Delhi District Court
State vs . Atul & Ors. on 9 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE04 (SOUTH), SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Atul & Ors.
FIR No. 163/1999
U/s 186/341/34 IPC
P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 57/2
Unique Identification No. : 02406R0058332000
Date of Institution : 27.03.2000
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 21.12.2012
Date of judgment : 09.01.2013
(since the court was
closed for winter vacations)
Name of the complainant : HC Ajeet Singh, No.676/SD
P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur
Date of the commission of offence: 30.03.1999
FIR No. 163/1999
P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.1 of 12
Name of accused : (i) Atul
s/o Sh. Buta Ram
r/o G40, Saket, New Delhi
(ii) Madan Bhutani
s/o Sh. Nar Singh Dass
r/o D100, B. K. Dutt Colony,
New Delhi
(iii) Ravi (Deceased)
s/o Sh. P. C. Batra
r/o 95A, Gautam Nagar, Delhi
(iv) Sanjay
s/o Sh. Ramji Dass
r/o 295, Sant Nagar, Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 186/341/34 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 186/341/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Accused Ravi expired.
Remaining 3 accused persons
acquitted
FIR No. 163/1999
P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.2 of 12
Date of Institution : 27.03.2000
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 21.12.2012
(since the court was
closed for winter vacations)
Date of judgment : 09.01.2013
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
On 30.03.1999 at about 12.00 P.M. in front of police booth I.N.A. Market, Aurbindo Marg within the jurisdiction of PS Kotla Mubarakpur all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, along with a large crowd (of unidentified persons), blocked the traffic on Aurbindo Marg. While HC Ajit, Ct. Satbir and Ct. Suraj were trying to get the traffic cleared (in discharge of their official duty) the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, along with a large crowd (of unidentified persons) wrongfully restrained HC Karan Singh and another person namely Sh. Rajinder Singh who was going on a scooter.
2. The report U/s 173 Cr. PC was filed on 27.03.2000. Cognizance of the offences was taken. Compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC was done.
3. Charge for the offences punishable U/s 186/341 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the accused Atul, Madan Bhutani, Ravi & Sanjay was framed on FIR No. 163/1999 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.3 of 12 20.02.2002. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined 11 (eleven) PWs in all.
PW1 HC Ishwari Dutt (duty officer) is a formal witness. He proved the copy of the FIR Ex.PW1/A (OSR).
PW2 Inspector Ashok stated, that on 29.02.2000 I was posted as Additional SHO at PS Kotla Mubarakpur. On 30.03.1999 I was working as officiating SHO. My complaint u/s 195 CrPC is Ex.PW2/A. PW3 HC Ajit Singh stated that on 30.03.99 I was posted at PS Kotla Mubarak Pur. I was the Beat Officer of INA market. On that date in the night a fire broke out in the INA market. In this connection I alongwith Ct. Satbir, H.C. Karan Singh, Ct. Suraj, Ct. Moziz Hussain and Ct. Rajender were present in the market. At about 12.00 noon the accused persons (correctly identified) alongwith the other shopkeepers came in front of the police booth and blocked the traffic on Aurobindo Marg. Despite our requests they did not relent. For getting the traffic cleared, while H.C. Karan was coming towards me, accused Madan Bhutani restrained him and did not allow him to come to me. All the accused persons obstructed us in the discharge of our official duties. My complaint in this regard is Ex.PW3/A. PW4 HC Karan Singh stated that on 30.03.99, I was posted at PS Kotla Mubarak Pur. On that day I alongwith H.C. Ajit Singh, Ct. Satbir and Ct. Suraj FIR No. 163/1999 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.4 of 12 were on duty and present at INA market at about 12.00 PM. On the night intervening between 2930.03.99 a fire broke out at the INA market. On 30.03.99 at about 12.00 PM the shopkeepers of the INA market blocked the traffic on the road. H.C. Ajit Singh requested them to let the traffic be cleared but the shopkeepers did not listen to him. While I was going towards H.C. Ajit, the accused Madan Bhutani (correctly identified) restrained me. In the meantime SI Dinesh and SI Raghunath also came there and the traffic was got cleared with the help of other police staff. The other accused persons (correctly identified) also blocked the road and obstructed the traffic.
During crossexamination, PW4 stated that 45 shops at the INA market had caught fire. It is wrong to suggest that the debris of the charred shops were lying in the market. I cannot say for how long the traffic jam continued. I.O did not recorded the statement of any public persons in my presence.
PW5 Ct. Inderjeet is a formal witness. On 30.03.1999, the Duty Officer handed over DD no. 62B to him. He handed over the same to the IO. Copy of the DD is mark "A".
PW6 (retired) SI Raghunath he stated that, on 30.03.99 I was posted at PS K M Pur. On that day I alongwith SI Dinesh Kumar was present at INA Market. At about 12.00 PM H. C. Ajit, Ct. Rajesh, Ct. Satbir, Ct. Moziz Hussain, Ct. Rajender and H.C. Karan Singh met us. SI Dinesh recorded the statement of H.C. Ajit Singh. H.C. Ajit Singh made a complaint against accused persons Ravi, Sanjay, Atul and Madan Bhutani, regarding the blocking of traffic and assault. SI Dinesh prepared the rukka and got the case registered through Ct. Satbir. At my instance, IO prepared the FIR No. 163/1999 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.5 of 12 site plan (sic).
During crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 stated that I do not personally know the accused persons since they were not arrested in my presence. I know only that, what H.C. Ajit told SI Dinesh.
PW7 HC Nasib Singh stated, on 24.02.2000 I was posted at P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur. On that day, I had joined the investigation of this case with IO. On that day, accused Ravi, Sanjay and Madan Bhutani present in the court were arrested vide memos Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B & Ex.PW7/C respectively.
PW8 HC Satbir stated, on 30.03.99 I was posted at P.S. K. M. Pur. On that day I alongwith other police staff were present at INA market. In the night the shops at the INA market had caught fire. At around 12.00 PM public persons/mob came, they raised slogans and blocked the traffic on the road. They were asked to let the traffic be cleared but they did not listen. IO prepared the rukka and got the case registered. All the accused present in the Court were amongst the public persons who disrupted the traffic.
PW9 Ct. Suraj corroborated the testimony of PW8.
PW10 Lady Ct. Palvinder (DD writer) is a formal witness. She recorded DD No.8B Ex.PW10/A. PW11 SI Dinesh Kumar (IO of this case) stated, on 30.03.99 I was posted at P. S. Kotla Mubarakpur. On that day on receipt of DD No.10A, I along with SI Raghunath were on arrangement duty at INA Market. In the night intervening FIR No. 163/1999 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.6 of 12 between 2930.03.99 a fire broke out at INA Market. Ct. Suraj, Ct. Satbir, HC Ajit were also on the arrangement duty. When I reached near police picket at INA Market, HC Ajit Singh met me, I recorded his statement and prepared rukka Ex.PW11/A. I handed over the rukka to Ct. Satbir for registration of FIR. He went to PS and got the case registered. At the instance of HC Ajit I prepared site plan Ex.PW11/B. I recorded the statements of witnesses. I arrested the accused Atul vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/C, accused Madan Bhutani vide memo already Ex.PW7/A, accused Ravi vide memo already Ex.PW7/B , accused Sanjay vide memo already Ex.PW7/C. I identify all the accused persons who are present in the court today. I got permission(?) U/s 195 Cr. PC, recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the challan.
During crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW11 stated that 150200 public persons gathered at the spot. I did not take photographs of the spot. The distance between the main road and the spot is about 50 ft. The agitation started at 12.00 PM and continued for 23 hours. It is true that we reached the spot before the agitation started. I did not arrest the accused persons at the spot on the day of incident. They were arrested later upon the pointing out of H.C. Ajit. One public person Sh. Rajinder was examined by me. It is wrong to suggest that he is a stock witness.
Vide order dated 19.10.2012, PE was closed.
FIR No. 163/1999 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.7 of 12 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED :
5. On 05.11.2012 separate statement of accused persons Sanjay, Atul and Madan Bhutani U/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded. Accused Ravi expired and the proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 25.09.2011. All the accused denied all the allegations against them. The accused persons wish to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
6. The accused persons examined three defence witnesses.
DW1 Sh. Radhey Shyam stated around 1213 years ago shops at the INA market were destroyed in fire. Due to this many public persons and shopkeepers gathered there. One year after the incident one police official came to my office. He requested me for help. He said that he was under pressure from senior officers to solve / work out the case.
DW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar stated the shop of the accused Madan is opposite my shop. I heard some noise and came out of my shop. After sometime I found that there was nothing on the road.
DW3 Sh. Suresh Kumar stated I am running a shop at INA market. The shop of accused Atul was in front of my shop and the shop of accused Sanjay was FIR No. 163/1999 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.8 of 12 behind my shop. The accused Atul was not present in the incident.
Vide joint statement dated 22.11.12 the accused persons closed their defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS :
7. Arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused.
It was argued by Ld. APP for the State that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. They have identified the accused persons before the Court. The complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. was duly proved. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It was argued by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons that before the date of incident a fire broke out the INA market. Several shops were gutted in the said fire. Due to this reason the debris of the charred shops were lying scattered in the market. The local shopkeepers were agitating the authorities to get the debris cleared. The accused Madan Bhutani was the Vice President of the INA market. He was falsely implicated by the police. There was no blockage of traffic as alleged. The prosecution has not examined any public witnesses who are alleged to have been wrongfully restrained during the protest agitations. It was argued that the police officials came to the President and Vice President of the market Association and requested for cooperation to solve the case. The accused persons have been made scapegoat.
FIR No. 163/1999 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.9 of 12 REASONING :
8. I have perused the report Ex.PW11/A, prepared by PW11 SI Dinesh. In the rukka it is mentioned that on the date of incident, he alongwith SI Raghunath reached the police picket INA market at around 6.50 PM. H.C. Ajit alongwith other police staff met him and got recorded the statement Ex.PW3/A. In the notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C. the time of incident was mentioned as 12.00 PM. During his crossexamination PW11 stated that 150200 public persons gathered at the spot. The agitation started at around 12.00 PM and continued for 23 hours. He also admitted that he reached the spot before the agitation started.
As already observed above, in the rukka Ex.PW11/A, the IO has mentioned that on the date of incident he alongwith SI Raghunath reached the spot at 6.50 PM. However, during crossexamination PW11 stated that he reached the spot before the agitation started, which according to the allegations started at around 12.00 PM. In view of this, it is not clear how the I.O. PW11 reached the spot before the agitation started.
9. PW3 and PW4 stated that the incident occurred around 12 PM. PW4 stated that when accused Madan Bhutani restrained him, in the meantime SI Dinesh and SI Raghunath reached the spot and got the traffic cleared. It is again confusing, as per the rukka Ex.PW11/A the IO PW11 reached the spot at 6.50 PM. As per the cross FIR No. 163/1999 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.10 of 12 examination of PW11, the agitation started at around 12 PM and continued for 23 hours. If this is true, the agitation was over, maximum by 3:00 PM. In such circumstances, where as the occasion for the IO to clear the traffic when he reached the spot at 6:50 PM ?
10. As per the prosecution case, the agitation at the spot of incident was a large scale agitation. The incident occurred at 12:00 PM. There is no explanation why the incident was not promptly reported to the police station and why the victims PW3 H.C. Ajit Singh and PW4 Karan Singh waited for the IO to arrive at the spot, for getting their statement recorded. To further clarify it may be observed that PW3 and PW4 did not state that they made any efforts for promptly reporting the incident to the PS concerned.
11. In view of the above, the sequence of events as alleged by the prosecution does not appear to be probable. The prosecution has not placed on record anything to show/prove that the victims PW3 and PW4 alongwith other staff were deployed at the spot of incident on the relevant date and time.
12. In view of the above, the prosecution case appears to be doubtful, it suffers from reasonable doubts. The benefit of doubt shall go to the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Atul, Madan and Sanjay are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 186/341/34 IPC. Proceedings against accused Ravi (since deceased) FIR No. 163/1999 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.11 of 12 already abated vide order dated 25.09.2011.
Pronounced in open court (RAJINDER SINGH)
on 09.01.2013 MM04(South):Saket Courts:New Delhi
09.01.2013
FIR No. 163/1999
P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur Page No.12 of 12