrymade firearms, Dr. B.R. Sharma in his book on "Firearms in Criminal Investigation & Trials" published by Universal Law Publishing Company, 4th Edition, Chapter-II has dealt with "Improvised Firearms" classified countrymade firearms, has stated that countrymade firearms are non-standard firearms and they are not tested or proved for their fire worthiness and are therefore, usually imperfect contrivances. He has also stated that the poor construction of firearms affects the firing process in many respects and sometimes the incomplete combustion inhibits a complete and proper development of pressure and the projectiles do not acquire standard velocities or striking energies. Said opinion has found approval of the Apex Court, in the case of Sayed Darain Ahsan vs. State of West Bengal 2012 (9) SCC 352.
Once countrymade firearm has imperfect contrivances, then to say that injury no.2 is an outcome of blast injury cannot be accepted in the facts of case. Coupled with this, at the point of time when spot inspection report has been prepared, no evidence of any blast has been found on the spot, and to the contrary, three empty cartridges have been found on the spot. Once such is the factual situation that death in question in both the cases is outcome of gun shot injury, then to say that there is conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence, can not be accepted on the premises that four persons have fired and there are only three gun shot injuries.
Apex Court in the case of Syed Darain Ahsan vs. State of West Bengal 2012(9) SCC 352, wherein prosecution alleged that appellants and his associates (about 8-10 in number) had surrounded deceased and all of them had fired at deceased, while medical evidence had been reflecting only one bullet injury on deceased, and another bullet and empty cartridge recovered from place of occurrence, took the view that here medical evidence clearly supports the ocular evidence and does not contradict the same, for the reason that eye witness may not have known how many projectiles were actually ejected from improvised firearm carried by assailants, and the fact that other bullets were not recovered from the body of deceased or from the place of occurrence does not belie the prosecution case that appellant and his associates had fired and killed deceased.
The case in hand is on a better footing, as here four persons have opened fire from countrymade firearm and both the persons who have died, they have admittedly died due to gunshot injury. Medical evidence thus supports the ocular evidence. Here a bullet has been recovered inside the body and three empty cartridges have been recovered from the spot. There are apparently three gunshot wounds on the body of deceased and even Pappal in his statement has clearly stated that he had also received gunshot injury. The Doctor who has examined him has merely stated that as he has not made a note, he cannot say as to whether it was gun shot injury. Such a factual situation is also suggestive of the fact that medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case.
The fact of the matter is that all four have fired indiscriminately, naturally no one at the said point of time would start counting as whose shot has hit and whose shot has missed. Viewed from any perspective, prosecution story as it has come forward, cannot be discredited. The Doctor in his opinion has clearly mentioned that the death in question is due to firearm wound shock and haemorrhage and due to antemortem homicidal firearm wound (shock and haemorrhage). Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2010 (15) SCC 252, wherein Doctor could not say with certainty that it was firearm injury, proceeded to take view, that in the light of ocular evidence, opinion of Doctor in no way would stand in the way of prosecution. Here the ocular evidence is consistent with the medical evidence, then a totally new case being carved by defence that there is a blast injury and that there are less number of injuries, cannot be accepted in the facts of the case.
This Court has also proceeded to examine the findings recorded by the trial Court in regard to the offences said to have been committed by the appellants under Section 25 Arms Act. The trial Court believing the recovery true, has recorded the conviction of all the appellants for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act as mentioned above.
Now the question before us is that whether recoveries shown against the appellants are believable and prosecution has been able to establish the recoveries beyond reasonable doubt. Whether sanction said to have been obtained for initiation of the prosecution under Section 25 Arms Act in the present matter is a legal one.
On perusal of the entire record, it is clear that on 15.10.2005, accused Aslam alias Islam has been arrested by P.W.9 Samar Pal Singh when this witness along with other police personnel were on patrol duty in search of accused persons. On his search, one country made pistol 315 bore and two live cartridges have been recovered. As per prosecution, fard recovery has been prepared on the spot keeping the recovered articles in sealed cover and also preparing the sample sheet.
On 18.10.2005, accused Ankur alias Bobby was taken by P.W.9 Samar Pal Singh from the hawalaat for recovery of the said tamancha on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused-appellant Bobby alias Ankur. The said recovery has been made by the accused appellant Ankur alias Bobby from the field of sugarcane. Two live cartridges of 315 bore have also been recovered on the pointing out of appellant Ankur alias Bobby. These recovered articles were also kept in the sealed cover and fard recovery preparing the sample seal has also been prepared.
On 16.10.2005, accused Kalu alias Parminder has been arrested and on search, from his possession, a country made 315 bore tamamcha and two live cartridges have been recovered. As per prosecution story, the articles recovered from the possession of the accused were kept in sealed cover preparing the sample seal and also fard recovery was prepared on the spot.
Prosecution to prove the recoveries have examined P.W.8 H.C.P. Bheekam Singh, who is the witness of recovery regarding Aslam alias Islam and Ankur alias Bobby. This witness investigated the matter in relation to accused Parminder. He has admitted in cross-examination that he has not sent the recovered tamancha from the possession of the accused-appellant Parminder for expert opinion.
P.W.9 Samar Pal Singh, who has investigated the crime no.162 of 2005, is also witness of the recovery made from the possession of the appellants. This witness has proved the recovered tamancha from the possession of the appellants before the Court. He has admitted in cross-examination that he has made search of themselves before search of the accused persons, but this fact has not been mentioned in the fard recovery.
P.W.10 is retired Sub-Inspector Mehtab Singh, who has investigated the matter in crime no. 163 of 2005 and has submitted charge sheet. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had obtained sanction from the competent authority for initiation of the prosecution. As per this witness, the tamancha recovered from the possession of the accused Aslam had been produced before the S.D.M., Hapur, who has seen it and sealed again and also recorded some entries in the case diary instructing this witness to appear before the District Magistrate.
P.W.11 Sub-Inspector Prem Chand has investigated the matter in crime no.165 of 2005 against Ankur alias Bobby and has submitted the charge sheet after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that the said tamancha for which permission for initiation of the prosecution had been obtained, was not produced before the District Magistrate at the time of granting of the sanction, but it has been produced before the S.D.M., Hapur one day before and on that basis, the then District Magistrate had accorded permission. As per this witness, District Magistrate had not signed over the document (pulinda) placed in the envelope prepared before the S.D.M.
Thus, from the above fact and evidence, it is evident that at the time of granting sanction to initiate prosecution, the competent authority have not seen at all the recovered illegal weapons. It has been seen by one S.D.M. who is under subordination of the competent authority. What endorsement has been made keeping the same in the envelope has also not been opened before the competent authority i.e. District Magistrate. It is also evident that recoveries are not supported by any independent evidence. No personal search by the police personnel before search of the accused appellant has been made.
The trial Court has concluded that investigation made by the officers subordinate to the recovery officer do not place the recovery suspicious. The statement of the police personnel can be believed irrespective of the fact that no public witness has been examined.
Trial Court has also concluded that the competent authority / District Magistrate concerned has accorded permission to initiate the prosecution after perusal of the papers and articles and defence has not been able to establish that permission has been granted without perusal of the papers and the said illegal arms. It would be pertinent to mention here that the conclusion of the trial Court in this regard is against the fact and evidence available on record. When the witnesses, who have investigated the matter, have themselves admitted before the trial Court that the said arms and papers have been perused and examined before one day of the sanction of the matter by the S.D.M., Hapur Dehat only. It was not seen and perused by the District Magistrate.
The trial Court's approach regarding acceptance of the evidence led by the prosecution in regard to recoveries is not acceptable as it is mandatory that before granting permission to initiate the prosecution under Arms Act, the competent authority is required to apply judicial mind. In the present matter, the competent authority has not perused the envelope prepared by the S.D.M. and the investigating officer and has also not seen the arms for which sanction has been granted. It may be mentioned here that the District Magistrate is empowered to grant the permission after perusal of papers and said arms. Power delegated by the Statute to the District Magistrate cannot be exercised by the S.D.M., who is not empowered to grant the permission or sanction. In this matter, it was the burden of the prosecution to prove that sanction has been accorded by the competent authority on perusal of the memos and illegal arms.
As far as the recovery made on the pointing out of appellant Ankur alias Bobby is concerned, independent witnesses have been cited in the fard recovery before whom the recovery is said to have been made, but they have not been examined before the Court. Any such type of recovery can only be believed if the place from where the recovery said to have been made is not accessible to general public.
The place from where recovery has been made is just 6 to 8 paces inside the sugarcane field from the Medh. The place from where the recovery is said to have been made on the pointing out of the accused appellant Ankur alias Bobby cannot be said that is the place where public generally cannot reach, specially, when the said recovery has been denied by the appellant. The trial Court finding regarding guilt for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act of the accused appellants is not sustainable as the trial Court view is against law and fact. Placing reliance on such type of recovery would not be safe. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act by the trial Court vide judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No.408 of 2006 (State Vs. Aslam), Sessions Trial No.409 of 2006 (State Vs. Parminder) and Sessions Trial No.410 of 2006 (State Vs. Ankur alias Bobby) are liable to be set-aside and are accordingly set aside.
Now coming to the principle offence, once such is the factual situation that there is credible evidence available on record in the shape of evidence of PW1 and PW2 whose presence on the spot cannot be held to be doubtful and even statement of hostile witnesses i.e. PW4 Pappal, corroborates the date, time and place of incident and the medical evidence is in line with the ocular evidence, then to say that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges in the present case cannot be accepted. In a pre-concerted manner, on the eve of election, two young persons have been killed and by clinching evidence available on record, it has been substantiated that accused-appellants have actively participated in the commission of offence and accordingly this Court concludes that Trial Court has rightly proceeded to record conviction followed by sentence in Sessions Trial No.407 of 2006 (State Vs. Aslam & Others) under Sections 302, 307 IPC case crime no.162 of 2005 and accordingly appeal filed by the appellants in regard to conviction and sentence passed under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC and Section 307 read with section 34 IPC is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
The appeal filed in regard to conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No.408 of 2006 (State Vs. Aslam), Sessions Trial No.409 of 2006 (State Vs. Parminder) and Sessions Trial No.410 of 2006 (State Vs. Ankur alias Bobby) by the appellants for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed against the appellants convicting and sentencing them under Section 25 Arms Act is hereby set-aside.
The appellants namely Ankur @ Bobby s/o Sunder Singh, Kalu s/o Karan Singh Jaat and Aslam @ Islam s/o Rasheed be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence.
(Om Prakash VII, J.) (V.K. Shukla,J.) Order Date :- 13th of May, 2014 A. Pandey