Delhi District Court
State vs . Harbax, Etc. on 30 May, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI
State Vs. Harbax, etc.
FIR No. 99/93
PS: Keshav Puram
U/s 387/506/34 IPC
Case ID No. 02401R0009631993
JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 48/2
B) The date of commission : 26.05.1993
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : Sh. Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Faqir
Chand
r/o LU11, Pitam Pura, Delhi
D) The name & address of accused : 1. Harbax s/o Sh. Tara Singh r/o 109, Tilak Bazar, Delhi,
2. Mohd. Nadeem s/o Sh. Amani r/o 1191, Tilak Bazar, Delhi (already abated vide order dt. 02.04.12)
3. Sunil s/o Sh. Ram Gopal r/o J52, Bharat Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Delhi
4. Rakesh Sharma s/o Tilak Raj r/o 242, Bharat Nagar, Ashok Vihar, FIR No.99/93 Page No.1/9 2 Delhi (already abated vide order dt.
20.10.10)
5. Kamal Mehta s/o Sh Inderjeet r/o 195, Bharat Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Delhi (already abated vide order dt.
27.03.08).
E) Offences complained of : U/s 387/506/34 IPC F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty G) Final order : Acquitted H) The date of such order : 30.05.2012 Date of Institution: 13.10.1993 Judgment reserved on: 30.05.2012 Judgment announced on: 30.05.2012 THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGEMENT:
1. The prosecution sent five accused persons namely Harbax, Mohd. Nadim, Sunil, Rakesh Sharma and Kamal Mehta to face trial in respect of offences u/s 387/506/34 IPC on the allegations that on 31.08.2005 at 7.50 pm, they in furtherance of their common intention put Vinod Kumar in fear of death of Dalip near Railway Hospital Delhi, Kashmere Gate and at C29, Jindal Super Dal Mill, Lawrence Road, in order to extort Rs. 5,00,000/ and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 387/506/34 IPC.
FIR No.99/93 Page No.2/9 3
2. In brief, the case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that on 26.05.93, intimation was received vide DD No 14A on which SI Satbir Singh alongwith Ct. Virender Singh reached at C29, Lawrence Road, Indl. Area where complainant namely Sh. Vinod Kumar met who gave his statement to the effect that he was running his business of steel at Wazirpur and his younger brother Sh. Dalip Kumar was running his business in the name of Jindal Super Dal Mill at C29, Lawrence Road, Delhi. On 25.05.93 at about 8.00 pm, one person had given threatening call to his younger brother for paying a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ failing which he was threatened of being kidnapped and being killed. On 26.05.93 at about 12.45 pm, one telephone was again received in the Dal Mill and the caller disclosed his name as Raja and again repeated the same demand. The said call was again received and ultimately, the caller agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 75,000/ which was claimed to be handed over near Novelty Cinema, Northern Railway Hospital, Delhi Gate. On the basis of said statement, FIR was got registered and investigation was entrusted to SI Satbir Singh. Thereafter, trap was made and accused Harbax Singh was overpowered in front of the gate of Northern Railway Hospital. Pursuant to disclosure statement of said accused, other accused persons were also apprehended. SI Satbir Singh conducted further investigation like preparation of site plan, arrest of accused persons, seizure of bag, etc.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet in respect of offences U/s FIR No.99/93 Page No.3/9 4 387/506/34 IPC was prepared and filed in the Court against accused persons and accordingly, cognizance was taken by Ld. Predecessor.
4. After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, charge was framed U/s 387/34 IPC against the accused persons on 02.07.2001 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. It is relevant to note that during pendency of trial , accused no. 2, 4 & 5 expired and consequently proceedings were abated qua those three accused persons. Thus, accused no. 1 & 3 namely Harbax and Sunil alone have been facing trial in the present matter.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Dalip, PW2 Retd. SI Duli Chand, PW3 Ct. Virender Singh, PW4 Sh. Vinod Kumar and PW5 Sh. Sandeep Suri till 30.05.2012. Out of the witnesses cited by prosecution in the list of witnesses, witnesses namely Sh. Dalip (PW1), Sh. Vinod Kumar (PW4) and Sh. Sandeep Suri (PW5) were the only star witnesses. However, all the said three prosecution witnesses did not support the case of prosecution on material points. No other eye witness to the incident in question has either been cited or relied by the prosecution in this case. Thus, even if the remaining case of the prosecution would have been taken to be true on its face FIR No.99/93 Page No.4/9 5 value, there was not even a remote possibility of conviction of accused persons. Hence continuing further with the trial was considered to be an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of precious time of this Court. Therefore, PE was closed.
7. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons, their statements under Section 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C had been dispensed with.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and accused no. 1 & 3 in person. I have also perused the record carefully.
PW2 Retd. SI Duli Chand is a formal witness who has proved the carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW2/B. The said witness has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
PW3 Ct. Virender Singh deposed that on 26.05.93 on receipt of DD No. 14A at about 6.00 pm regarding extortion threat, he alongwith IO SI Satbir went to the spot i.e C29, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area. There one Vinod met them and informed that some person was extending threat to his brother Dalip Kumar and was also demanding money. IO recorded his statement and prepared rukka. He went to PS Keshav Puram and got registered the FIR. He came back and handed FIR No.99/93 Page No.5/9 6 over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. Complainant informed that Rs. 75,000/ had been demanded by the caller and he directed to hand over the amount to one Sardarji who was wearing blue Tshirt and black coloured turban near Main Gate of Hospital of Northern Railway near Novelty Cimena Hall. However, the testimony of said witness could not be completed during trial. That being so, his statement can not be read in evidence.
PW1 namely Sh. Dalip who had allegedly received the extortion calls, entered into witness box and deposed that he had received threatening calls for paying a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ which was disclosed by him to his brother Sh. Vinod Jindal (PW4) who had informed the police. He further deposed that in the evening of the fateful day, his brother Sh. Vinod Jindal had left his Dal Mill alongwith police and cash amount of Rs. 75,000/ kept in a plastic bag and informed him (PW1) that they were going to the hospital near Novelty Cinema Hall as per instructions of the caller. The said witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
PW4 Sh. Vinod Kumar (complainant) did not support the prosecution story on material points. He supported the case of prosecution to the extent that on 25.05.93, he was informed by his brother Sh. Dalip Kumar (PW1) that he had received extortion call and also that his brother had received similar call even on the FIR No.99/93 Page No.6/9 7 next day. He also deposed that he himself had also attended the said extortion call received in the Dal Mill of his brother and also that he had informed the entire facts to one Sh. Sandeep Suri (PW5) who was friend of their common friend. However, he did not identify any of the accused persons before the Court. He testified that he did not accompany Sh. Sandeep Suri (PW5) to the spot. He claimed that he was informed by the police about recovery of cash amount of Rs. 75,000/ as well as the arrest of one Sikh person. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State but still he did not support the case of prosecution and denied all the suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution story. He also denied to have made the statement appearing at portion A1 to A2 of statement mark X to the police.
PW5 Sh. Sandeep Suri deposed that he does not remember the exact date, month and year of the incident as about 1920 years have been passed. At that time, complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar was his friend and he informed that someone had threatened his brother for kidnapping him. On that day, Vinod Kumar handed over one envelope to him containing the papers in the size of currency notes. He alongwith police went to that place. He alongwith police went to some place in Old Delhi. When he was present on the road with the envelope containing papers in the size of currency notes, one person came to collect the said envelope and was apprehended by the police. However, he did not identify any of the accused persons present before the Court during trial.
FIR No.99/93 Page No.7/9 8
Ld. APP for the State also cross examined the witness with the permission of the Court. During such cross examination, he expressed his ignorance as to whether the Sikh person was also accompanied with three other associates who had fled away from the spot. He denied the suggestion that the person who was apprehended at the spot, had disclosed his name as Harbax Singh or that accused Harbax Singh present in the Court was the same person who was apprehended by the police. He also could not tell as to what was done by the police with the envelope containing the papers in the size of currency notes. He admitted his signature on seizure memo mark D but claimed that he was not aware about the contents thereof. He denied to have made the statement appearing at portion A1 to A2 of the statement mark E to the police.
9. As already discussed above, PW1, PW4 and PW5 are the only star witnesses examined by prosecution in order to support its case. As per case of prosecution, PW1 had received threatening call in his Dal Mill and he was threatened by the caller to pay a sum of rupees Five Lacs failing which he would be kidnapped and to be killed. The testimonies of said two PWs as referred to above, clearly shows that they have not supported the prosecution story at all. The said witnesses did not support the prosecution story even despite the fact that they were also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State with the permission of the Court. FIR No.99/93 Page No.8/9 9
10. The aforesaid three star witnesses relied by prosecution alone could have proved the case of prosecution by deposing on the lines of prosecution story. The other witnesses relied by prosecution were admittedly not present at the time of incident in question as they are the police officials who remained associated in the investigation. That being so, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
11. In the light of aforesaid discussion, accused no. 1 & 3 namely Harbax and Sunil are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Their personal bonds stand cancelled. Original documents if any be returned after cancellation of endorsement if any. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (VIDYA PRAKASH)
today on 30.05.2012 (ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI)
FIR No.99/93 Page No.9/9