RAJU ALIAS KUNDAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (hereafter called "Raju") impugns a judgment and order dated 24.05.2010 in S.C. No. 1107/2009 whereby he was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. 2 lakhs) to be paid to the family of the deceased, in default of payment of fine the convict would further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 years. For the offence under Section 25 of Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of which he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. THE appellant is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act, in default of which he shall under Simple Imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2006, at about 7:30 PM, Paras Mehto (PW-1, "complainant") and Vikesh (the "deceased") were returning from Mangal Bazaar after purchasing vegetables. When they reached in front of B-3/30, Subzi Market, Jahangir Puri, the deceased accidentally collided with the appellant (as there was a lot of rush in the market) upon which the appellant (Raju) started quarreling and abusing the deceased. PW-1 is said to have tried to separate them and end the quarrel, but he failed to do so and was pushed aside by the appellant. THE appellant allegedly took out a country made pistol from his left dub and pointed it at the deceased's chest, and fired. THEreafter the appellant tried to escape but was chased by Constable Jagdish (PW-15) and Constable Mukesh (PW-12), who were patrolling Block A, B and C in Jahangir Puri. THE deceased was taken to BRJM hospital but could not survive and expired later in the hospital.

(3.) IT was argued that the recovery of the katta does not inspire any confidence. If indeed the incident occurred in a crowded market place, there was no reason for the police not to associate an independent public witness, and instead rely on someone who claimed to be the deceased's friend. Furthermore, submitted learned counsel for the appellant, the police made no effort to lift the finger prints, from the katta, and refer them for expert opinion. That would have conclusively proved if indeed the appellant was culpable, or someone else had committed the crime.