VINOD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, I shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 520/2008 titled "vinod Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi" and Criminal Appeal No. 527/2008 titled "radhey Shyam and Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi" as both the appeals have arisen out of the judgment of conviction dated 14. 05. 2008 and order on sentence dated 22. 05. 2008 of the trial court passed in Sessions case No. 91/07 whereby the appellants were convicted for having committed offences under Sections 147/148/454/511 read with Section 149 IPC, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, 353 read with Section 149 IPC, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 149 IPC and were ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI)for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo six months R. I. for offence punishable under Section 307/149 IPC, and RI for one year for offence punishable under Section 454 read with Section 511/149 IPC with fine of rs. 1,000/- in default three months simple imprisonment and they were further sentenced to undergo RI for one year for offence punishable under Section 353/149 IPC and one year RI for offence punishable under Section 506/149 IPC and another sentence for one year RI for the offence punishable under Section 147 read with Section 148 IPC. Besides, the appellants were also sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms act and these sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. was also given to all the appellants.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Bharat Vidhu Pandey had purchased a plot No. K-2068, C. R. Park from one R. N. Ghosh on 4. 9. 2000 and on 12. 10. 2000 he took possession of the said plot from R. N. Ghosh and the tenant vikesh Majithia by the orders of the court. Mr. B. V. Pandey had engaged the services of a guard to take care of the plot purchased by him. However, on 12. 1. 2001 a civil suit was filed by one Om Parkash Aggarwal claiming himself to be the owner and he also tried to take possession of the impugned plot. On 29. 10. 2001, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Civil Judge to inspect the plot. Mr. B. V. Pandey reached his plot at about 3. 15 P. M. and his guards, namely, Anwar, Rakesh Yadav, Avdesh Singh Chauhan and Govind Singh were inside the plot. They were waiting for the Local Commissioner when three boys came in a white Maruti Zen and after getting down from the car, they started banging the door of the plot. Mr. B. V. Pandey enquired from those persons and also told them that he would call the police. The boys ran away. However, Mr. B. V. Pandey did make a call to the police and SI Arun Tyagi along with his staff reached the plot. On the same day at about 5. 30 P. M. 8/9 persons came at the plot in a green colour Zen and white Zen and on motorcycle. Om Prakash (since acquitted) and radhey Shyam were also amongst those 8/9 persons. Complainant was abused and dragged towards the road. They also threatened the guards to open the door or they would shoot them. Even the police officers present there, namely, Batti lal and Ct. Kazormal tried to stop them and they were manhandled. One of those 8/9 persons started breaking open the door with hammer and chisel and complainant tried to get himself released and threatened those persons that he would call the police. On this, appellant Radhey Shyam asked one of the persons to shoot B. V. Pandey. One of the persons who was present there fired at B. V. Pandey who had been caught hold of by appellant Gajender Sharma. Unfortunately, the bullet hit on the foot of Gajender Sharma. Complainant managed to rescue himself and informed the police. On seeing the police, the person who had fired at the complainant and another person who was also present with him fled away in a white Zen car. The remaining six persons, namely, Surender, Satbir, Auranzeb, vinod Sharma, Gajender Sharma and appellant Radhey Shyam were apprehended at the spot.

(3.) THE learned trial court on the basis of prima facie evidence available on record was pleased to frame charges under Sections 147/148/454/511 read with section 149 IPC, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, 353 read with Section 149 IPC, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 149 IPC against all the appellants. After completion of the trial and after offering opportunities to the appellants to be heard, the trial court convicted the appellants for the abovesaid offences and sentenced them as observed earlier.