Delhi District Court
State vs . Kehar Singh & Anr., on 5 July, 2013
FIR No. 140/01, PS Model Town, U/s 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC. State Vs. Kehar Singh & Anr., IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (DISTRICT NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 140/01. PS. MODEL TOWN. U/S. 186/332/353/323/427/452 IPC STATE VS. (1) KEHAR SINGH (2) SACHIN @ BITTU JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 329/06/01
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07/11/2001
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 16/03/2001
D. NAME OF THE : Sh. Daryao Singh
COMPLAINANT S/o Sh. Ram Chander
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : 1. Kehar Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh
2. Sachin @ Bittoo S/o Sh. Kehar Singh F. OFFENCE : U/s. 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC.
COMPLAINED OF
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquittal.
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 05/07/2013.
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as unfolded from the charge sheet are that the complainant Sh. Daryao Singh, teacher at Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, gave a written complaint alleging that on 16.03.2001 an exam was going on in the second shift of the said school and at about 3:50 pm, two brothers namely Sachin @ Bittoo and Nitin alongwtih Page No. 1 FIR No. 140/01, PS Model Town, U/s 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC. State Vs. Kehar Singh & Anr., their father namely Kehar Singh came in the examination hall and started beating an examinee namely Sh. Sunil Kumar. They torn the answer sheet of the said examinee Sh. Sunil Kumar. Complainant Sh. Daryao Singh was present in the examination hall as an invigilator, who intervened and tried to rescue the said Sh. Sunil Kumar from aforesaid three persons. However, they pushed the complainant and slapped him. The complainant has alleged that all the three accused persons obstructed and deterred him from discharge of his public duties and they also caused simple injuries to him. On the basis of the said complaint the present FIR U/s 186/353/332/323/427/452/34 IPC was registered at PS Model Town. During investigation, it was found that the accused Nitin was Juvenile and consequently his challan was sent to J.J.B. On conclusion of investigation the present challan under the aforesaid sections was filed against two accused persons namely Kehar Singh and Sachin @ Bittoo.
2. In compliance of Section 207 Cr. P. C the copy of the challan and the documents annexed with the challan were supplied to both the accused persons. Prima facie charge U/s. 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC was made out against both the accused persons Kehar Singh and Sachin @ Bittoo. Accordingly, on 20.07.2005 the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
4. Sh. Daryao Singh (PW1), is the complainant and he has deposed that on 16.03.2001 he was posted as teacher at Molar Bank School, Model Town, Delhi. He has also proved the aforesaid incident/offence and also substantiated his complaint Ex.PW1/A. However, he has failed to identify either of the accused persons to be the perpetrator of the present offence. Thereafter, he was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state as he was resiling from his previous statement in respect of the identity of the accused persons. But despite that the said witness persisted with his statement that he cannot identify either of the Page No. 2 FIR No. 140/01, PS Model Town, U/s 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC. State Vs. Kehar Singh & Anr., accused persons.
5. HC Mulk Raj (PW2) has deposed that on 16.03.2001, he was posted as DO at PS Model Town, Delhi and on receipt of rukka from Ct. Narender, he lodged the present FIR No. 140/01. He has proved the copy of this FIR as Ex. PW2/A.
6. Ct. Mohan Lal (PW3) has deposed that on 16.03.2001, he was posted at PS Model Town, Delhi. He has further deposed that on that day he alongwith HC Bir Singh were on patrolling duty in the area of PS Model Town, Delhi. He has further testified that he heard the noises from the school at Sangam Park and thereafter they entered into the school. He has further testified that there they saw on injured child namely Sunil. He has further testified that he took him to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital for medical examination. He has further deposed that after medical examination he returned at the spot and handed over the MLC of the injured to the IO.
7. Sh. Sunil Kumar (PW4) is the injured. He has deposed nothing incriminating against either of the accused persons. He has even failed to identify either of the accused persons to be the perpetrator of the present offence. Thereafter, he was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state as he was resiling from his previous statement. But despite that he did not utter even a single word in respect of the incident. On the contrary, he even denied the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the prosecution.
8. Ct. Rajiv (PW5) has deposed that on 16.03.2001, he was posted at PS Model Town, Delhi as DD writer. He has further deposed that on that day at about 4:10 pm, he received information through wireless from Umega 50 about quarrel at Senior Secondary School, R.P. Bagh for sending police at the spot. He has further deposed that he made entry in the DD register at serial no. 14. he has proved the copy of DD register as Ex. PW5/A.
9. Sh. Ramesh Chandra (PW6) has deposed that on 16.03.2001, he was posted as Principal of Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, R.P.Bagh, Delhi. He has further deposed that on that day in the second shift from 2:30 pm to 5:00 pm an Page No. 3 FIR No. 140/01, PS Model Town, U/s 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC. State Vs. Kehar Singh & Anr., exam was going on in the school. He has further testified that he came to know at about 3:50 pm, that some persons have entered into the examination hall and torn the answer sheet of a student. He has further testified that Mr. Dariyao Singh was the invigilator in said examination hall. He has further testified that he came to know that those persons gave beatings to one child and Mr. Dariyao Singh. He has further deposed that he lodged a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. regarding the said incident. He has proved his complaint as Ex. PW6/A. He has further testified that at the time of incident, he saw the accused persons, but they were not the student of his school. He failed to identify either of the accused persons to be the perpetrator of the present offence. Thereafter, he was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state as he was resiling from his previous statement in respect of the identity of the accused persons. But despite that the said witness persisted with his statement that he cannot identify either of the accused persons.
10. SI Beer Singh (PW7) is the IO of the case and he has deposed that on 16.03.2001, on receipt of DD no. 14PP, he alongwith Ct. Narender reached at Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, R.P. Bagh, Delhi and met the complainant Sh. Daryao Singh (PW1) and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He has further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW7/A, and handed it over to Ct. Narender for the registration of the FIR. He has proved the site plan as Ex. PW7/B. He has deposed that the accused persons had already left the spot and later on he arrested both the accused persons namely Kehar Singh and Sachin @ Bittoo. Thereafter, PE was closed.
11. Statements of both the accused persons U/s. 313/281 Cr.P.C. were recorded. All the incriminating evidence were put to them for seeking their respective explanations. In the said statements, they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have further stated that they are innocent. They preferred not to lead evidence in their defence. Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments.
12. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. I have carefully perused the case file.
Page No. 4FIR No. 140/01, PS Model Town, U/s 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC. State Vs. Kehar Singh & Anr.,
13. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
14. The prosecution has duly proved the complaint of the complainant PW1 Sh. Daryao Singh as Ex. PW1/A. Therefore, it is duly established that on the alleged date, time and place of incident examination was being conducted and some outsiders unlawfully entered the said school and voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant and an examinee namely Sh. Sunil Kumar. It is also established that at that time the complainant was discharging his public duties and the said outsiders obstructed him in discharge of his public duties. Therefore, the depositions of prosecution witnesses regarding the incident inspires sufficient confidence and there is no reason to doubt regarding the occurrence of the incident. Hence, the entire incident as alleged in the complaint has been proved/substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt. However, none of the prosecution witnesses has uttered even a single word against the accused persons.
15. Thus, the only contentious issue that survives in this case is regarding the identity of the accused persons. The identity of an accused in a criminal trial is of paramount importance. No one can be held guilty unless his identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. It is not denied that the complainant has proved his complaint as Ex.PW1/A. However, he including the other prosecution witnesses have failed to identify either of the accused persons to be the perpetrator of the present offence. Rather, eyewitness PW4/injured Sh. Sunil Kumar has even gone to the extent that he even denied the incident. The non identification of the accused persons by either of the prosecution witnesses has proved fatal to the prosecution version and it itself is a sufficient ground for exonerating the accused persons for the offence under which they are charged. Thus, there is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against either of the Page No. 5 FIR No. 140/01, PS Model Town, U/s 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC. State Vs. Kehar Singh & Anr., accused persons to substantiate the prosecution version. Hence, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of proving the culpability of both the accused persons. Thus, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
16. In view of the, above discussion both the accused persons namely Kehar Singh and Sachin @ Bittoo are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety each in like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have submitted that their respective previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for the next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for the next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. 05/07/2013 (DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (DISTRICT NORTH) ROHINI COURTS DELHI Page No. 6 FIR No. 140/01, PS Model Town, U/s 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC. State Vs. Kehar Singh & Anr., FIR NO. 140/01.
PS. MODEL TOWN.
U/S. 186/332/353/323/427/452 IPC STATE VS. KEHAR SINGH & SACHIN @ BITTOO.
05/07/2013.
Present : Ld. APP for the state.
Both the accused person on bail with Ld. Counsel.
PW6 & PW7 examined and discharged. No other PW is present. The prosecution has already availed several sufficient opportunities for completing prosecution evidence. The present case is pending trial since last nearly 12 years and the inalienable right of the accused persons for expeditious trial can not be defeated/frustrated on unreasonable grounds. Thus, no ground is made out for giving another opportunity to the prosecution for concluding its evidence. Further, it was last opportunity for the prosecution to conclude entire PE. Hence, PE stands closed.
Separate statements of both the accused persons u/s 313/281 Cr.P.C. are recorded. They have submitted that they do not want to lead evidence in their defence.
Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, both the accused persons namely Kehar Singh and Sachin @ Bittoo are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 186/332/353/323/452/427/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety each in like amount, in accordance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. They have submitted that their respective previous bail bonds and surety bonds be extended for the next six months. The said request is allowed and they are accepted for the next six months.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (DISTRICT NORTH) ROHINI/DELHI Page No. 7 FIR No. 140/01, PS Model Town, U/s 186/332/353/323/427/452/34 IPC. State Vs. Kehar Singh & Anr., Page No. 8