Delhi District Court
State vs Rudra Pal Singh on 15 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT SAKET COURTS: DELHI
S.C. NO. : 32/2020
FIR NO.: 104/2018
PS : Defence Colony
U/S.: 307 IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act.
CNR : DLSE01-010055-2019
THE STATE
VERSUS
Shri Rudra Pal Singh (aged about 65 years)
S/o Late Shri Ram Swaroop Singh
R/o Village Dalabala Khera,
Post Gugouli, Tehsil Bindki,
District Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh ...... Accused
Date of Institution : 29.11.2019
Order reserved on : 13.01.2025
Order delivered on : 15.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused namely Rudra Pal Singh is facing trial for the
offences u/s. 307 IPC and 30 Arms Act.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The case of prosecution is that on 21.08.2018 upon receipt
of DD No. 16A regarding firing of a bullet by the security guard
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:30:46 +0530State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 1 of 37
SI Amit Maan along with HC Sattu Parashar reached at Vijaya
Bank, D Block, Bank Complex, Defence Colony, New Delhi
where they met Ms. Swagata Rana, Assistant Manager who
produced accused namely Rudra Pal Singh and told that he is
working as guard in the said bank and has fired a gunshot from
his licensed rifle upon a customer namely Rajender Singh who
was admitted in Moolchand Hospital. Ms. Swagata Rana also
handed over the rifle of the accused to the IO/SI Amit Maan. On
cursory examination of the rifle it was found to be having two
chambers out of which one chamber was empty and one was
having live cartridge. Thereafter IO/SI Amit Maan called the
Crime team who inspected the spot and took photographs of the
same. In the meanwhile IO/SI Amit Maan received DD no. 19A
upon which he went to Moolchand Hospital, leaving HC Sattu
Parashar at the spot where doctor declared the injured unfit for
statement and he collected the copy of MLC on the basis of
which present FIR was registered. After completing other
necessary formalities charge-sheet was filed against the accused.
3. On the basis of charge-sheet so submitted before Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance was taken by the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance with the provisions of
Section 207 Cr.PC, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments on point of charge and finding a
prima facie case against the accused, requisite charges U/s. 307
IPC and section 30 Arms Act was framed against him to which
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:30:52 +0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 2 of 37
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as
many as nineteen witnesses.
5.1 PW-1 SI Ajay is the Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, South
District and he has deposed that on 21.08.2018 upon receipt of
information from Control room, he along with HC Jaiveer
(photographer) and ASI Ram Niwas (Finger Print Expert)
reached at Vijya Bank, D Block, Defence Colony, New Delhi
where they met SI Amit Mann along with other police officials of
PS Defence Colony; that he had inspected the scene of crime and
HC Jaiveer had taken the photographs of the same from different
angles; that during inspection blood stains were found at the
scene of crime; that he prepared the scene of crime report which
is Ex.PW1/A and handed over the same to SI Amit Mann; that he
correctly identified six photographs of scene of crime which were
taken by HC Jaiveer as Ex.PW1/B (colly). He was cross
examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.2 PW-2 W/ASI Ratan Prabha is the Duty Officer and she has
deposed that on 21.08.2018 at about 01:30 p.m., an information
was received from Control Room and QST of the PCR was
produced before her through wireless operator that ‘Vijaya Bank
Defence Colony caller ne batya yaha par guard ne goli chala de
hai ph. -24610504″ on the basis of which DD No. 16A dated
21.08.2018 was lodged which is Ex.PW 2/A (OSR); that she
handed over the same to SI Amit Mann who had gone to attend
the same along with HC Sattu Prashar for necessary action; that
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:30:59 +0530State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 3 of 37
on the same day at 2.50 pm, an information was received from
Control Room, QST of the PCR call which was produced before
her regarding MLC through wireless operator that ‘ at Mool
Chand Hospital MLC no. 7302/18 Pt. Rajender Aged 35 years,
R/o I 50, Jangpura Ext. Vijaya Bank mai goli lag gai hai injured
hai Ph. 9810137904’ on the basis of which she recorded DD No.
19A which is Ex.PW 2/B; that she informed about the same to SI
Amit Man same for necessary action.
5.3 PW-3 HC Satbir Verma is the Duty Officer and he has
deposed that on 21.08.2018 at about 04:30 p.m., HC Sattu
Prashar produced rukka for registration of FIR sent through SI
Amit Mann on the basis of which he lodged the present FIR u/s
336/337 IPC and u/s 30 Arms Act which is Ex.PW-3/B; that he
made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW-3/C; that he
also prepared certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act
which is Ex.PW-3/D; that he handed over the computerized copy
of FIR, original rukka to HC Sattu Prashar for further handing
over the same to SI Amit Mann for further investigation. He was
cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.4 PW-4 Shri Rajender Singh is the complainant/injured. His
testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of
judgment.
5.5 PW-5 Ms. Swagata Rana is the then Asst Branch Manager
and her testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of
judgment.
5.6 PW-6 Shri Ram Patt is the Medical Record Technician,
AIIMS and he has deposed that he was deputed by the faculty
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date: 2025.01.15
16:31:06 +0530
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 4 of 37
incharge of Medical Record Section Dr. Narender Chaudhary to
identify the signatures of Dr. Pragya who has now left the
services of the hospital vide Authorization Letter which is Ex.
PW6/B; that he brought the copy of MLC No. 500118288 dated
26.11.2018 in respect of Sh. Rajender Bisht who was brought to
the hospital with a history of gun shot wound on 21.11.2018 and
the MLC is Ex. PW6/A; that he identified her handwriting and
signature appearing on the MLC since he has worked with her
and seen her writing and signing in the official course of duty;
that he also brought the discharge summary/ discharge note in
respect of the patient Rajender Bisht which runs into 26 pages
and the same is collectively Ex. PW6/C.
5.7 PW-7 Shri Vipin Kumar is the Retd. Asst. General
Manager and his testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later
part of judgment.
5.8 PW-8 Shri Ankan Patnaik is the Asst. Manager and his
testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of
judgment.
5.9 PW-9 Shri Deepak Kumar Ranjan is the clerk and his
testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later part of
judgment.
5.10 PW-10 Shri Dharmender Singh Negi is the Security
Officer and his testimony in detail shall be discussed in the later
part of judgment.
5.11 PW-11 Shri Bijay Shankar Patel has deposed that on
21.08.2018 he heard loud sound and thought it to be some kind
of electric spark but soon there was a commotion and people
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:31:13 +0530State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 5 of 37
were shouting that armed guard R.P. Singh fired a bullet; that
thereafter he saw that one person was lying on the ground and
blood was oozing out; that police officials came at the branch and
the injured was taken to Mool Chand Hospital by bank staff and
IO recorded his statement to this effect.
5.12 PW-12 HC Sattu has deposed that on 21.08.2018 on
receipt of DD No. 16A, he alongwith SI Amit Mann went to
Vijaya Bank D-Block, Defence Colony, Delhi where they met
Ms. Swagata Rana, the then Asst. Manager who handed over
accused Rudra Pal Singh and stated that he was working as a
guard in the bank and fired upon customer namely Rajender
Singh from his licence rifle; that thereafter the said person was
sent to the Moolchand hospital for treatment; that the said Asst.
Mananger also handed over the rifle of accused Rudra Pal Singh
to the IO and on checking of the same two chambers were found
out of which one was empty and one live cartridge was found in
the second chamber; that on checking of the pouch five live
cartridges were found in the same; that IO prepared the sketch
memo of the rifle and the recovered cartridge which are Ex.
PW5/A and Ex. PW5/C respectively; that IO prepared the
pulanda of the said rifle and sealed the same with the seal of
‘AM’ and seized the vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW5/B; that
IO also prepared the pulanda of the said five live cartridges and
sealed the same with the seal of ‘AM’ and seized the same vide
seizure memo Ex. PW5/D; that the accused Rudra Pal Singh was
also handed over by the said aforesaid Asst. Manager to the IO;
that accused handed over the documents regarding the licence of
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 6 of 37
16:31:19
+0530
the aforesaid rifle to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo
which is Ex. PW12/A and the copy of the licence of the said rifle
is Ex. P-1 (Colly); that IO also took the blood in gauze from the
spot in transparent container which was found on the floor of the
bank and sealed the same with the seal of ‘AM’ and seized the
same vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW12/B; that IO handed
over the said seal to him by way of handing over memo which is
Ex. PW12/C and they returned to the PS; that IO got deposited
the case property in the malkhana; that IO arrested the accused
and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW12/D and
Ex. PW12/E and also recorded his disclosure statement; that
during the course of further investigation on 24.08.2018, they
again went to the Vijaya Bank where Sh. Vipin Kumar, the then
Manager handed over the relevant footage of the bank in two
pen-drives make Sandisk alongwith Certificate u/s 65 B of IEA
to the IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. He
was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel.
5.13 PW-13 HC Vijay Kumar has deposed that on 25.08.2018,
he joined the investigation with the IO/SI Amit Mann and IO
handed over the custody of accused Rudra Pal Singh to him and
thereafter his medical examination was done in the AIIMS
hospital and after his medical examination, he was produced
before the Concerned Court and was sent to the JC.
5.14 PW-14 Shri Rishabh Makhija is the Clerk of the bank and
he has deposed that on the day of incident, he was doing his work
in RTGS/Fixed Deposit Department; that at about 12:00 noon to
01:00 pm, he heard a noise of firing of bullet from the side of his
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:31:25 +0530State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 7 of 37
corner seat and immediately, looked towards the side and saw
that accused R.P. Singh who was the then Guard of the said bank
was having his arms/riffle and the bullet was fired from that
riffle; that the bullet was fired to a customer of bank who was
looking after the balance of his account at Passbook Printer
Desk; that the said person sustained injury on his back due to
said firing of the said bullet; that he immediately rushed towards
the injured and thereafter, they had taken the said injured to the
Moolchand Hospital; that the name of the injured was Rajender
and he know him personally as he used to visit the bank
frequently and also for the purpose of RTGS or Fixed depositing;
that the then AGM of the said branch had taken the rifle from the
accused RP Singh. He was cross examined by ld. defence
counsel wherein he has admitted that he did not see accused
Rudra Pal Singh firing from his rifle.
5.15 Inadvertently no witness was examined as PW-15. PW-16
SI Dushyant Panwar has deposed that on 27.11.2018 the
investigation of the present case was assigned to him and he got
verified the arms licence bearing S. No. 2386(A)/Chakeri of the
rifle issued in the name of accused from the concerned authority
of Kanpur City vide letter no. 1196 dt. 27.11.2018 which is Ex.
PW-16/A and the copy of aforesaid licence is Mark X-1(colly.);
that as per the verification the said licence same was found
registered in the name of accused Rudra Pal Singh s/o Ram
Swaroop Singh.
5.16 PW-17 SI Amit Maan is the Investigating Officer of the
case and he has deposed that on 21.08.2018 at about 1.30 PM,
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:31:31
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 8 of 37
+0530
DD no. 16A regarding firing of the bullet by the security guard of
Vijaya Bank, Branch D Block Defence colony was marked to
him being the SI of PS Defence colony; that thereafter he along
with HC Sattu Prashar went to the spot where they met Ms.
Swagata Rana, the then Assistant Manager of the said Bank; that
she handed over the custody of the accused Rudra Pal Singh and
informed that the bullet was fired by him due to which one
customer namely Rajender Singh sustained injury on his back
and she also informed that injured Rajender Singh got admitted
in the Mool Chand Hospital; that she also handed over the
weapon of offence i.e. rifle to him and on opening the same, two
cartridges were found in its chamber; that one cartridge was
empty and second one was live in the 2nd chamber and four live
cartridges were also found in the pouch of the said rifle; that he
prepared the sketch of the rifle and the live as well as empty
cartridges vide sketch memo which are Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.
PW-5/C respectively; that he also prepared pulanda of the rifle
and sealed the same with the seal of AM and seized the same
vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-5/B; that he also prepared
pulanda of the live cartridge, sealed the same with the seal of AM
and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/D; that
accused had handed over the copy of his armed licence which is
Ex. P-1 (colly.) which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-12/A; that he also called the Crime Team at the spot and got
inspected the scene of crime; that the photographs of the scene of
crime were taken by the Crime Team and blood in gauze was
lifted from the floor of the bank which was kept in transparent Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:31:38
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 9 of 37
+0530
container and same was sealed and seized the vide seizure memo
which is Ex. PW-12/B; that he handed over the seal to HC Sattu
Prashar after its use vide handing over memo Ex. PW-12/C; that
thereafter he went to the hospital after keeping the scene of crime
in the custody of HC Sattu Prasher; that injured Rajender Singh
was found under treatment in the hospital and was declared unfit
for his statement as per his MLC and he returned to the spot; that
he prepared the rukka on the basis of DD No. 16A dt. 21.08.2018
which is Ex. PW-17/1 and got registered the FIR through HC
Sattu Prashar; that after registration of FIR, investigation of the
case was assigned to him and HC Sattu Prashar handed over copy
of FIR and original rukka to him; that he mentioned the FIR
number in the documents which were prepared prior to the
registration of FIR and he also prepared site plan at the instance
of Ms. Swagata Rana, Assistant Manager which is Ex.PW-17/2;
that after that they returned to the PS along with accused and got
deposited the case property in the Malkhana of PS; that he
arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide
memos Ex. PW-12/D and PW-12/E; that he also recorded
disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex. PW-17/3; that
the FIR was registered u/s 336/337 IPC and section 30 of Arms
Act which are bailable in nature and hence the accused was
released on bail; that during the course of treatment injured was
shifted to AIIMS hospital where also the injured was declared
unfit for statement; that on 23.08.2018 he again visited AIIMS
hospital for the purpose of investigation of the present case
where he found that injured Rajender Singh was operated and
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:31:45
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 10 of 37
+0530
one bullet pellets and wad column was removed from his body
and same were handed over to him by Duty constable in sealed
condition having the seal of JPNATC, AIIMS, ND, CMO and he
seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-17/4; that during
course of further investigation he served the notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C
to the Manager of the aforesaid Vijaya Bank for providing the
CCTV footage of the incident and on 24.08.2018 the footage of
the incident was handed over to him in two pen drives through
covering letter Ex. PW-7/A by Sh. Vipin Kumar, the then
Manager of the bank; that the Manager also handed over
certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW-
7/C; that the said pen-drives and certificate u/s. 65-B were seized
vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-7/B ; that he again served
the notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to the Manager of the aforesaid Vijaya
Bank for providing the CCTV footage of the incident captured in
all the cameras of the bank as the footage of only one camera was
provided to him initially; that on perusal of the footage of the
incident it was found that accused Rudra Pal was seen firing the
bullet on the injured on the day of incident that’s why section
308 IPC was added in the case; that on 25.08.2018 accused
Rudra Pal Singh was again arrested and his personal search was
conducted vide memos Ex.PW-17/5 and Ex.PW-17/6 and his
disclosure statement was also recorded which is Ex. PW-17/7;
that thereafter accused was produced before the court from where
he was sent to judicial custody; that on 29.08.2018 the footage of
the incident captured in the other cameras of the bank was
handed over to him by Sh. Dharmender Singh in two pen-drives
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:31:51
+0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 11 of 37
through covering letter which is Ex. PW-7/D along with
certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Mark X and
same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-10/1; that he also
sent letter to the concerned authority for cancellation of the arms
licence issued in favour of accused; that during course of further
investigation he collected the documents related to weapons and
appointment and training related documents of the accused from
the concerned authority which were handed over vide letter dated
08.09.2018; that the said documents i.e. bio data, aadhar card,
PAN card, copy of arms licence, police verification related
documents, training related documents etc. are collectively
marked as Mark PW-17/A (colly.); that he also collected the
attendance register, appointment letter and complete details of
the accused from the bank through letter dated 15.10.2018 which
are collectively marked as PW-17/B (colly.); that on 19.09.2018
when injured regained his consciousness and was declared fit for
statement, he recorded his statement regarding the the present
incident; that on perusal of the said statement, section 307 IPC
was added in the present case; that during the course of
investigation he got deposited the exhibits in the FSL Rohini
through Ct. Mann Singh and he handed over the copy of
acknowledgment of case acceptance and RC to him after
depositing the same which were taken on record and are marked
as Mark PW-17/C and PW-17/D; that he recorded statement of
the witnesses; that thereafter he was transferred and handed over
the case file to the MHC(M); that he correctly identified the pen-
drives which are Ex. PI, Ex. A-1, A-2 and A-3. He was cross
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence2025.01.15
Colony
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 12 of 37
16:32:09
+0530
examined at length by the Ld. defence counsel.
5.17 PW-18 Inspector Rakesh Kumar is also the IO of the case
and he has deposed that investigation of the present case was
assigned to him on 20.12.2018 and during course of investigation
on 01.03.2019, he deposited the MLC of the injured Sh. Rajender
in the Moolchand hospital for obtaining the opinion on the same;
that on 07.03.2019 he went to AIIMS Trauma Center and
collected the medical document of the injured which are
collectively Mark X-1 (Colly); that on 08.03.2019 he went to
Moolchand Hospital from where he collected the MLC of injured
in which the nature of injury of the injured was opined as
grievous caused by gun shot; that during course of further
investigation he went to Vijaya Bank Branch Defence Colony
and collected the opening and closing schedule of the bank for
21.08.2018 by way of written reply of the concerned Asst.
Manager which is Mark X-2; that thereafter he prepared the
charge-sheet and submitted before the Court for judicial verdict;
that on the receipt of FSL result, he collected the same from the
MHC(R) of PS Defence Colony and file the same before the
Court by way of supplementary charge-sheet. He was cross
examined by ld. defence counsel.
5.18 PW-19 ASI Jaiveer is the photographer in the Mobile
crime team, South East District and he has deposed that on
21.08.2018 he alongwith SI Ajay, Incharge and ASI Ram Niwas,
Finger Print Expert reached at Vijaya Bank, Defence Colony
Branch, New Delhi where he took photographs of the crime
scene and thereafter returned back to office; that he correctly
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:32:19
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 13 of 37
+0530
identified the six photographs which were clicked by him and
same are Ex. P-1/B (Colly).
6. During the prosecution evidence, statement of the
accused was recorded u/s.294 Cr.PC whereby he admitted reply
of notice u/s. 91 Cr.PC dated 15.01.2018 as Ex. X-1 (colly.) and
FSL result dated 08.11.2019 prepared by Ms. Prerna Lakra as Ex.
X-2 and prosecution evidence was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the
incriminating material was put to the accused under section 313
Cr.PC. He pleaded innocence and stated that he has retired from
Army after serving for more than 30 years and there has never
been any complaint against him; that after his retirement he had
to take the job of the security guard as he had to marry his
daughter; that even during his tenure as security guard there has
been no complaint against him since he was doing his duty
diligently; that on the day of incident he was posted as security
guard on the first floor of the Vijaya Bank and suddenly few
people came to the bank from ground floor as someone had
inflicted knife injury to someone; that knowing this, the bank
official namely PW-8 Ankan Patnaik asked what he will do if
such incident takes place in the bank and at the same time the
cash was being transferred from the bank and he had unlocked
his licensed rifle and was in alert position; that he told Mr.
Ankan, no one need to worry as he has the rifle with him and was
there to protect the bank and its customers; that he was sitting on
his chair at that time and in order to show the rifle to Mr. Ankan,
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 16:32:27
14 of +0530
37
he stood up from his position and as soon as he showed him the
rifle suddenly the accidental fire took place and hit PW-4
Rajender Singh at his back; that he did not personally know the
customer i.e. PW Shri Rajender and there was absolutely no
intention to injure anyone. Though, the accused took the plea of
being innocent in his statement u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. but did not
prefer to lead any defence evidence and matter was fixed for final
arguments.
ARGUMENTS
8. Ld. Addl.P.P. has argued that PW-4 Shri Rajender
Singh / injured has fully supported the case of the prosecution by
saying that accused has fired a bullet on his back and when he
saw, he found that rifle was pointed towards him; that PW-8 Shri
Ankan Pattanaik, PW-9 Shri Deepak Kumar Gunjan and PW-14
Shri Rishabh Makhija have also witnessed the incident and
supported the case of the prosecution on the lines of PW-4 Shri
Rajender Singh; that the other bank officials who after hearing
the gunshot immediately reached at the spot and seen the position
of the incident which also corroborated the testimonies of PW-4,
PW-8 and PW-9; that the police officials who reached at the spot
upon receipt of information qua the present incident, also
supported the case of the prosecution; that PW-7 Shri Vipin
Kumar and PW-10 Shri Dharamendra Singh Negi have proved
the CCTV footage containing the incident and handed over to
PW-17 IO/SI Amit Maan who seized the same vide seizure
memo; that the CCTV footage is also a documentary evidence
which also supported the case of Prosecution on the Digitally
lines of
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:32:34
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 15 of 37
+0530
PW-4 Shri Rajender Singh; that the MLC no. 7302/2018 of the
Moolchand Hospital Ex.A-1 has explained the nature of injury as
“grievous” caused by “bullet fire”; that the MLC of the injured
Ex.PW6/A also established before the Court and also supports
the case of Prosecution qua the injuries caused by the accused to
PW-4 Shri Rajender at his vital part; that the discharge summary
Ex. PW6/C (1-26) (Colly) also describes the nature of injury as
“life threatening” which also supports the charges framed against
the accused; that the MLC in question has been admitted by the
accused and no question was asked by the ld. defence counsel
during cross examination of PW-6 Shri Ram Patt, Medical
Record Clerk; that accused failed to show any motive as to why
he has been falsely implicated in the present case; that no
substantive contradiction or omission has been established by the
ld. defence during the testimonies of all the material witnesses of
the Prosecution; that the license of rifle of the accused has also
been established before the Court and accused has not disputed
the same during the trial; that the accused has violated the
condition of the license by firing a bullet upon the injured who
was the customer and on the day of incident went to the bank to
deposit some cheques. In view of the same it has been prayed
that accused should be convicted of the offence charged against
him.
9. Per contra it was argued from the side of accused that
accused acted in rash and negligent manner in handling the rifle
however he did not have the knowledge that impact of fire would
result in grievous injuries to the injured i.e. PW-4; that section Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:32:42
+0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 16 of 37
308 IPC as well as section 338 IPC both describe grievous injury
but difference between these sections is the intention of the
accused to cause injury or death of a human being; that even if if
the accused had knowledge then why he would have fired
towards a customer with whom he has no enmity. In view of the
same it has been prayed that accused be acquitted of the offences
charged.
10. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as
Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the record.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
11. The accused is facing trial for the offence U/s. 307/34
IPC and section 25/27 of Arms Act. Section 307 IPC deals with
attempt to murder. It states that
“Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he
by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is
caused to any person by such act, the offender shall
be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned”.
11.1 The essential ingredients required to be proved in the
case of an offence u/s. 307 IPC are:-
(i) that the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by or in
consequence of the act of the accused;
(iii) that such act was done with the intention of
causing death or that it was done with the intention of
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:32:49
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 17 of 37
+0530
causing such bodily injury as (a) the accused knew to
be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death or that the
accused attempted to cause death by doing an act
known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it
must in all probability cause (a) death or (b) such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused
having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such
death or injury.
11.2 Section 30 Arms Act provides punishment for
contravention of licence or rule. It states that“Whoever contravenes any condition of a licence or
any provision of this Act or any rule made
thereunder, for which no punishment is provided
elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 [six
months], or with fine which may extend to 2 [two
thousand] rupees, or with both.”
12. The case of prosecution is that accused caused
grievous injuries to injured Rajender Singh i.e. PW-4 by firing
from his licensed rifle with such intention or knowledge and
under such circumstances that if by that act he had caused death
of injured Rajender he would have been guilty of murder. In
order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined injured
namely Rajender Singh and eye witnesses i.e. Asst. Branch
Manager Ms. Swagata Rana, Retd. Asst. General Manager Shri
Vipin Kumar, Asst. Manager Shri Ankan Pattanaik, Clerk Shri
Deepak Kumar Gunjan and Shri Bijay Shankar Patel.
12.1 It is well settled law that while appreciating the
evidence of witness, the approach must be whether the evidence
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:33:00 +0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 18 of 37
of a witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once
that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in
view the deficiencies, draw backs and infirmities pointed out in
the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it
is against the general tenor of the evidence. Minor discrepancies
on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper
technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here
or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some
technical error committed by the investigating officer not going
to the root of the matter should not ordinarily permit rejection of
the evidence as a whole (Reliance placed on the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of UP vs Krishna Master
& Ors, decided on 03/08/2010 in Cr Appeal No. 1180/2004).
OCULAR EVIDENCE
13. I now proceed to analyse the testimony of eye
witness/injured in the present case. Injured Rajender Singh was
examined as PW-4 and he has deposed that ” on 21.08.2018 I had
gone at Vijaya Bank, Defence Colony at about 1-1.15 pm, I was
inside the bank and had gone to deposit the cheque of the
company. I saw that the security guard of the bank was sitting on
his chair having a gun in his hand. There was some argument
going on between the security guard and some of the employees
of the bank on some issues. I was standing near by the counter of
the bank. The guard was sitting behind me on his chair. Suddenly
I received a gun shot injury on my back and fell on the floor and
saw that the security guard had pointed out the gun towards me
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:33:35 +0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 19 of 37
after firing. I raised alarm ‘bachow bachow’. Some bank
employee took me to Mool Chand Hospital where I was
medically treated. Thereafter I was further treated at AIIMS
Trauma Centre. Due to injuries suffered in the incident I am still
under treatment and using abdominal binder and to avoid lifting
of heavy weight. I am having problem in walking also “. He was
cross examined at length by the ld. defence counsel.
13.1 With regard to evidentiary value to be attached to
testimony of an injured witness, it would be worthwhile to
consider the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 the
Hon’ble Supreme court made the following observations:
“Injured witness
28. The question of the weight to be attached to
the evidence of a witness that was himself injured
in the course of the occurrence has been
extensively discussed by this Court. Where a
witness to the occurrence has himself been injured
in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is
generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a
witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his
presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely
to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely
implicate someone. “Convincing evidence is
required to discredit an injured witness.”
13.2 Reverting to the testimony of injured i.e. PW-4, who is
the star witness of the case, has clearly deposed that on
21.10.2018 in between 1.00-1.15 p.m. he went to the bank to
deposit the cheque of the company and was inside the bank and
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:33:16
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 20 of 37
+0530
he saw the security guard of the bank having gun in his hands.
He has further specifically deposed that he received a gun shot
injury on his back due to which he fell on the floor. He was cross
examined by the ld. defence counsel but he failed to elicit
anything substantial from his testimony which may raise question
mark on his credibility. No suggestion was given in his cross-
examination that he was not present in the bank at the time of
incident or that he did not receive the gun shot injury from the
rifle of the accused. Rather suggestion was given from the side of
the accused that accused had fired accidentally on the date of
incident which leads to the conclusion that PW-4 was injured
from the gun shot injury fired by the accused from his rifle. The
witness properly answered all the questions and it cannot be said
that he avoided giving any answer or that he has deposed falsely
so as to implicate the accused in the present case. Ld. Defence
Counsel failed to point out any circumstance which may indicate
that PW-4 has some grudge or enmity with the accused due to
which he has been falsely roped in the present case. The
testimony of PW-4 that he received gunshot injury in the bank on
the date of incident is well corroborated by the testimony of
PW-5 Ms. Swagata Rana who has specifically deposed that one
Shri Rajender i.e. PW-4 sustained gunshot injury and he was
lying on the floor. In the words of PW-5, she has deposed that “It
was in the month of August, 2018 and the date was probably 21
of the given month, when I was posted at Vijaya Bank, Defence
Colony Branch as Asst. Branch Manager. On that day, it was
before lunch time probably at about 12:30- 01:00 PM, when I Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:33:49 +0530State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 21 of 37
had gone to fetch certain document to my almirah located inside
the branch and at that time I heard a gun shot noise and I noticed
that one Sh. Rajender had sustained the gun shot and he was
lying down on the floor.’ She was cross examined by ld. defence
counsel but no suggestion was given to the witness that PW-4
Shri Rajender did not receive gunshot injury in the bank on the
date of incident.
13.3 Similarly PW-11 Shri Bijay Shankar Patel, Manager
(PR), Vijaya Bank has deposed that “In the year 2018 I was
working as Manager PR at Vijaya Bank, Branch Defence colony,
Delhi. On 21.08.2018 I was on duty at was doing the work of
RTGS in the said bank. On that day during my duty hours I heard
loud sound and I thought that some kind of electric spark but
soon there was a commotion and people were shouting that
armed guard R.P. Singh fired a bullet. Thereafter I stood up at
my place and saw that one person was lying on the ground. ” The
witness was discharged with “Nil. Opportunity given” and no
question mark was raised on his testimony that accused fired a
bullet which hit PW-4 Shri Rajender Singh.
13.4 The fact that the injured i.e. PW-4 Shri Rajender Singh
received gun shot injury from the rifle of the accused was
witnessed by PW-8 Shri Ankan Pattanaik. He has deposed that
“On 21.08.2018, at around 01:15 PM I was posted as Asst.
Manager in Defence Colony branch of erstwhile Vijaya Bank.
On that day, the guard Rudra Pal Singh came running inside the
branch at around 01:15 PM and shouted that I saw someone’s
throat getting slit near the branch on which t asked him in a
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
Date:
2025.01.15
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 22 of 37
16:34:05 +0530
casual manner, Had you been there then what would have you
done? He replied dhikaon apko dhikaon apko and turned around
and shot a bullet at me and Deepak Kumar who was sitting
beside me. The bullet hit a customer namely Rajender at his back
upon which Rajender shouted. I was dumbstruck and I was taken
into the branch head cabin by the branch head himself. The
injured Rajender was taken to AIIMS or Safdarjung hospital, I
am not sure, by the bank staff.” Henceforth PW-8 Shri Ankan
Pattanaik has clearly deposed that PW-4 Shri Rajender got
injured from the gunshot fired by the accused from his rifle. The
fact that PW-4 Rajender got injured from the rifle of the accused
is also not disputed from the side of the accused since a
suggestion was given to the witness that the accused accidentally
fired on the date of incident though that was without any
intention of causing any harm to him.
13.5 The testimony of PW-8 is well corroborated by the
testimony of PW-9 Shri Deepak Kumar who has clearly deposed
that the bullet fired from the rifle of the accused hit the customer
namely Shri Rajender Singh i.e. PW-4 on his back. In the words
of PW-9 “on 21.08.2018, at around 01:00 PM to 01:30 PM, I was
working as Clerk in the Defence Colony branch of erstwhile
Vijaya Bank. On that day Asst. Manager Ankan Patnaik was
having conversation with accused Rudra Pal Singh regarding the
murder committed below the Moolchand Flyover. During that
conversation, Ankan Patnaik asked accused that had you been
there then what would have you done? Accused Rudra Pal Singh
replied dhikaon apko dhikaon apko and turned around and shot a
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date: 2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:34:21 +0530State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 23 of 37
bullet at me and Ankan Patnaik who was sitting beside me. The
bullet hit a customer namely Rajender Singh at his back upon
which Rajender Singh shouted. I and Ankan Patnaik were
shocked and Ankan Patnaik went to the office of Branch Head.
The Branch head called the police and the injured Rajender
Singh was taken to Moolchand Hospital. My statement was
recorded by the IO.” He was cross examined by ld. defence
counsel and no suggestion was given from the side of the accused
that he did not fire from his rifle which hit the customer namely
Shri Rajender Singh i.e. PW-4 on his back. Rather the fact got
confirmed during cross examination when a suggestion was
given to the witness that accused Rudra Pal accidentally fired on
the date of incident.
13.6 Similarly PW-5 Ms. Swagata Rana has also supported
the case of the Prosecution that PW-4 Shri Rajender received
gunshot injury fired by the accused from his rifle. In the words of
PW-5, she has deposed that “at the same moment, the Branch
Head Sh. Vipin Kumar came out from his cabin and on seeing
the incident he made a telephone call stating therein that the bank
guard had fired inside the bank. After sometime, police arrived at
the spot and took the accused guard namely Rudrapal, who is
present in the Court today and correctly identified by the witness.
The injured Rajender was taken to the hospital by the bank
employees”. During cross examination no contrary suggestion
was given to the witness regarding the said fact and her
testimony went unrebutted. No question was put from the side of
the accused that PW-4 Rajender Singh did not receive Digitally
gunshot
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:34:35
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 24 of 37
+0530
injury fired by the accused from his rifle. On the other hand the
fact got confirmed from the line of questioning done to the
witness. She has stated in her cross examination that “I had also
stated to the police that Mr. Ankan said to the guard ” apne kya
kiya” with that Mr. R.P. Singh stood from his chair and stated to
the police that in the meanwhile our customer entered the branch
and sat in the chair in front of Mr. Deepak (Clerk), the accused
R.P. Singh saying “apko dikhaun, apko dikhaun” and fired.”
13.7 PW-7 Shri Vipin Kumar, Retd. Asst. General Manager
has also corroborated the fact that PW-4 Shri Rajender received
gunshot injury fired by the accused from his rifle on the date of
incident. In the words of PW-7, he has deposed that “o n
21.08.2018, I was present in my cabin as Asst. General Manager.
On that day, at about 01:17 PM, I heard some loud voice of firing
and thereafter one employee namely Sh. Ankan Patnaik came in
my cabin and informed me that guard ne goli chala di hai.
Thereafter, I alongwith Sh. Ankan Patnaik went to the spot i.e.
Banking lobby and saw that the guard (accused Rudra Pal Singh
present in the Court and correctly identify by the witness) was
standing near the counter.” He has also exhibited the CCTV
footage covering the incident as Ex.MO1 and the pendrive
containing the said footage as Ex.P-1. To this witness also no
question was put regarding the fact that accused did not fire the
gunshot on the date of incident due to which PW-4 Shri Rajender
received grievous injury.
14. Regarding the injury, PW-4 Shri Rajender has deposed
that “suddenly I received a gun shot injury on my back and fell
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:34:43 +0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 25 of 37
on the floor and saw that the security guard had pointed out the
gun towards me after firing. I raised alarm ‘bachow bachow’.
Some bank employee took me to Mool Chand Hospital where I
was medically treated. Thereafter I was further treated at AIIMS
Trauma Centre. Duc to injuries suffered in the incident I am still
under treatment and using abdominal binder and to avoid lifting
of heavy weight.” Thus PW-4 has conclusively established that
he was injured due to the gunshot fired by the accused from his
rifle. Secondly, the MLC prepared at Moolchand Hospital was
not disputed from the side of the accused and the same was
exhibited as Ex. A-1.
14.1 In order to prove the injuries, the Prosecution has
examined PW-6 Sh. Ram Patt, Medical Record Technician,
AIIMS Trauma Center and he has identified the signature of
treating doctor Dr. Pragya on the MLC of PW-4 Shri Rajender
since she worked with him and hence was well conversant with
her handwriting and signature. He has deposed that “I have been
deputed by the faculty incharge of Medical Record Section Dr.
Narender Chaudhary to depose in place of Dr. Pragya, who has
now left the services of the hospital and her present whereabouts
are not available in the hospital records. I have brought the
attested copy of MLC No. 500118288 dated 26.11.2018 in
respect of Sh. Rajender Bisht was brought to the hospital with a
history of gun shot wound on 21.11.2018. The said injured was
examined by Dr. Pragya, whose signatures I identify, appearing
on the mentioned MLC which is now Ex. PW6/A and bears the
signature of Dr. Pragya at point A. I identify her handwriting and
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:34:51 +0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 26 of 37
signature appearing on this MLC, as she has worked with me and
I have seen her writing and signing in the official course of duty.
The Authorization Letter to appear and depose in place of Dr.
Pragya is now Ex. PW6/B and bears the signatures of Dr.
Narender Chaudhary at point A and I identify the signature of Dr.
Narender Chaudhary as well, as I have been working under him
and have been seeing him writing and signing in the official
course of duty. Simultaneously I have also brought the discharge
summary/ discharge note in respect of the patient Rajender Bisht,
which runs into 26 pages and the same are now collectively Ex.
PW6/C (1-26) (Colly). As per discharge summary, the patient i.e.
PW-4 Sh. Rajender Bisht was recovering from life threatening
injury.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE / RECOVERIES
15. The information regarding the incident was received
from Control Room vide DD no. 19-A which was proved by the
statement of PW-2 W/SI Ratan Prabha. The said DD records
that “Vijaya Bank Defence Colony caller ne batya yaha par
guard ne goli chala de hai ph. -24610504 ” and same was handed
over to PW-17 IO/SI Amit Maan for investigations and IO
along with PW-12 HC Sattu Parashar went to the place of
incident i.e. Vijaya Bank, D Block, Defence Colony, Delhi
where they met PW-5 Ms. Swagata Rana, the then Assistant
Manager of the Bank and she handed over the custody of the
accused Rudra Pal to the IO saying that he was working as a
guard in the bank and fired upon customer namely Rajender
Singh from his licenced rifle as deposed by PW-17/IO. He has Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence2025.01.15
Colony
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 27 of 37
16:35:01 +0530
further deposed that he along with PW-12 HC Sattu Prashar
went to the spot where they met PW-5 Ms. Swagata Rana, the
then Assistant Manager of the said Bank; that she handed over
the custody of the accused Rudra Pal Singh and informed that
the bullet was fired by him due to which one customer namely
Rajender Singh sustained injury on his back and she also
informed that injured Rajender Singh got admitted in the Mool
Chand Hospital; that she also handed over the weapon of
offence i.e. rifle to him and on opening the same, two cartridges
were found in its chamber; that one cartridge was empty and
second one was live in the 2nd chamber and four live cartridges
were also found in the pouch of the said rifle; that he prepared
the sketch of the rifle and the live as well as empty cartridges
vide sketch memo which are Ex.PW-5/A and Ex. PW-5/C
respectively; that he also prepared pulanda of the rifle and
sealed the same with the seal of AM and seized the same vide
seizure memo which is Ex. PW-5/B; that he also prepared
pulanda of the live cartridge, sealed the same with the seal of
AM and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/D; that
accused had handed over the copy of his armed licence which is
Ex. P-1 (colly.) which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW-12/A. He was cross examined by ld. defence counsel but he
failed to extract anything from his mouth which may discredit
his testimony.
16. IO has further deposed that he also called the Crime
Team at the spot and got inspected the scene of crime; that the
photographs of the scene of crime were taken by the Crime
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:35:13 +0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 28 of 37
Team and blood in gauze was lifted from the floor of the bank
which was kept in transparent container and same was sealed
and seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-12/B; that he
handed over the seal to HC Sattu Prashar after its use vide
handing over memo Ex.PW-12/C. It is on the basis of DD no.
16A only that rukka was prepared and IO got the present FIR
registered through PW-12 HC Sattu Parashar. PW-3 HC Satbir
Verma has proved the present FIR as Ex.PW3/B and
endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/C.16.1 PW-16 SI Dushyant Panwar has proved the license of
the rifle seized during the investigation in the name of accused
Rudra Pal Singh. He has deposed that on 27.11.2018 the
investigation of the present case was assigned to him and he got
verified the arms licence bearing S. No. 2386(A)/Chakeri of the
rifle issued in the name of accused from the concerned authority
of Kanpur City vide letter No. 1196 dt. 27.11.2018 which is Ex.
PW-16/A and the copy of aforesaid licence is Mark X-1(colly.);
that as per the verification the said licence same was found
registered in the name of accused Rudra Pal Singh s/o Ram
Swaroop Singh. No contrary suggestion was given to the effect
that the weapon of offence i.e. rifle was not registered in the
name of the accused.
16.2 IO has further deposed that he deposited all the exhibits
including rifle and the cartridges in FSL, Rohini for expert
opinion. The FSL report confirms the fact that the cartridge
which was extracted from the body of PW-4 Rajender Singh
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:35:23
+0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 29 of 37
was fired from the licensed rifle of the accused Rudra Pal Singh.
The Double Barrel Breech Loading (DBBL) gun 12 bore with
butt cover bearing no. “9369.C/4 marked as exhibit ‘F1’ and
five 12 bore cartridges marked as exhibits ‘A1’ to ‘A5’ and one
12 bore cartridge case marked as exhibit ‘EC1’. The result of
FSL examination is as follows:
“(1) The Double Barrel Breech Loading (DBBL)
Gun 12 bore bearing no. “9369.C/4.- marked as
exhibit ‘F1’ is designed to fire standard 12 bore
cartridges. It is in working order in its present
condition. Test fire conducted successfully.
(2) The 12 bore cartridges marked as exhibits ‘A1’ to
‘A5’ are live ones and can be fired through 12 bore
firearm.
(3) The 12 bore cartridge case marked as exhibit
‘EC1’ is empty cartridge case.
(4) Three wads marked as exhibits ‘W1’ to cartridge
(like 12 bore etc). ‘W3’ correspond to the wad of
shot gun
(5) The pellets marked as exhibits ‘P1’ to ‘P16’
correspond to the pellets of shot gun cartridge (like
12 bore etc).
(6) The 12 bore cartridges marked as exhibits ‘A1’
and ‘A2’ were test fired through the left barrel of
DBBL, Gun 12 bore marked as exhibit ‘F1’ and the
test fired cartridge cases were marked as ‘TC1’ and
‘TC2’.
(7) The 12 bore cartridges marked as exhibits ‘A3’
and ‘A4’ were test fired through the right barrel of
DBBL Gun 12 bore marked as exhibit ‘F1’ and the
test fired cartridge cases were marked as ‘TC3’ and
Digitally signed
by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:35:31 +0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 30 of 37
‘TC4′”
17. From the above said testimonies this Court comes to the
conclusion that it was the gunshot injury fired by the accused
from his rifle which caused grievous injury to PW-4 Shri
Rajender on his back.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
18. In his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC, the accused has stated
that he was innocent and stated that he has retired from Army
after serving for more than 30 years and there has never been any
complaint against him; that after his retirement he had to take the
job of the security guard as he had to marry his daughter; that
even during his tenure as security guard there has been no
complaint against him since he was doing his duty diligently; that
on the day of incident he was posted as security guard on the first
floor of the Vijaya Bank and suddenly few people came to the
bank from ground floor as someone had inflicted knife injury to
someone; that knowing this, the bank official namely PW-8
Ankan Patnaik asked what he will do if such incident takes place
in the bank and at the same time the cash was being transferred
from the bank and he had unlocked his licensed rifle and was in
alert position; that he told Mr. Ankan, no one need to worry as he
has the rifle with him and was there to protect the bank and its
customers; that he was sitting on his chair at that time and in
order to show the rifle to Mr. Ankan, he stood up from his
position and as soon as he showed him the rifle suddenly the
accidental fire took place and hit PW-4 Rajender Singh at his
back; that he did not personally know the customer i.e. PW Shri
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018GEETANJALI
, PS Defence Colony
Date:
2025.01.15
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 31 of 37
16:35:39 +0530
Rajender and there was absolutely no intention to injure anyone.
18.1 In order to prove the offence under section 307 IPC it
is essential to prove that there was intention or knowledge
coupled with some overt act in execution of such intention /
knowledge. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kedar Yadav, 2009
(17) SCC 280, that “for conviction under section 307 IPC it is
sufficient if there is an intention or knowledge coupled with
some overt act in execution of such intention / knowledge. It is
not necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted. If the act, irrespective of its result is done
with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances
mentioned in the sections, the same may result conviction under
section 307 IPC and the accused cannot be acquitted merely
because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a
simple hurt”.
18.2 In the matter of Satish Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi),
2013 (5) AD (Delhi) 674 : 2013 (3) JCC 1749, the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court observed as under:-
“8. The issue now arises is whether an offence
under Section 307 IPC is made out or not. The
essential ingredient of Section 307 IPC is the
mensrea. Mensrea can be inferred from the kind
of weapon used, the place of injury, motive etc.
To bring home a charge under Section 307 IPC
the onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the
accused caused an act with the intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances that if
by that act death was caused he would be guilty of
murder. In the present case on a quarrel ensuing, Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:35:51 +0530State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 32 of 37
the Appellant caused a knife blow on the injured
by a kitchen knife. The injury was caused on the
back side and only one blow was given. In view
of the weapon of offence and injury not being on
the vital part it cannot be said that the Appellant
had intention to cause murder of the injured.
Further the Appellant certainly had intention to
cause injury which was opined to be simple sharp
in nature. Thus the Appellant is convicted for
offence punishable under Section 324 IPC instead
of Section 307 IPC and the conviction under
Section 307 IPC is set aside”.
18.3 Viewed in this light, the testimonies of the witnesses
are now to be examined to consider whether the conviction can
be sustained under section 307 IPC on the basis of the evidence
led in the present matter. All the ingredients of section 307 IPC
ought to be fulfilled before the conviction can be sustained under
section 307 IPC. The injuries sustained, the manner of assault
and the weapon used are all relevant factors. The foremost
ingredients of section 307 IPC is the intention or knowledge
which must precede the act attributed to the accused. In order to
determine the intention of the assailant various factors and
circumstances are to be considered such as the nature of injury
caused, severity of the blow or its persistence, sufficiency of time
and opportunity of causing more injury, intervention by others,
nature of weapon and the seat of injuries. The intention /
knowledge has to be gathered from the surroundings
circumstances and not necessarily from the results that follow,
which may result in simple or grievous injury. The onus lies on
the prosecution that the accused has caused an act with
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
2025.01.15
16:36:00
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 33 of 37
+0530
intention/knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that
act death was caused, he would be guilty of murder.
18.4 Reverting to the testimonies of witnesses, PW-4 Shri
Rajender i.e. complainant/ injured has nowhere deposed about
any circumstance which may establish the intention of the
accused to cause his death rather he has no definite answer
whether the accused had intention to kill him by firing. Secondly,
PW-8 Shri Ankan Pattanaik as well as PW-9 Shri Deepak Kumar
Gunjan, who are the eye witnesses of the incident have also no
where deposed that the accused specifically aimed at PW-4 Shri
Rajender and caused gunshot injury to him. Henceforth from the
aforesaid facts and circumstances it cannot be deduced from the
testimonies of the witnesses that the accused had requisite
intention or knowledge to cause death of PW-4 Shri Rajender as
required under section 307 IPC and the case will fall u/s. 308
IPC.
18.5 In order to constitute an offence under Section 308 IPC
it is to be proved that the said act was committed by the accused
with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and that the offence was committed under
such circumstances that if the accused, by that act, had caused
death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide. The
intention or knowledge on the part of the accused, is to be
deduced from the circumstances in which the injuries had been
caused as also the nature of injuries and the portion of the body
where such injuries were suffered. It was observed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Kaur Oberoi v. State 2015 SCC Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
16:36:08
+0530State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 34 of 37
Online Del. 7864 that “Offence punishable under Section 308
IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge
and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or
may not. What the court is to see whether the act irrespective of
its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in Section 308 IPC. It depends upon
the facts and circumstances of each case whether the accused had
the requisite intention or knowledge…….”
18.6 In defence, accused took the plea that some stabbing
incident took place at the ground floor of the building where the
Bank was situated and it was under that confusion he
accidentally fired from his rifle which hit PW-4 Shri Rajender
Singh. Though the accused has failed to prove any stabbing
incident at the ground floor on the date of incident but in view of
the defence so taken the fact got cemented that PW-4 Shri
Rajender Singh got injured by the gunshot injury fired by the
accused from his rifle.
18.7 Coming to the plea of the accused that the fire took
place accidentally and hit PW-4 Shri Rajender Singh at his back,
accused has stated in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC that PW-8 Shri
Ankan Pattanaik asked what he will do if some stabbing incident
took place in the bank, he assured PW-8 Shri Ankan that he has
no need to worry as he had rifle with him and to make him
doubly sure, he stand up from his position and shown him the
rifle and in the meanwhile the fire took place accidentally. All Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence2025.01.15
Colony
16:36:21
+0530
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 35 of 37
the said series of events is not reflecting the kind of conduct
expected from a man in uniform i.e. accused due to which PW-4
suffered immense trauma from his gunshot injury. Accused knew
that he has rifle in his hand and he also knew that he had
unlocked his licensed rifle since the cash was being transferred
from the Bank. Accused has retired from Army and is expected
to have knowledge of mishandling a fire arm despite that his
conduct as apparent from the testimonies of the witnesses is not
found to be responsible one. PW-8 Shri Ankan Pattanaik as well
as PW-9 Shri Deepak Kumar Gunjan have specifically deposed
that when PW-8 Shri Ankan Pattanaik asked from the accused
what he would have done in case he found himself in a situation
where someone’s throat was slit, he replied in a very casual
manner by saying that “dhikaon apko dhikaon apko and turned
around and shot a bullet at me and Deepak Kumar who was
sitting beside me. The bullet hit a customer namely Rajender at
his back upon which Rajender shouted”. A person in uniform
with gun in his hand is not expected to act in such a casual
manner plus when he know the circumstances that a mishandling
of firearm can cause havoc risking the life of innocent people.
This conduct of the accused is no where disputed from the side of
the accused and are enough to conclude knowledge on the part of
the accused about the consequences of his act. Further that
consequences are affirmed by the opinion given by the doctors
which says that the patient i.e. PW4 Shri Rajender was
recovering from life threatening injury.
Digitally signed
by
GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
16:36:28
+0530
SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 36 of 37
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion I conclude that the
accused fired a gunshot from his licensed rifle due to which
PW-4 Shri Rajender Singh sustained injury on his back with such
intention/ knowledge and under the circumstances that if by act
death of PW-4 was caused, he would be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. The Prosecution has further
successfully proved that accused was expected to have
knowledge of mishandling a fire arm despite that his conduct as
apparent from the testimonies of the witnesses is not found to be
responsible one. In view of the same, accused Rudra Pal Singh is
convicted u/s. 308 IPC and also under section 30 of the Arms
Act.
Digitally
signed by
GEETANJALI
Typed to the direct dictation and GEETANJALI Date:
2025.01.15
announced in the open court 16:36:34
+0530
on this 15th day of January, 2025
(Geetanjali)
Addl. Session Judge (FTC)-03
South East District,Saket Courts
New Delhi/15.01.2025SC No. 32/2020 FIR No. 104/2018 , PS Defence Colony
State. Vs. Rudra Pal Singh Page no. 37 of 37
[ad_1]
Source link