Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhim Singh on 30 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST):SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. SONAM SINGH-I
State vs. Bhim Singh
FIR No. 154/15
Police Station: New Friends Colony
Under Section: 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960,
in short " PCA Act"
Date of institution : 22.05.2015
Date of reserving : 30.06.2022
Date of pronouncement : 30.08.2022
JUDGMENT
a) The Serial number of : 93478/2016 the case
b) Date of commission of : 28.03.2015 offence
c) Name of the : Miss. Shivani Goutam complainant
d) Name, parentage and : Bhim Singh, S/o Sh. Ram address of the accused Lal R/o H. No.-100 Taimoor Nagar Village, New Delhi.
e) Offence complained of : 11 PCA Act
f) Plea of the accused : Accused person pleaded not guilty.
g) Final order : Accused person stand acquitted of
the offence punishable under
Section 11 PCA Act
h) Date of final order : 30.08.2022
State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 1 of 11
FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Vide this judgment, accused person stand acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 11 PCA Act in this case for the reasons mentioned below:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is that on 28.03.2015, in the morning hours at opposite House No. 99-A Street, Taimoor Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station New Friends Colony, accused Bhim Singh was driving one Wagonor Car and ran over a black puppy which resulted in oozing out of blood from his nose and cause limping of the said puppy and thereby, committed cruelty U/s 11 PCA Act.
3. The investigation was done by the IO/ASI Devender Singh who filed the police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the offence punishable under U/s 11 PCA Act.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
4. The learned predecessor of this court took cognizance upon the said police report on 22.05.2015 and on State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 2 of 11 FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC 13.07.2015 accused person was supplied with the copies of police report and documents.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 05.05.2016, the learned predecessor of this court framed the charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 11 of PCA Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
(i) Prosecution Witnesses
7. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution in all has examined five witnesses namely:
Designation and Name of Role in the present case Sr. No. the Witness
1. PW1 Miss. Shivani Complainant
2. PW2 ASI Raghu Raj Singh Duty Officer
3. PW3 Ct. Satender Witness with IO
4. PW4 SI (ASI) Devender 1st IO Singh
5. PW5 Sh. Dilip Suri Witness on behalf of Dr. Mohit State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 3 of 11 FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC
(iii) Documents on record to be checked:
8. The prosecution witnesses relied on the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Marks Nature of documents
1. Ex.PW1/A Complaint
2. Ex.PW1/B Seizure Memo
3. Ex.PW1/C (colly)(OSR) Receipts of Hospital
4. Ex.PW1/D1 Site Plan
5. Ex.PW2/A Copy of FIR
6. Ex.PW2/B Endorsement on Rukka
7. Ex.PW2/C Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
8. Ex.PW3/A Arrest Memo
9. Ex.PW4/A Rukka
10. Ex.PW5/A Copy of treatment papers
9. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 27.06.2019. The court will discuss the testimonies of the said witnesses later i.e. at the time of appreciation of evidence.
THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.PC. / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
10. The Accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, on 15.07.2019 denied the entire evidence put to him. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further led defence evidence and examined Mr. Tika Ram as DW-1. After examining the DW1 in his defence the State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 4 of 11 FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC accused closed his defence evidence. The accused in his defence relied upon the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibits/Marks Nature of documents
1. Ex.DW1/1 Attendance Record of accused.
2. Ex.DW1/2 Authorization letter of witness.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. The Court heard the final arguments on 30.06.2022.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
12. I have heard the submissions of learned APP for the State as well as that of learned counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record. The legal provision in this context is Section 11 PCA Act. The relevant portion in this regard is reproduced below:
"11. Treating animals cruelly.--
(1) If any person--
(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animals to be so treated; or..."
13. After careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that there are innumerable deficiencies in the case of State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 5 of 11 FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC the prosecution and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses. The same are as follows:
CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT
14. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Ms. Shivani Gautam in her complaint Ex. PW1/A stated that on 28th March 2015, in the morning she was standing in her balcony and a small black puppy was sleeping near a silver Wagon R car bearing registration No DL 3CBS 3535 of which accused Bhim Singh was the owner. She stated that while driving the said car, one of the big tyres of the car crossed over the puppy and despite her shouting, the accused did not stop the car and went driving off. It is stated that the puppy was crying, due to heavy bleeding from its nose, mouth and tremendous pain. She stated that all the people who were nearby came out to see what had happened but the accused Bhim Singh did not get out of the car to see the Puppy. She stated that she took the Puppy "Friendicoes Hospital"
in the emergency and provided him with proper treatment. She stated that she rescued a Puppy which was injured and sick.
15. Further, she stated in her complaint that on 28 th March 2015, she spoke to the accused Bhim Singh's mother, namely, Ms. Shanti Devi and explained to her the entire scenario and after that Ms. Shanti Devi had a word with her son, the accused Bhim Singh. She stated that on 2 nd April 2015, she had a word with the wife of the accused, namely, Bimla Devi and requested her to share the number of the accused. However, the State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 6 of 11 FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC wife of the accused refused to share his phone number or to even take down her number. Further, she stated that the accused Bhim Singh was fully aware regarding the accident, yet he did not do anything in order to find out regarding the then current condition of the Puppy. She stated that even earlier, the accused Bhim Singh had hit a Puppy with his car.
16. It is pertinent to note that that complainant PW1 Shivani Gautam in her examination in chief made improvements. She deposed that the accused Bhim Singh was driving his car and without making any efforts to remove the Puppy which was lying in front of his car, he had over driven over the Puppy. She deposed that public persons had gathered after hearing the crying of the injured Puppy but the accused did not stop his car and left the spot. In her complaint Ex.PW1/A, the complainant Shivani Gautam did not state that the accused Bhim Singh was aware that the Puppy was lying near the tyre of his car. In order to prove the offence U/s.11 of PCA, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused had overdriven the Puppy with an intention to kill the Puppy or cause injury to the Puppy. However, there is no evidence on record to suggest or prove that the accused Bhim Singh had deliberately driven his car knowing that the Puppy was lying near the tyre of his car.
ALIBI OF THE ACCUSED
17. The accused Bhim Singh summoned the witness DW1 Tika Ram who brought the attendance register of the accused. The accused Bhim Singh was working as Assistance State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 7 of 11 FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC Bench Fitter in Srinivas Puri Depot, DTC and the duty hours of the accused were from 5.00 AM to 1.30 PM on 28 th March 2015. The attendance record was produced by DW1 which is Ex.DW1/1 (OSR). In view of the said attendance record, a doubt is created in the story of the prosecution regarding the presence of the accused at the time of commission of alleged offence.
DELAY IN FILING THE COMPLAINT NOT EXPLAINED
18. The incident allegedly occurred on 28th March 2015 but the complainant Ms. Shivani Gautam made the complaint to the SHO PS NFC on 2nd April 2015 and thereafter, the FIR was registered on 27th April 2015. The complainant Ms. Shivani Gautam did not explain as to the reason of delay in filing the said complaint. This also creates a dent in the story of the prosecution.
NON-JOINDER OF PUBLIC WITNESSES:
19. In the present case, there is no independent public witness to corroborate the story as stated by the complainant Ms. Shivani Gautam.
20. PW4 SI Devender Singh, who is the IO of the case, deposed that he had searched for the CCTV footage but could not get any. PW1 complainant Ms. Shivani Gautam deposed that public persons had gathered at the spot after hearing the crying of the injured Puppy. Hence, in the absence of any joinder of any public witness in the investigation, false implication of the State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 8 of 11 FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC accused by the local police in the present case cannot be ruled out.
21. The aforesaid observation of the Court is fortified by following observations in case titled Roop Chand vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (1)C.L.R 69, by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana:
"...It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.
In the present case also admittedly, the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful..."
State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 9 of 11
FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC
.
22. Similar opinion was expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Anoop Joshi vs. State 1992 (2) CCC 314 (HC) wherein it was held:
"It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC."
23. The aforesaid depositions of PW1 complainant Ms. Shivani Gautam and PW4 IO SI Devinder Singh, show that the IO has failed to give any plausible explanation for non-joining of the public witnesses in the investigation despite their availability. This casts a serious doubt about the veracity of the entire prosecution case of the accused causing cruelty to the injured Puppy by overdriving on him with his car.
CONCLUSION
24. In view of the discussion in preceding paragraphs, State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 10 of 11 FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable doubts in the case put forth by the prosecution. Hence, the case cannot in any manner be said to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Accused deserve the benefit of the doubt. Hence, the accused namely Bhim Singh is held not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 11 PCA Act.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 30.08.2022 (SONAM SINGH-I) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South-East): Saket Courts: New Delhi.
State vs. Bhim Singh Pages 11 of 11 FIR No. 154/15 P.S. NFC