ZEESHAN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 13.05.2013, SI Rajesh Kumar of Special Staff received a secret information that a person named Zeeshan, who had absconded from the custody of U.P. Police, was involved in a number of serious offences committed in Delhi and keeps a deadly weapon with him shall come to a DDA Park Gate, near Arya Nagar Apartment, Road No. 54A, I.P. Extension, Patparganj between 4.00 to 4.30 PM. On receipt of the aforesaid information, a raiding party was organized, which reached the above -referred spot and took position there. Some passerby were requested to join the raiding party, but no one agreed, though two of them gave their names and addresses to the police party. At about 5.00 PM, the appellant Zeeshan was found coming from the side of Road No.57A. On being identified by the secret informer, the police officials started moving towards him at a slow pace and Sub -Inspector Rajesh loudly told him that he had been surrounded by police and, therefore, he should keep on ground the unauthorized weapon, if any, so that he may be questioned and the information available with the police may be verified. He was also told that the members of the police party would show their identity cards to him. This is also the case of the prosecution that Constable Umed Singh No. 989/E was then directed to show his identity card to the appellant. As soon as Constable Umed Singh shown his identity card to the appellant, he took out a country -made pistol from the pocket of his pant and fired a shot, which just missed Constable Umed Singh. The appellant attempted to open the barrel of his gun so as to fill another cartridge in it, but he was over -powered and the pistol was snatched from him. On his search, one live cartridge was recovered from the right side pocket of pant which he was wearing. The pistol as well as the live cartridges were seized by the police officers. The empty cartridge was also found on the spot and was seized after it had been duly sealed and an FIR under Section 186/353/307 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act was then registered.

(2.) SINCE the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. As many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. No witness, however, was examined in defence.

(3.) 00 -4.30 PM. On receiving the information, he made SI Rajesh aware of it and also made the informer meet him. A raiding party was then organized and some passerby were requested to join the party, but no one agreed though two persons, namely, Ravinder Thakur and Krishna Kumar gave their particulars to the police officers. The police party then reached the spot and took position there. At about 5.00 PM, on being identified by the secret informer, they moved towards the appellant so as to apprehend him. SI Rajesh Kumar asked him to surrender the arms and ammunition, if any, with him. He further stated that Sub -Inspector Rajesh directed him to show his card to the appellant. As soon as the card was shown the appellant, he took out a country -made pistol from the right side pocket of his pant and fired at him. He, however, was able to escape it. The appellant was over -powered when he was trying to load the country -made pistol with another bullet and on his search one live cartridge was recovered from the right side pant which he was wearing. 4. PW -5 Head Constable Swadesh Pal and PW -6 SI Rajesh Kumar corroborated the deposition of PW -1 with respect to receipt of secret information, organizing raiding party, requesting some passerby to join the raiding party and none of them agreeing to join the said party. They have also corroborated his deposition with respect to the raiding party, taking position on the spot, the appellant coming there at about 5.00 PM and being surrounded by the police, after he has been identified by the informer. They have further corroborated the deposition of PW -1 with respect to the appellant being asked to put his weapon on the ground, Constable Umed Singh showing the identity card to him and thereupon the appellant taking out a country -made pistol from his pant and firing at Constable Umed Singh. They also stated that after the first bullet missed Constable Umed Singh, the appellant was re -loading the pistol, when they over -powered him. They have also deposed with respect to recovery of a country -made pistol and a live cartridge from the appellant and seizure of empty cartridge from the spot.