Delhi District Court
State vs . Raj Kumar on 16 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 236/12
P.S. Delhi Cantt
State Vs. Raj Kumar
JUDGMENT
Case No. : 50163/16.
Date of Institution : 06.11.2012.
Date of Commission of Offence : 05.06.2012.
Name of the complainant : HC Rajender Singh.
Name & address of the accused : Raj Kumar,
S/o Sh. Gulbir Singh,
R/o B-18, Mangla Puri Village,
Palam Colony, New Delhi-45.
Offence complained of : 174A IPC.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Convicted.
Date on which judgment reserved : 16.09.2019.
Date of announcing of judgment : 16.09.2019.
Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused Raj Kumar on bail with ld. counsel Sh. C.K. Sharma.
1. The abovesaid accused has been sent by the police of P.S. Delhi Cantt to face trial for commission of offences punishable u/s State Vs. Raj Kumar. FIR No. 236/12.
Page No. 1 of 8. P.S. Delhi Cantt.
174A of IPC.
2. Briefly stating, prosecution's case is that the accused was facing trial in FIR No. 217/07, P.S. Delhi Cantt, but he absented himself and did not appear before the Court. Accordingly, a proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him directing him to appear before the Court on 05.06.2012, but since he failed to appear before the Court, therefore, vide order dated 11.09.2012, he was declared a proclaimed offender/absconder. Therefore, an FIR u/s 174A IPC was registered against him. Investigation was set into motion. Accused was arrested and was produced before the Court to face trial.
3. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid accused, copy whereof, was duly provided to him as per the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. On the basis of charge-sheet, charge was framed against accused u/s 174A of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, prosecution was asked to lead its evidence, wherein it got examined Const. Anil as PW1, HC Rajender as PW2, SI (Retired) Suraj Bhan as PW3, ASI Rakesh Kumar as PW4 and SI Anand Prakash as PW5.
6. Statement of accused Raj Kumar was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein entire incriminating evidence appearing against him State Vs. Raj Kumar. FIR No. 236/12.
Page No. 2 of 8. P.S. Delhi Cantt.
was put to him, to which he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case in hand.
7. Opportunity was granted to the accused to lead his defence evidence, however, wherein he examined himself as DW1.
8. Final arguments advanced by ld. APP for State and ld. defence counsel were heard. Case file perused carefully.
9. PW1 Const./Naib Court Anil stated that on 18.10.2012, he was posted in Court no. 511, Dwarka and accused was arrested in this case in his presence. As such, he proved arrest memo Ex.PW1/A of accused as he identified his own signatures as a witness thereupon.
10. PW2 HC Rajender stated that on 13.10.2012, he was posted as HC at P.S. Neb Sarai and he alongwith HC Rakesh were present at bus stand Mangla Puri. That a secret informer informed them that accused, who was wanted in FIR No. 217/07, P.S. Delhi Cantt was present at the bus stand, whereupon he inquired from the accused who disclosed his name as Raj Kumar, whereafter he arrested the accused and conducted his personal search and prepared kalandra u/s 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. against the accused. He identified the accused present in the Court and proved the following documents: -
Ex.PW2/A - arrest memo of accused in kalandra. Ex.PW2/B - personal search memo of accused in kalandra. Ex.PW2/C - DD No. 63B.
Ex.PW2/D - kalandra u/s 41.1(c) Cr.P.C.
State Vs. Raj Kumar. FIR No. 236/12.
Page No. 3 of 8. P.S. Delhi Cantt.
11. In his cross examination, he could not recall the exact time as to when he had left P.S. Neb Sarai on 13.10.2012, but stated that they reached on the spot before 6.30 pm. He stated that he had prepared the DD entry Ex.PW2/C, but did not sign the same and that the kalandra Ex.PW2/D was prepared at P.S. Neb Sarai.
12. PW3 SI (Retired) Suraj Bhan proved the FIR Ex.PW3/A registered by him in this case.
13. PW4 ASI Rakesh Kumar stated that on 13.10.2012, he was posted at P.S. Neb Sarai as HC and he alongwith HC Rajender Singh (PW2) were searching for accused Raj Kumar, who was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No. 217/07. He further deposed on the lines of PW2 HC Rajender Singh, identified the accused present before the Court and proved the following documents:-
Ex.PW2/A - arrest memo of accused in kalandra. Ex.PW2/B - personal search memo of accused in kalandra. Ex.PW2/C - DD No. 63B.
Ex.PW2/D - kalandra u/s 41.1(c) Cr.P.C.
14. PW5 SI Anand Prakash stated that on 16.10.2012, he was posted as ASI at P.S. Delhi Cant and was handed over with the investigation of the case in hand. He proved the investigation conducted by him in this case, identified the accused present before the Court and further proved the following documents: -
Ex.PW1/A - arrest memo.
State Vs. Raj Kumar. FIR No. 236/12.
Page No. 4 of 8. P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Ex.PW2/D - copy of kalandra u/s 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. Ex.PW5/A - certified copy of order dated 11.09.2012 of Ld. Trial Court in FIR No. 217/07 P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Ex.PW5/B - application for seeking permission to interrogate and to arrest the accused.
15. On the other hand, DW1/accused Raj Kumar @ Vinod stated that he was arrested in case bearing FIR No. 217/07, P.S. Delhi Cantt and was released on bail. That during the year 2012, he suffered a fracture in his left leg due to which he was bed ridden for about 6 months. He intimated regarding the same to co-accused in the said FIR so as to intimate Ld. Trial Court about his inability to appear before the Ld. Trial Court, however, the said co-accused did not intimate the Court and so, NBWs were issued against him. That in the meantime, he shifted from his permanent address to a rented accommodation since his house was to be reconstructed, due to which NBWs issued against him might have gone unexecuted leading to issuance of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against him. That 10 months later, when he returned to his permanent address, then he was arrested and FIR in this case was registered against him. That he is also under treatment for HIV AIDS and due to all the aforesaid circumstances, he could not appear before the Court. That his non-appearance was not intentional and now, he has been regularly appearing before the Court. He led into evidence the following documents: -
Ex.DW1/A - medical treatment book HIV care.
16. In his cross examination, he volunteered that he is still State Vs. Raj Kumar. FIR No. 236/12.
Page No. 5 of 8. P.S. Delhi Cantt.
suffering from fractured knee and has not recovered completely, but he admitted that he had not filed any medical document regarding the fracture suffered by him. He further admitted that he has not filed any document regarding construction of his permanent house, but denied that he deliberately avoided his presence before the Court.
17. Ld. APP for State has argued that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution's case and prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts, therefore, the accused is liable to be held guilty.
18. On the other hand, ld. defence counsel has argued that accused has suffered a fracture in his knee due to which he was bed ridden for 7-8 months and he had intimated about the same to co- accused, but the Court did not consider the same. That meanwhile, the accused had to reconstruct his old house so, he shifted from there and police had also asked the accused to intimate the police after reconstruction of his house, which was accordingly done by him, but the police arrested him. Moreover, accused has been acquitted in the said FIR No. 217/07, P.S. Delhi Cantt. Further, the time of arrest of accused has not been mentioned by the prosecution witnesses and also, there is contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the place of arrest of accused, which shows that the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, prayer is made that the accused may be acquitted of the charges framed against him.
State Vs. Raj Kumar. FIR No. 236/12.
Page No. 6 of 8. P.S. Delhi Cantt.
19. Pertinently, it is admitted by the accused that he was appearing before the Court as an accused in FIR No. 217/07, P.S. Delhi Cantt and that later,he stopped appearing before the Court. As such, it is not that the accused was not aware about the pendency of case bearing no. FIR No. 217/07, P.S. Delhi Cantt against him. The reason cited for non-appearance is that the accused had suffered a fracture in his leg due to which he was bed ridden for several months, but then as rightly submitted by ld. APP for State, no medical document has been led into evidence by the accused to show that he had fractured his leg. Similarly, no document has been led into evidence by the accused to show that his house was to be reconstructed. Be that as it may, even if accused had shifted from his permanent address on account of reconstruction of his house, even then what prevented him to intimate regarding change of address to the police or to the Ld. Trial Court, has not been explained by the accused. Perusal of certified copy of order dated 11.09.2012 (Ex.PW5/A) of Ld. Trial Court reveals that proclamation u/s 82 CrPC was executed against accused on 04.05.2012, therefore, accused had ample time to appear before the Court on or before 11.09.2012, but he failed to do so. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and nothing contrary has appeared in their testimony so as to discard the same.
20. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Raj Kumar is hereby held guilty for commission of offence State Vs. Raj Kumar. FIR No. 236/12.
Page No. 7 of 8. P.S. Delhi Cantt.
punishable u/s 174A of IPC and is convicted thereunder.
21. To come up for arguments on quantum of sentence on 18.09.2019 at 2.00 pm. Announced in the open (PRAGATI) Court on 16th September 2019. MM-01 (NDD), PHC, NEW DELHI/16.09.2019 Note: -
This judgment consists of 08 pages and the same have been duly checked and signed by me.
(PRAGATI)
MM-01 (NDD), PHC,
NEW DELHI/16.09.2019
State Vs. Raj Kumar. FIR No. 236/12.
Page No. 8 of 8. P.S. Delhi Cantt.