Delhi District Court
State vs . Sushil Kumar on 10 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR MALIK: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL)-04 TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Sushil Kumar
FIR NO. 50/05
P.S. HNRS
Unique Case ID No. :02401R0122862006
Date of institution of case :02.07.2005
Date on which case reserved for :10.10.2014
judgment
Date of judgment :10.10.2014
JUDGMENT U/S 170/419/420 IPC
a)Date of offence :04.05.2005
b)Offence complained of :U/s 419/420/170 IPC
c)Name of accused, his parentage : Sushil Kumar
& residence S/o Mukesh Kumar
R/o Village Dhamsar/
Dhansar, PS Jalalpur, Distt.
Chapra (Bihar).
d)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
e)Final Order : Convicted
JUDGMENT
FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 1 of 9 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :
Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
1. On 04.05.2005, Complainant Sunil Kumar produced accused Sushil Kumar along with complaint against the accused Sushil that he is Inspector Vigilance, Special Checking Squad Railways. Today on 04.05.2005 he came to drop Jt. Director Vigilance, Railway Board in train No. 2954 at coach No. 82, berth No.
37. After dropping the passenger, complainant just reached at foot over bridge and received the call from passenger that some person took his ticket by posing him to be T.T.E. and not returned back. On enquiring from other T.T.E., the passenger came to know that some person played fraud upon him. Complainant took Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, S.I/ R.P.F. and reached current ticket counter. Complainant informed concerned clerk at window that some person posed himself as T.T.E. and fraudulently took ticket of passenger Deepak Chopra, s/o Late Sh. G.R. Chopra. At that time one person filled Reservation Cancellation Form along with ticket. Window clerk gave signal that it is the same ticket which was taken fraudulently from the passenger. The complainant apprehended the accused at which the accused disclosed his name and parentage. The ticket of passenger bearing PNR No. 2313429118 was also taken by the complainant from the FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 2 of 9 possession of the accused. On the basis of complaint, the case U/s 419/420/170 IPC was registered against the accused and investigation was marked to HC Mahaveer Singh. After registration of case, the site plan was prepared, accused Sushil Kumar was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The disclosure statement of accused Sushil Kumar was recorded and pointing out memo of place of occurrence were prepared. The statement of witnesses was recorded and specimen signature of accused Sushil Kumar were obtained. During investigation, the application form for cancellation of PNR no. 2313429118 was taken from railway authorities and was sent to FSL along with specimen handwriting of accused Sushil. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet filed U/s 173 Cr. P.C. for the offence U/s 419/420/170 IPC.
2. On 04.07.2005 the accused was supplied with copy of charge sheet and after compliance of 207 Cr. P.C. the charges were framed against the accused U/s 419/420/170 IPC on 13.01.2006.
3. In order to prove the case Prosecution got examined seven witnesses. On 06.09.2014, during the course of evidence accused submitted that in order to avoid any delay in the trial he wants to admit certain documents. Accused stated that he will not dispute the genuineness and admits the complaint Ex.PW4/B, FIR Ex.PW1/A, Site plan, seizure memo of the ticket and mobile etc. Ex.PW4/C, FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 3 of 9 arrest memo Ex.PW4/D, personal search memo Ex.PW4/E, Disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A, FSL report and 06 requisition slips of railways.
4. The prosecution got examined HC Ranjit Singh as PW1 who deposed that on 04.05.2005 at about 07:30PM he received the rukka and registered the case FIR No. 50/05 and proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A and also proved the endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
5. Prosecution further examined Sh. Mathura Dutt, Reservation Clerk as PW2 who deposed that on the day of incident he was on duty as reservation clerk at counter no. 578 where Inspector Divakar, Vigilance informed him at about 04:00 PM that one person would reach to reservation counter for cancellation of reservation ticket regarding train no. 2954 and directed to inform and as well as indicate him when such person reached there. PW2 further deposed that when accused Sushil Kumar reached at the counter, he informed Inspector Divakar in regard to accused Sushil. PW2 correctly identified the accused in the court. During cross-examination, PW2 stated that he did not cancel the ticket as he was already informed by Inspector Divakar in regard of the ticket.
6. Prosecution further got examined SI Ashok Kumar as PW3. FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 4 of 9 PW3 deposed that during enquiry he sent a letter to Director CFSL, Rohini.
7. Prosecution examined SI Sunil Kumar Divakar as PW4 who deposed that on 04.05.2005, at about 16:30 he went to HNRS to see off Sh. Dev Mani, Jt. Director Vigilance, Railways having his seat in the coach no. A-2, berth no. 37 in train no. 2954. After departure of train, he received a call from the passenger Dev Mani regarding fraudulently taking of ticket of co-passenger Sh. Deepak Chopra by some persons after posing himself to be T.T.E. at which PW4 reached at current reservation counter situated at Platform No.1 and gave instruction to the clerical staff. PW4 further deposed that at about 17:10 accused came for refunding the amount of ticket amounting to Rs.5995/- for three adults namely Deepak Chopra, K.S Chopra and Pushpa Mala Chopra. PW4 proved the statement taken in the handwriting of accused as Ex.PW4/A. PW4 also proved a written complaint by him as Ex.PW4/B, seizure memo as Ex.PW4/C, arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW4/D and the personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW4/E.
8. Prosecution examined SI Hoshiyar Singh as PW5 who deposed that on 04.05.2005 at 17:00 hours while being present at Plat form No. 6-7, Inspector Sunil Divakar informed him regarding fraudulently taking of ticket from passenger. PW5 further deposed FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 5 of 9 that he along with Inspector Sunil Divakar reached at current reservation counter and at the instance of counter clerk the accused was apprehended along with original ticket and took the accused to HNRS Police Station where FIR was lodged and investigation was carried out.
9. Prosecution examined Sh. Deepak Chopra, s/o Late. Sh. G.R. Chopra as PW6 who deposed that on 04.05.2005 he was travelling in Rajdhani Express Train in boogie no. 3 with the seats in the category of RAC where accused met him in railway type uniform and also represented him as Railway Officer. PW6 further deposed that the accused induced him that confirmed seats are available with him and after five minutes he informed him that the confirmed seats are available in boogie no.1 and asked him to move to bogie no.1 along with luggage. PW6 also deposed that accused took their ticket on the pretext of making the endorsement on it and after entering the bogie no.1 the accused disappeared. PW6 informed the other T.T.E. In the train who requested him to give his statement regarding same and continue the journey.
10. Prosecution examined Ct. Ravidner as PW7 who deposed that on 04.05.2005 he joined the investigation and IO took the possession of railway ticket, reservation form, mobile phone vide seizure memo already Ex.PW4/C and accused was arrested by IO. FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 6 of 9 PW7 proved the reservation ticket bearing PNR no. 2313429118 and reservation form as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively. The accused has already given his statement that he will not dispute the identity of the mobile phone.
11. On 06.09.2014, during the course of evidence accused submitted that in order to avoid any delay in the trial he wants to admit certain documents. Accused stated that he will not dispute the genuineness and admits the complaint Ex.PW4/B, FIR Ex.PW1/A, Site plan, seizure memo of the ticket and mobile etc. Ex.PW4/C, arrest memo Ex.PW4/D, personal search memo Ex.PW4/E, Disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A, FSL report and 06 requisition slips of railways.
11.1 In view of admission of certain documents by the accused Ld. APP for the State closed P.E.
12. On 20.09.2014, the statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. got recorded in which he wished to not to lead D.E.
13. Arguments at length advanced by both the sides.
14. Ld. LAC Sh. V.K. Jain submitted that as per testimony of witnesses the accused never said to anybody that he is the railway employee and it is only the perception of passenger Deepak Chopra that he construed the accused as railway employee. Ld. LAC further FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 7 of 9 argued that the passengers should have taken all the care and precaution for ascertaining the identity of the person who was asking for ticket from him. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the accused is liable to acquit from the case.
15. It is observed by this court that the accused had admitted the complaint Ex.PW4/B, FIR Ex.PW1/A, Site plan, seizure memo of the ticket and mobile etc. Ex.PW4/C, arrest memo Ex.PW4/D, personal search memo Ex.PW4/E, Disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A, FSL report and 06 requisition slips of railways. It is also observed that PW2, PW4, PW5 and PW6 deposed in very firm manner and has very powerfully supported the story of prosecution. Prosecution Witnesses has correctly identified the accused and also property recovered form the accused whereas, during cross examination Ld. Defence Counsel of the accused has failed to give any single dent to the story of prosecution. There is nothing on record to show that the PWs have given any contradictory depositions or the testimony is doubtful in any manner. The prosecution has successfully proved the possession of ticket, and also the handwriting of accused on the form. Apart from any other thing, the accused himself has admitted the seizure memo of the ticket taken from passenger Deepak Chopra and the mobile phone seized from him and things admitted by one party is need not to be proved by the counterpart.
FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 8 of 9
16. In view of above observations, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case regarding possession of ticket of passenger. The prosecution has also proved that the accused has fraudulently induced passenger Deepak Chopra and intentionally pretended himself to be railway employee and induced Sh. Deepak Chopra to hand over his ticket to him, hence, the prosecution has proved the charges U/s 170 & 419 IPC against the accused Sushil Kumar. The prosecution has also successfully proved that the accused Sushil Kumar has fraudulently induced the passenger Deepak Chopra to hand over his journey ticket to the accused by posing himself to be railway employee and intentionally caused wrongful loss to passenger Deepak Chopra and caused wrongful gain for himself with intention to do so and hence, the accused - Sushil Kumar is convicted for the offence U/s 170/419/420 IPC. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the convict free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on this 10.10.2014.
(AJAY KUMAR MALIK) MM(Central)-04/THC 10.10.2014.
FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 9 of 9 FIR No. 50/05 PS: HNRS 10.10.2014 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused - Sushil Kumar Produced from J.C. assisted by Ld. LAC Sh. V.K. Jain.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused - Sushil Kumar is convicted for the offence U/s 419/420/170 IPC.
It is submitted by Ld. APP that accused be sentenced for maximum period of punishment in the present case. It is submitted by Ld. LAC that accused is sole bread earner of his family and is in judicial custody for considerable time.
It is further submitted that the accused was in J/C after his fresh arrest in the present matter and also remained in custody for considerable time after his arrest in the offence U/s 174 (A) IPC.
In view of submissions from both sides, accused Sushil Kumar is sentenced to simple imprisonment for the period which he has already undergone in judicial custody.
Original documents be returned to rightful owner against countersigned photocopy of same.
File be consigned to record room after due completion.
(AJAY KUMAR MALIK) MM (Central)-04/NEW DELHI 10.10.2014 FIR NO. 50/05 State Vs. Sushil Kumar Page No. 10 of 9