IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           On July 25 and 26, 2015 some person or persons, using a pellet or BB gun, shot at several innocent citizens of Abbotsford in a number of different incidents. With one exception, the victims were on foot. The victims were shot at more than once. In some cases minor physical injuries occurred. Luckily no one was shot in the head area which could well have resulted in blindness or hearing loss.

[2]           Through information from the victims and witnesses and through diligent police work, a suspect vehicle was quickly identified. The police located the vehicle at Basant Motors Ltd. in Surrey and determined that Harpreet Vaid had traded in the vehicle on July 30, 2015. A search of the vehicle found hundreds of BB’s and pellets.

[3]           Mr. Vaid was arrested and charged with fourteen counts relating to seven victims. With respect to each incident, he is charged with discharging an air or compressed gas gun at the victim with intent to wound, maim, or disfigure. He is also charged with assault with a weapon with respect to each incident.

[4]           Counts 11 and 12 on the Information relate to Nicole Stewart. Ms. Stewart was not called to give evidence and the Crown properly conceded that I should acquit Mr. Vaid on those counts and I do so.

[5]           With respect to the remaining counts, the Crown’s case against Mr. Vaid is circumstantial. I have reviewed the evidence given, the submissions made, and the case law presented. I will not be referring to everything I have considered in these reasons.

[6]           It is clear that the victims were shot at as alleged, and that those shots were fired from Mr. Vaid’s vehicle. Video surveillance and eyewitness testimony satisfy me that the 2006 Chrysler Sebring, bearing licence number AV5 33M, belonging to Mr. Vaid was the vehicle from which shots were fired in all the incidents before me. The law relating to similar fact evidence allows me to make that conclusion on the evidence even where some of the complainants were unable to note the licence plate of the vehicle or were mistaken as to the colour or other features of the vehicle.

[7]           I agree with the Crown’s submissions that the civilian witnesses were credible. They were careful in giving their evidence and the minor inconsistencies, where they occur, do not cause me concern. Based on the evidence of those witnesses, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainants were all shot at. I also find that the only reasonable inference on the evidence is that the shooter or shooters intended to assault the complainants and that they intended to wound, maim, or injure the complainants. There is no other rational conclusion.

[8]           The Crown also submits that anyone in the subject vehicle is a party to the offences charged. The evidence proves that there was more than one occupant in the vehicle during at least some of the incidents we are dealing with. Based on the evidence that the subject vehicle slowed down and then sped off, I am satisfied that both the shooter and the driver of the vehicle were parties to the offences.

[9]           The real issue is whether or not there is evidence that satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vaid was in the car when any of the offences occurred. The circumstantial evidence that I must consider on this issue includes:

[10]        As set out in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2016] S.C.J. No. 33, in order to convict Mr. Vaid, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational or reasonable inference that be drawn from the evidence is that Mr. Vaid is guilty. In considering whether the evidence can support reasonable explanations other than guilt, I must consider other plausible theories as opposed to speculation.

[11]        Here, the Crown submits that the similar fact evidence present in the various incidents; and the alleged “guilty conscience” act of disposing of the subject vehicle after the police press release; combined with the circumstantial evidence result in the only conclusion capable of being drawn is the guilt of Mr. Vaid.

[12]        The Defence submits that Villaroman makes it clear that other plausible explanations do not have to arise from the evidence and the Crown must negate those plausible explanations before the court can make a finding of guilt.

[13]        In the circumstances before me, I am satisfied that some person or persons used Mr. Vaid’s vehicle while committing cowardly, senseless drive-by pellet gun shootings of innocent citizens of Abbotsford. The evidence about Mr. Vaid’s dog and about the dog in the car during at least some of the shootings is not definitive enough to find that it was the same animal.

[14]        I am also satisfied that Mr. Vaid was aware of the offences having been committed when he disposed of his vehicle on July 30, 2015. It is probable that Mr. Vaid was involved in the offences but I do not think it is safe to convict Mr. Vaid on the evidence I heard. I find that there is another reasonable scenario of someone else using Mr. Vaid’s vehicle with his permission but not in his company. I hope that whoever was involved in these offences has matured enough to realize in hindsight how pathetic their actions were. I also sincerely hope that any of the victims who were traumatized by these senseless acts are able deal with that trauma so that it does not continue to adversely affect their day to day lives.

[15]        Mr. Vaid is acquitted on all counts on the Information 83220-1.