Delhi District Court
State vs Kashi Ram Etc on 19 August, 2014
THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, ROOM NO. 137,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
KASHI RAM ETC
FIR No. 75/05
P.S.: RMD
U/S: 223/224/34 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02401R0445472006
2. Date of commission of offence: 01.04.2005
3. Name of the Complainant: RAM PRAKASH YADAV,
Reserved Inspector, Gautam Budh
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Name of the accused, and (1) CONSTABLE KASHI RAM,
his parentage and residence S/o Girdhari Lal,
R/o Village Sorika, Dist Kanoj,
Uttar Pradesh.
Also at C/83, A.P Surajpur Police
Line, Janpad Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
(2) CONSTABLE JAGDEV SINGH,
S/o Ram Singh,
R/o Village Sadarpur
(Matlabpur), PS Chajlet, District
Muradabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Also at C/203, A.P Surajpur Police
Line, Janpad Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
(3) Saleem Haider,
S/o Sarif @ Bashir,
(Since P.O).
5. Date when judgment : 04.03.2014
was reserved
FIR No. 75/05
PS- RMD
State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 1/11
6. Date when Judgment : 19.08.2014
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : U/s 223/224/34 IPC
or Proved
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Final Judgment : Accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev are
convicted for the offence punishable
U/s 223/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case:
1. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 01.04.2005 at about 5.00 am in the area of Subzi Mandi Railway Station within the jurisdiction of PS Subzi Mandi, both accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev Singh in furtherance of their common intention being public servant legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement of accused Saleem Haider who was involved in FIR No. 165/2000, PS Sahnewal, Ludhiana and lawfully committed to their custody but negligently allowed the escape of said Saleem Haider from their custody. Accordingly, FIR No. 75/05, PS Subzi Mandi, U/S 223/224/34 IPC was registered. Challan was filed on 20.05.2006.
2. On appearance of the accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev, charge was framed against them for offence U/s 223/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial accused Saleem Haider was declared proclaimed offender. Thereafter, matter was put up for prosecution evidence and this judgment is only in respect of Kashi Ram and Jagdev Singh only.FIR No. 75/05
PS- RMD State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 2/11
3. Initially prosecution has examined six witnesses namely PW1 HC Banshi Dhar, PW2 Ct Rajesh Kumar, PW3 Ct Ranga Swami, PW4 HC Omkar Singh, PW5 Retd SI Ram Kumar and PW6 Circle Officer Ram Prakash Yadav to prove the case against the accused. The evidence of each witness is very relevant and will be discussed on at later stages.
4. After prosecution evidence was closed, statements of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein they denied all the allegations and stated that they were not negligent. They further stated that they do not wish led evidence in their defence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
5. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.04.2014, an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C was moved by the Ld APP for the State for calling witness who had sanctioned the permission U/s 197 Cr.P.C which was allowed on 23.06.2014 and Sh. Piyush Modia, SSP, Gautam Budh Nagar was called and examined as PW7. Thereafter, statements of accused persons were again recorded wherein they denied all the allegations and stated that they were not negligent. They further stated that they do not wish led evidence in their defence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
6. Ld. APP for the State argued that all the prosecution witnesses including the complainant have supported the version of the prosecution and he prays for conviction of the accused persons.
7. On the other hand, Ld counsel for the accused persons submits that accused persons were not negligent in discharging their duties and prays for acquittal. He also argued that there is no documentary FIR No. 75/05 PS- RMD State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 3/11 evidence to prove the custody of accused.
8. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
8.1 PW1 proved the registration of FIR on the basis of rukka vide Ex. PW1/A. 8.2 PW2 stated that on 01.04.2005 Duty officer handed over copy of FIR alongwith original rukka which he handed over to SI Ram Kumar. During cross examination he stated that he alongwith IO searched for accused Salim Haider. He denied the suggestion that he did not joined the investigation.
8.3 PW3 stated that on 03.05.2005 in his presence accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev were arrested by the IO vide Ex. PW3/A and Ex.
PW3/C. He identified both the accused persons. During cross examination he stated that accused persons came in the Police Post at about 1112 Noon. He further stated that the information about the arrest of the accused persons was given to their relatives by telephone. He denied the suggestion that he did not joined investigation and is deposing falsely.
8.4 PW4 stated that he executed the process U/s 83 Cr.P.C against Salim Haider. He proved his report vide Ex. PW4/A. 8.5 PW5 stated that on 01.04.2005 he received tehrir after registration of the case. He further stated that he arrested both the accused persons and completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet. During cross examination he stated that on 01.04.2005 both accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev came to PS ODRS and handed over copy of warrants to establish the custody of accused Salim FIR No. 75/05 PS- RMD State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 4/11 Haider with them. He admitted that he had not obtained copy of any register showing that custody of Salim Haider was given to accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev. He also admitted that he did not obtained railway tickets but stated that he placed the copy of order of Hon'ble Ludhiana Court where accused was produced. He denied the suggestion that the custody of accused Salim was not handed over to Kashi Ram and Jagdev. He also denied the suggestion that both accused did not took Salim to Ludhiana or brought him back. He also denied the suggestion that Salim did not fled away from the custody. He also admitted that he did not obtained the departure entry of accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev from their police stations. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated. 8.6 PW6 stated that on 30.03.2005 he was Reserve Inspector at Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttat Pradesh. He stated that he handed over accused Salim Haider in FIR No. 165/2000, PS Sahnewal, Ludhiana to accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev for his production before Ludhiana Court of Sh. B.R Arora, Ld ASJ on 31.03.2005. He further stated that on 01.04.2005 at about 6.00 AM he was telephonically informed by Ct Kashi Ram that Salim Haider has escaped after breaking handcuffs from their custody when train Jammu Mail reached Subzi Mandi Railway Station and was moving slowly. He further stated that on same day he came to Delhi where accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev met him and they all searched for Salim Haider. He further stated that thereafter, he made complaint Ex. PW6/A at PS RMD. During cross examination he stated that the DD entry regarding handing over of FIR No. 75/05 PS- RMD State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 5/11 Salim Haider to both accused was made and he denied the suggestion that no such DD entry was made. He stated that except the oral information of Kashi Ram and Jagdev, they do not have any documentary evidence regarding escape of Salim. He stated that he did not inqure from public persons present at Subzi Mandi Railway Station as the train had already left. He denied the suggestion that he did not made any complaint and Salim Haider had not escaped from the custody of both accused and they were falsely implicated. 8.7 PW7 stated that on 07.12.2005 he was posted as SSP, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and on that day on the application of IO, he granted sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C for prosecution of accused persons after going through the case file and applying judicial mind from the relevant documents. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that IO had not put up the case file or that he had not gone through the case file.
9. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
9.1 The argument of Ld counsel for the accused that there is no documentary evidence to prove the custody of Saleem Haider with the accused persons is humbly rejected as Ex. PW6/A which is the complaint of Reserve Inspector PW6 categorically mentioned that accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev Singh posted in Police Line, Surajpur were handed over the custody of Saleem Haider for his production before Ludhiana Court. The genuineness of Ex. PW6/A and its contents was not disputed by both the accused persons. Even copy of the request letter from Ludhiana Court and subsequent proceedings FIR No. 75/05 PS- RMD State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 6/11 whereby Ct Jagdev and Ct Kashi Ram were deputed to produce the accused has not been disputed by accused Jagdev and Kashi Ram. The Ex. PW7/A which proves the sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C also corroborates the version of prosecution that Jagdev and Kashi Ram were negligent and allowed escape of Saleem Haider.
9.2 The accused Saleem Haider was stated to be kept handcuffed during his journey from Ludhiana to Delhi but he allegedly escaped after breaking the handcuffs. The handcuffs used by police for keeping accused in their custody during transit can be opened only when keys were used or when it was not at all locked. The handcuffs are made of iron and unless it has been kept open, the person cannot break the same without the use of any instruments. In the present case, during their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C, both accused admitted that they were coming back with UTP from Ludhiana and he escaped. But both accused denied any negligence on their part. Despite opportunities, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. All the witnesses of the prosecution have stood the cross examination by defence and no material inconsistencies is found in their testimonies. All the witnesses identified the accused as the persons to whom the custody of accused Saleem Haider was handed over or they were arrested in their presence.
9.3 Both the accused have not denied that they are not public servants or does not have the custody of Saleem Haider. Even they have not denied the registration of present FIR. Both accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev Singh are public servants as they are members of FIR No. 75/05 PS- RMD State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 7/11 Uttar Pradesh Police has allowed escape of Saleem Haider from their custody.
10. In view of the above discussion and on the basis of evidence of record, I am satisfied that accused persons have failed in putting any probable defence and case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt as both acted in furtherance of their intention being public servants as both were having the custody of Salim Haider has allowed escape of Saleem Haider from their custody. Hence, chain of events is complete. Accordingly, accused Kashi Ram and Jagdev Singh are convicted for the offence punishable U/s 223/34 IPC. Copies of order be given free of cost to convicts.
Put up for arguments on sentencing at 2pm today.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
COURT ON 19.08.2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07
CENTRAL/ TIS HAZARI COURTS/ DELHI.
FIR No. 75/05
PS- RMD
State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 8/11
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, ROOM NO. 137 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI.
STATE VERSUS KASHI RAM ETC FIR No. 75/05 P.S SUBZI MANDI U/s 223/34 IPC At 2.00 PM Present : Ld APP for the State.
Convict Kashi Ram and Jagdev Singh in person.
O R D E R ON SENTENCING.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard today. Ld. APP for the State submits that the offence by the convicts is proved. He submits that convicts be sentenced as per law.
On the other hand both convicts submits that they are the sole bread earner of their family. They further submits that apart from the present case, no other delinquency is found on their part in their entire service career. Both prays for leniency.
In the present case, in furtherance of their common intention they negligently allowed escape of accused Saleem Haider.
While sentencing, it is also to be taken into consideration the conduct of the convicts during trial as well as their conduct in discharge of their duties. Both convicts have already been penalized during departmental proceedings whereby their salary increments were withheld for about two years and they have also remained FIR No. 75/05 PS- RMD State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 9/11 under suspension for some time which results not only punishment to the convicts for their negligence in duty but also must have caused hardship to their families.
In the present case, convicts are found guilty for offence punishable U/s 223/34 IPC. No previous involvement has been brought on record. The convicts are married persons and having families to maintain. Both convicts are still in government service. Hence, the convicts must get a chance to reform as the convicts wants to live with his life peacefully.
In such circumstances, I am inclined to take lenient view against the convicts as it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ''Abdul Qayum Vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 1 SCC 103 that:
'Probation of Offenders Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him''.
Section 3 and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act provides that the courts have to exercise their discretion while extending the benefit of Probation. But such discretion under any Statue has to be exercised judicially.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the given facts and circumstances of the present case, convicts Kashi Ram and Jagdev Singh are released on probation U/s 3 of The Probation of FIR No. 75/05 PS- RMD State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 10/11 Offenders Act, 1958 as offence U/s 223 IPC is punishable upto two years on furnishing probation bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/ each with one surety in like amount and both convicts are admonished. Probation bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/ each furnished by both the convicts. Same are considered and accepted.
Both convicts shall have the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act which provides that any convict who is dealt U/s 3 or 4 of the Act shall not suffer disqualification if any, attaching to the conviction. Accordingly, the conviction in the present case shall not be treated as disqualification for remaining in government service. Copies of order be given free of cost to convicts.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance till accused Saleem Haider is apprehended.
Announced in the open (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
court on 19.08.2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
FIR No. 75/05
PS- RMD
State Vs. Kashi Ram Etc Page 11/11