State v. Ravisolanki

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 378(1)ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge(NDPS)/Additional Sessions Judge,North West,Rohini Court, Delhi. Notice ofthe petition wasissued to the respondent. CrlLP-133/2017 2017:DHC:8594-DB

2. The facts before the trial court are that one Ashok Kumar Rathi and respondent Ravi Solanki were charge sheeted under Sections 307/34 IPC, in FIR No.870/2006, Police Station Sultan Puri. It was alleged against the accused persons that on 04.06.2006 at about 09.30 p.m. at the empty plot of Kaptan Singh, accused Ravi Solanki was armed with country made pistol and caused injuries on the person of Amit Rana by firing a bullet. It was alleged that by firing at Amit Rana,accused made an attempt to commit his murder. It was alleged that co-accused Ashok Kumar Rathi was having common intention in causing injuries on the person ofAmit Rana.

3. A charge under Section 307/34IPC wasframed against both the accused persons. A charge for the offence under Sections 27(2)and 25 of the Arms Act was also framed against accused Ravi Solanki. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed, and claimed trial.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses i.e. PWl Dr.Pradeep Dua,PW2Amit Rana,PW3Padeep@Bhola,PW[4] Complainant.Hari Kumar, PW[5] SI Nar Singh, PW[6] Mr.V. Shankarnarayanan,PW7SIK.S.Dogra,PW8Dr.B.P.Singh,PW9HC Kah Charan, PWIO ASI Devender Joshi, PWll Ct.Ravi Kumar, PW12 HC Ganga Saran, PW13 SI Satpal Singh, PW14 Mr.Dharmender Kumar,PW15 Dr.M.L. Bansal and PW16 SI Rajiv Ranjan. Crl.LP.133/2017 Page 2of[5]

5. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 30.09.2016 acquitted both the accused persons ofthe charges framed. Aggrieved by thejudgment passed by the trial court,the present petition for the grant of leave has been filed by the State on the ground that the impugned judgment has resulted in grave miscarriage ofjustice. Ld. ASC Ms.Nandita Rao has submitted that PW[2] Amit Rana has supported the case ofthe prosecution and his statement has not been correctly appreciated by the trial court. Further ground taken is that a pistol, one empty cartridge case, and two live cartridges were recovered at the instance ofrespondent Ravi Solanki.

6. Arguments advanced by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent have been heard.

7. Perusal ofevidence led by the State shows that the incident had taken place on 04.06.2006,and despite the injured being available,his statement was not recorded on that day, or soon thereafter, and his statement wasrecorded only on 06.06.2006. The injured witness Amit Rana (PW[2]) did not support the case of prosecution and has categorically stated thatthe accused Ravi Solanki had not fired at him. With intention while sharing such common intention with Ashok Rathi,to kill him due to business rivalry. He also stated that accused Ravi Solanki fired from the pistol towards his front side i.e. towards the DJ. During examination ofthis witness in the Court, he turned hostile from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in so Crl.L.P.133/2017 o,rr Page3of[5] far as the intention and motive attributed to the accused is concerned, and did notsupport the version ofthe prosecution.

8. Similarly, other argument advanced by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State is that the pistol and cartridges were recovered at the instance of the accused in the presence ofPW5-SI Nar Singh. From a careful reading ofthe testimony ofPW[5] SI Nar Singh,it emerges that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt,the alleged recovery ofpistol and cartridges. PW[5] SI Nar Singh has stated that he did not identify the writing on the documents which were allegedly prepared at the time of recovery. Moreover, as per the medical report Ex.PWl/A ofthe injured Amit Rana,there was one entry wound but there was no exit wound ofthe alleged fired bullet. This aspect remained unexamined and the pistol and cartridges allegedly recovered at the instance ofthe accused were notconnected with the alleged fired bullet. The trial court did notfind any confidence in the statement ofinjured witness, as well as in the recovery of fire arm and ammunition and the same have been disbelieved by the trial court,on accountofglaring discrepancies and contradictions in the statementsofvarious witnesses. Pertinently,the incidenttook place in a marriage party,with scores ofpeople present, but no eye witness was examined. We are also ofthe considered opinion that the testimony of witnesses, particularly eye witnesses PW2-Amit Rana, PW3-Pradeep @ Bhola and Investigating Officer PW16-SI Rajiv Ranjan does not inspire confidence in this Court and the recovery allegedly ofarms and ammunition made at the instance Crl.L.P.133/2017 Page4of[5] p ofaccused are full ofdoubts and the same have not been convincingly established on record. Evidence available on the file cannot culminate into conviction ofthe accused.

9. In view ofthe above discussion, we do not find any ground for the grant of leave to file the appeal for the reasons that there is no illegality orinfirmity in the impugnedjudgmentofacquittal passed by the trial court. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. P.S/TEJI,/r A VIPIN SANGHI,J OCTOBER 26,2017 dd •. iv. ) -• Crl.LP.133/2017 Page 5of[5]