KAMAL SINGH @ KALU Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS - Kamal Singh @ Kalu (A -1) and Mahender @ Lamboo (A -2) have preferred the present appeals against the judgment dated 29.01.2011 and order on sentence dated 01.02.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.348/2007 by which they were held guilty and convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 186/353/307/34 IPC. A -2 was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for three months under Section 186; RI for two years under Section 353 and RI for four years under Section 307 IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/ -, each and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for five months each. A -2 was further sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.3,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) ON 04.11.2005, HC Sushil Kumar and Const.Virender Kumar were on patrolling duty near railway lines Industrial Area, Phase -I Mangol Puri. Allegations against the accused are that they were present with their motorcycle No.DL -8S AF -0471 there. At about 06.45 P.M. when HC Sushil Kumar and Const.Virender reached the spot, A -2 took out a katta from the dub of the pant and asked them to hand over what they had. When they (HC Sushil Kumar and Const.Virender) told that they were police officials and the katta should be handed over to them, A -1 exhorted A -2 to fire at them. A -2 thereupon fired at HC Sushil Kumar. However, he managed to escape and over -powered A -2. The katta was snatched from him. A -1 was overpowered by Const.Virender. ASI Krishan Chandra reached the spot and conducted necessary proceedings. He recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with facts. Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act was obtained. He sent the exhibits to Forensic Science Laboratory and collected reports. After completion of the investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the appellants for the commission of the offences described previously.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment of the Trial Court has urged that it did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of PW -2 (HC Sushil Kumar) and PW -3 (Const.Virender) who were police witnesses without ensuring their credibility. A -1 was known to the police officials and they were witnesses against him in many cases. It was highly unbelievable that the accused would dare to rob police officials known to them. No injury was sustained by the police officials. Lead of the fired bullet could not be recovered at the spot. The ballistic report was not even tendered/exhibited during trial. There are various discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not legal.