PRAVEEN DHAMA Vs. THE STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Praveen Dhama @ Shunty has been convicted for the offence of murder of Tinku vide the impugned judgment dated December 22, 2015 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC vide the order on sentence dated January 07, 2016. The learned ASJ has convicted Praveen on the testimony of the two eye -witnesses Braham Dev PW -1 and Jaipal Rana PW - 2 besides the recovery of the pistol from Praveen returning a finding that the FSL report clearly established that the deceased suffered injury from the shot fired by Praveen from his pistol of.315 bore.

(2.) Learned counsel for Praveen assailing the impugned judgment contends that the rough site plan and the scale site plan do not tally. From the site plans one cannot make out from where Praveen allegedly fired the shot and where Tinku received the shot. The scaled site plan was not prepared at the instance of any eye -witness. From the testimony of Subhash PW -11 and Amit Rana PW -15 it is proved that both the alleged prosecution eye -witnesses Jaipal Rana and Braham Dev were not present at the spot when the incident took place. Despite the claim of the eye -witnesses that they were present at the spot, the investigating officer found no eye -witness at the spot, did not record their statement and sent the rukka from the hospital. There are contradictions in the testimonies of the two alleged eye - witnesses. Further the investigating officer does not support the version of the two eye -witnesses. Once the presence of two alleged eye -witnesses at the spot is doubtful then appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Even as per the witnesses, real brother of the deceased was present at the spot who was aged 17 years but for reasons best known to the prosecution he has not been examined as a witness. The alleged recovery of pistol is not connected with the offence committed and the learned Trial Court wrongly relied upon the FSL report to connect the appellant with the offence committed.

(3.) Learned APP on the other hand contends that both Braham Dev and Jaipal Rana were natural witnesses being the cousin brother of the deceased and the owner of the factory where the deceased was working. Immediately after witnessing the incident, they ran after the accused which would not give rise to an inference that they were not present at the spot. There being no contradictions in the testimony of the two eye -witnesses and their versions being duly corroborated in material particulars, the appeal be dismissed.