(a) in the taking or preventing the escape of any other
person whom such Magistrate or police officer is authorized to arrest.
(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trite it to say that police party had gone to Flat No. 108 to apprehend suspect of Delhi Serial Blast, FIRs in respect of which had already been registered. From the deposition of witnesses, who were members of raiding party particularly the eye witnesses i.e.
HC Satender (PW7), Inspector Rahul Kumar (PW8), ASI Udaivir Singh (PW11), HC Balwant (PW14), SI Ravinder Kumar Tyagi (PW15) and Inspector Dharmender (PW22), it is well proved that inspite of assisting the police in apprehending suspects if crime, the occupants of that flat including accused Shahzad Ahmad fired at police party.
It is also well established on record that Inspector M.C. Sharma and HC Balwant, members of raiding party suffered bullet injury on being fired by occupants of that flat including accused Shahzad Ahmad.
From the deposition of Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani (PW27) and postmortem report (Ex. PW19/C), it is clear that Inspector M.C. Sharma died due to bullet injuries suffered in that incident. Similarly, HC Balwant also suffered bullet injury in that incident and as per MLC (Ex. PW19/E) injuries on the person of HC Balwant were grievous in nature.
Again, it is proved from the deposition of witnesses discussed above that HC Rajbir was fired at by the same occupants including accused at least twice. Two bullets were found stuck in his bullet proof jacket. In this way, the assailants including accused Shahzad Ahmad tried to kill said HC Rajbir.
It did not remain in dispute that all of said victims are officers of Delhi Police and hence public servants.
They went to flat No. 108, while investigating a case i.e. in discharge of their public duty. During deliberations, Ld. Defence Counsel contended that when Inspector M.C. Sharma fell down on the ground on being fired at, it would have been the natural response of other members of raiding party to recede from that place, but inspite of going back, the members of raiding party proceeded in their venture to confront the assailants.
As per Ld. Counsel, this behaviour was against human nature. Apart from aforesaid fact, it agitates in my mind that the incident in question was not a sudden confrontation between police and the assailants.
The police had already an information, receiving which, a raiding party was formed well in advance. Despite all this, Inspector M.C. Sharma did not wear any body protection device i.e. bullet proof jacket. Moreover, at least two members of raiding party were having no weapon with them, despite knowing thte fact that they may face firing.
It is not clear whether it was merely a misadventure or lack of professionalism in Delhi Police or scarcity of weapons with Delhi police.
Whatsoever it may be, it did not give any licence to the occupants of a flat to fire at police persons who came there to investigate a case, merely because they were unarmed or not wearing any bullet proof jacket.
They were expected to assist the police and not to attack them. Accused is thus convicted for offence punishable U/s 186/353/333/307/302/34 IPC.
