LexSUMERSINBH UMEDSINH RAJPUT @ SUMERSINH versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SUMERSINBH UMEDSINH RAJPUT @ SUMERSINH B c D v. STATE OF GUJARAT DECEMBER 11, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.307 and 353 - Scuffle between complainant-police officer and accused - Accused allegedly snatched service revolver of complainant and fired shot at him - Conviction by Courts below UIS. 307 ands. 353 !PC and 25(1) Arms Act - Justification of - Held. Not justified - Lot of discrepancies in regard to manner in which incident took place - Witnesses resilingfrom statement - Two bullets sentfor examination although specific case o.f prosecution that only one shot wus/iJ·,~d - Complainant himself had finger on trigger of revolver ut the time of incident- Case not made out under s.307 nor under s.353 - Resultantly, prosecution under s. 25 of Arms Act also fails -- Arms Act, 1959 - s. 25(l)(a) E Prosecution case was that the car driven by appellant was intercepted by the Complainant P\V-8 and other police officers. Three persons sitting on back seat ran away. The complainant tried to pull appellant out of car. A scuffle ensued, during which appellant snatched the service revolver of complainant and fired F at him. Courts below convicted the appellant for commission of offences under ss.307 and 353 IPC as also under s.25(1)(a) of Arms Act. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1. In the deposition, Doctor, PW-5 conceded the deficiencies in the prosecution case vis-a-vis the report prepared by him. From his statements, it is evident that even in relation to the purported marks of entry of the bullet through the garments worn by the complainant, there existed lot of H 68 ' SUMERSINBH UMEDSINH RAJPUT @SUMERSINH 69 v. STATE OF GUJARAT discrepancies. Some sort of make-shift report was placed before A him by way of "Yaadi", which was prepared by the complainant and whereupon he completely relied. Prosecution did not obtain any clarification from him as to whether the nature of the injury which the complainant suffered could not take place due to rubbing of the skin on a rough substance. The injury received B by the complainant was allegedly caused to his loin. How such a simple injury could be caused from a shot fired from a fire- arm is open to question. So far as the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned, the clothes had not. been identified as belonging to the injured. It may also be recorded C that two bullets were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, although the specific case of the prosecution was that only one shot was fired. Two bullet holes were, therefore, not possible to be caused, one in the trouser and other in the waist, by one shot of fire. It has not been disclosed as to wherefrom the bullet was D recovered. The. mazhar witnesses did not say that any bullet was recovered from the place of occurrence in their presence. [Paras 7-9] [73-G, 74-E-H, 75-A-B] 1.2. According to the complainant, he came to know about E the firing on hearing of sound of fire. He immediately put his finger on the trigger of the revolver and caught the appellant from his wrist. If the finger of the complainant himself was on the trigger of the revolver, it is difficult to believe that the appellant was responsible for the act complained of. According F to him, seizure took place at the place of occurrence, but panch witnesses contradicted him as, according to them, they were made to sign the seizure list only at the police station. He resiled from the said statement and built up another story in his examination-in-chief that other police personnel chased them G and tbat they had fled away. PW-9 in his deposition stated that complainant had held the hand of the appellant and had been asking him to get down from his vehicle only when the scuffle took place. The said witness stated that blood had oozed out but H 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A the vest of the complainant did not contain any blood stain. Significantly, PW-9 stated that the doors of the vehicle near the f-· driving seat were locked. There, thus, exists a lot of discrepancies in regard to the manner in which the incident had taken place. The complainant himself in his evidence did not 8 say that all the three persons, who had got down from the rear seat and ran away, were chased by anybody. Even assuming that complainant received a fire arm injury which in the facts and circumstances
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.