| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860:ss. 302/34, 307/34, 193, 201/34 and 203/34 - Police shoot out - Two innocent citizens killed in mistaken identity of a hardcore criminal and third one grievously injured - FIR by father of one of the deceased, against police personnel Investigation by CBI - Conviction by trial court u/ss 302/120- and 3071120-B of ten police officials - Two of them further convicted u/ss 193, 201/34 and 203/34 -High Court convicting the accused u/ss 302 and 307 with the aid of s.34 and maintaining the sentence of imprisonment for life - Conviction of two accused u/ss 193, 201/34 and 203/34 also maintained - HELD: It has been established that the police party surrounded the car of the victims and fired indiscriminately at the car due to which two occupants died and the third one grievously injured - The defence that the one of the occupants of the car, when asked to come out, fired at the police party which thereafter opened fire in self-defence has not been supported by the evidence on record - Though the prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, obligation on an accused u/s 105 of Evidence Act is to prove it by preponderance of probabilities - The trial court and the High Court have accordingly opined on the basis of the overall assessment that the defence version was a concoction and that the prosecution story that it was the unprovoked firing by the appellants which had led to the death of the two persons and grievous gun shot injuries to the other had been proved on record - Therefore, High Court rightly convicted the accused u/ss 302/34, 307/34- Evidence Act, 1872 - s.105 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 313 and 386(b)(ii). s.300 - Exception 3 - Death caused by public servants - Police shoot out - Two innocent citizen killed in mistaken identity of a hardcore criminal - HELD: The Exception pre- supposes that a public servant who causes death must do so in good faith and in due discharge of his duty - The accused police officials fired without provocation killing two innocent persons and injuring grievously the third one - Trial court and High Court rightly rejected the defence.s. 34 - Common intention - Police shoot out - notorious criminal being tracked by police party - A person resembling the criminal, spotted and he along with his two friends in the car followed by police personnel - More police force requisitioned - At the place of incident both the police parties joined together in indiscriminate firing resulting in death of two occupants of the car and grievous injuries to the third one - HELD: The courts below have observed that keeping in mind the background in which the incident happened it was pursuant to the common intention to kill the notorious criminal - The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that in the light of the facts, it was not necessary to assign a specific role to each individual accused as the firing at the car was undoubtedly with a clear intention to annihilate those in it and was resorted to in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused.ss. 79 and 34 - Police shoot out - Ten police officials prosecuted for two murders - Plea of some of the accused that they acted on the directions of superior officer - HELD: There is absolutely no evidence that the firing had been resorted to by seven accused on the direction of the senior officer, but it was pursuant to the common intention of all accused that the incident had happened- s.315 CrPC makes an accused a competent witness in his defence - The accused did not choose to come into the witness box to support their plea - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.315.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:s.386(b)(ii) read with s.220- Power of appellate court to alter the finding of trial court while maintaining the sentence - Charge framed by trial court u/ss 3021120-B and 307/120- B and alternative charge u/ss 302134 and 307134 - Conviction by trial court u/s 3021120-B, 3071120-B, 1931120-B, altered by High Court to s.302134, 307134, 193134, while maintaining the sentence - HELD: Justified -Charges had been framed in the alternative and for cognate offences having similar ingredients as to the main allegation of murder - In the instant case, the relevant provision is s.38(b)(ii), which empowers the High Court to alter the finding while maintaining the sentence - Besides, accused were aware of all the circumstances against them - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302/34, 307/34, 193/34.s.313 - Examination of accused - HELD: Prejudice must be shown by an accused before it can be said that he was entitled to acquittal over a defective and perfunctory statement u/s 313 - In the instant case, all the accused police officials filed their written statements but no objection had been raised as to defective 313 statements in the trial court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302/34, 307/34, 193/34. s.197 - Sanction for prosecution of police personnel involved in shoot out - HELD: It has come in evidence that request of CBI for according sanction for prosecution of accused, along with the documents, was referred to Law Department, then to Home Department, to Chief Secretary and finally to Lt. Governor, who granted the sanction -adequate material for sanction had been made available to the sanctioning authority.Delhi Police Act, 1978:s. 140 - Prosecution of police officials for causing death of two persons in a police shoot out - Limitation for - HELD: The date of cognizance taken by the Magistrate would be ·the date for the institution of the criminal proceedings - However, a case of murder would not fall within the expression 'colour of duty' - s. 140 would, therefore, have no relevance to the case. |
