Police officials trained in firing… they do not fire indiscriminately in the air, says court

While acquitting the trio, the court observed, “In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 353 (assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty), 186 (voluntarily obstructing any public servant in the discharge of his public functions) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act for which the accused were charged, beyond reasonable doubt and accused Sukhdeep Kumar Deep, Raman Kumar and Gurpreet Singh are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them benefit of doubt.”

While highlighting the gaps in the prosecution story, the court pointed out that the scientific evidence in the case would have been material as the allegations are of firing against accused Sukhdeep Kumar and Gurpreet Singh. If they had fired then there would have been traces of gunpowder on their hands but no evidence has been collected to prove the same and no GSR test (gunshot residue) was got conducted. The complainant, who is the investigating officer (IO) also, is not a novice official. Rather he is the incharge of CIA and can be taken to be aware of these evidence required to be collected during the investigation. In the cross-examination, prosecution witness (PW4) (Inspector Satwant Siingh) had specifically stated that no gun powder was verified on the hands of the accused persons. It is also stated that in the cross-examination that finger prints from the guns were taken but not sent to any lab for analysis during his investigation.

“If the finger prints have not been sent for the analysis to any lab, the taking of the same, if at all done, will not serve any purpose,” the court underlined.

Doubting the story of firing the shots at the police party, the court pointed out that as per the case of the prosecution, three shots had been fired by the accused persons by aiming at the police party which was in private and official vehicles. But neither the shots have struck any member of the police party nor any vehicle nor there is any evidence that the shots struck somewhere on some wall, house or even on the ground.

“It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had fired in the air. If the accused had not fired in the air, then the shots must have struck somewhere, but there is no such evidence nor there is any photograph of such striking of the shots fired by the accused persons. The doubt in the case of the prosecution is aggravated with the subsequent circumstances coming on the file,” the court pointed out.

The court further pointed out that it was the case of the prosecution that 9 MM pistol and Insaas rifle were used by the members of the police party, but in the same way, as the shots fired by the accused did not strike anywhere, the shots fired by the police party also did not strike anywhere. It is not the case that where the incident had taken place is some open place. Rather there are said to be houses adjoining the alleged house, where the accused had taken shelter and fired shots. But strangely, the police party filed 12 shots and with Insaas Rifle also, but neither any shot struck anywhere including ground, wall nor any of the accused.

“The case of the prosecution that the police party fired shots in defence in the air, is not believable as if the police party had fired in defence, it may fire one or two shots in the air and not 12 shots in the air with 9 MM pistol and Insaas Rifle. The police officials are trained in firing and they do not fire indiscriminately in the air where there are three shots from the other side. It is not a case of mob going berserk or that the shots are fired to disperse the large number of gathering,” the court observed.

The court underlined the fact that in the incident like one when the police party had seen the accused when they fired and it was aware of the number of the accused, the firing of 12 shots in the air does not stand to reason.
The incident had happened on March 28, 2019, when Inspector Satwant Singh along with Inspector Bhupinder Kumar, Sub-Inspector Satish Kumar, head constable Amrinder Singh, Varinder Singh, constable Varinderjit Singh, head constable Jaskaran Singh and Raj Kumar and Harpal Singh were in government and private vehicles in connection with checking and search of bad elements.

When they reached near the gate of two-storey house of Randhir Singh at Ballo Majra village, three persons, having cropped hair, standing in the gallery of the second floor of the said house suddenly started firing towards the police party with an intention to kill them.

On this, he and other police officials took their positions and encircled the house.

Sukhdeep Kumar Sharma, alias Deep, whose name was known later, fired directly towards the police party with his pistol and thereafter, Gurpreet Singh, whose name and address were also known later, fired from his desi katta .12 Bore directly towards the police party. Upon this, the police party also fired in the air for their protection.

Then Sukhdeep Kumar, Gurpreet Singh and third person whose name came to be known as Raman Kumar tried to flee away and escape from the backside while fasting gunshots towards police party.

Thereafter, the police party warned the accused persons to raise their hands after putting down their weapons, upon which they were apprehended by the police party. The accused persons attacked the police party with an intention to kill them, which fulfilled the ingredients of the offence under sections 307, 353, 186, 34 IPC and 25-54-59 of Arms Act.

Thereafter, Inspector Satwant Singh with the help of police party arrested accused Sukhdeep Kumar Sharma and one pistol .32 bore along with two magazines and two live cartridges were recovered from him. From the possession of accused Gurpreet Singh, one country-made pistol 12 bore, one live cartridge .12 bore were recovered and from the possession of accused Raman Kumar, one iron rod was recovered, which were taken into police possession vide separate recovery memos in the presence of witnesses.