Delhi District Court
State vs . Satwant Singh . on 1 May, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI
State Vs. Satwant Singh .
FIR No. 33/99
PS: Keshav Puram
U/s 186/353/332 IPC
Case ID No. 02401Ro128972000
JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 40/2
B) The date of commission : 03.02.1999
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : Sh. Rajiv Sharma s/o Sh. Om
Parkash Sharma
r/o H.No.74A/2, Ashoka Apartment,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi
D) The name & address of accused : Satwant Singh
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh
R/o 3358/3, Gali No.3, Narang Colony,
Tri Nagar, Delhi
E) Offences complained of : U/s 186/353/332 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G) Final order : Acquitted.
H) The date of such order : 01.05.2012
FIR No.33/99 Page No.1/10
2
Date of Institution: 26.02.2000
Judgment reserved on: 01.05.2012
Judgment announced on: 01.05.2012
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 03.02.99 at about 3.15 pm at Gali No. 3, Narang Colony, Delhi, the accused namely Satwant Singh obstructed the complainant namely Sh. Rajiv Sharma who was posted as JE in MCD, Rohini Zone and thus, being public servant, in discharge of his public functions/duties and also assaulted or used criminal force with the intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties as public servant and caused simple hurt to him.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet in respect of offences U/s 186/353/332 IPC was prepared and filed in the Court against accused and accordingly, cognizance was taken by Ld. Predecessor.
3. Complete copies were supplied to accused as per compliance of section 207 Cr.PC and arguments on charge were heard. Ld Predecessor framed the charge for the offences U/s 186/353/332 IPC against accused vide order dated 02.08.02.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sharma/complainant, PW2 Sh. Ramji Lal, PW3 Ct. Lal Chand, PW4 Sh. Daryao Singh and PW5 ASI Satyavir.
FIR No.33/99 Page No.2/10 3
5. Thereafter, the statement u/s 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C of accused was recorded wherein his stand is of general denial. He stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. He further stated that after 23 hours of the demolition drive, some police officials came and made inquiry about the owner of H.No. 3558 and took him to PS Keshav Puram and got falsely implicated him in this case. He also opted to lead defence evidence but did not produce any witness towards DE and ultimately closed his evidence on 26.03.12.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel Sh. R.S.Dhaka Adv on behalf of accused. I have also carefully perused the material available on record.
7. While opening the arguments, Ld APP for the State has argued that PW1 has fully supported the case of prosecution. Thus, the offences charged against the accused are duly proved and accused should be convicted accordingly. Ld APP for the State also referred to the statement of PW5 namely ASI Satya Vir as well as to the statement of PW3 Ct. Lal Chand in support of her contention that the ocular evidence coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, clearly establish the charges levelled against the accused.
8. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld counsel of accused that there are various material contradictions appearing in the statements of prosecution witnesses examined in this case. While referring to the testimonies of PW2 namely Sh. Ramji Lal and of PW4 namely Sh. Daryao Singh, he has argued that the said witnesses have not FIR No.33/99 Page No.3/10 4 supported the prosecution story on material points. Next bone of contention raised on behalf of accused is that PW1 Sh. Rajiv Sharma did not disclose his identity as public servant to the accused even as per the case of prosecution without which the charges levelled against the accused can not be said to have been proved. In this regard, he referred to the relevant portion of the cross examination of PW1 whereby he testified that he had told the mason that he had come from MCD for removal of encroachment but also admitted that he did not tell this fact to the police in his statement. Ld defence counsel argued that there is an improvement in the statement given by complainant i.e PW1 Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sharma and thus, same should not be believed at all. Ld. counsel further submitted that the testimonies of PW2 and PW4 have also demolished the prosecution story as the said witnesses have failed to support the prosecution story on material points. Therefore, sufficient doubt is created in the case of prosecution benefit of which must be given to the accused.
9. The alleged eye witnesses/public servants cited by prosecution i.e the complainant Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Sh. Ramji Lal and Sh. Daryao Singh have been examined as PW1, PW2 and PW4 respectively. However out of said three prosecution witnesses, PW2 and PW4 have not supported the case of prosecution on material points regarding the identity of the person who voluntarily obstructed the complainant namely Sh. Rajiv Sharma in discharge of his public duties or assaulted or used criminal force with intent to prevent him from discharging his said duty as public servant.
PW1 namely Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sharma who is the complainant in this case, FIR No.33/99 Page No.4/10 5 deposed that on 03.02.99 at 3.30 pm, he was posted as JE in MCD, Rohini Zone and had gone alongwith Sh. Daryao Singh (PW4) and Sh. Ramji Lal (PW2) to Narang Colony, Lawrence Road after receipt of information from Zonal Engineer that encroachment was being made there by constructing a pillar on the road. He further deposed that accused was present there and he started abusing the labour which told him that demolition was being done as per his instructions on which the accused caught hold of his collar and started beating him. He further testified that some unknown person had called the police on which he went to PS Keshav Puram and gave statement Ex.PW1/A and was also got medically examined in Hindu Rao Hospital.
During his cross examination, he testified that there was no written order from Zonal Engineer of MCD for demolishing the said construction. He had told the mason who was working that he had come from MCD for removal of encroachment but admitted that he did not tell this fact to the police in his statement Ex.PW1/A. He denied the suggestion that he did not inform even mason that he was from MCD or that accused did not cause any obstruction or give any beatings to him as alleged. He further denied that he had got the accused falsely implicated as he had refused to pay him bribe.
PW2 Sh. Ramji Lal deposed that on 03.02.99 when he had accompanied Sh. Rajiv Sharma JE and Sh. Daryao Singh to Gali no.3, Narang Colony for removing the illegal encroachment, one person came and started making arguments with Sh. Rajiv Sharma JE and misbehaved with him. However, he did not identify the present accused to be the person who had obstructed Sh. Rajiv Sharma JE or caused injuries to him despite the fact FIR No.33/99 Page No.5/10 6 that he was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and his attention was drawn towards the accused present before the Court. He testified that he was not in a position to identify the accused as the incident had taken place about 10 years back and due to his old age.
PW4 Sh. Daryao Singh deposed that in the year 1999, he had accompanied Sh. Rajiv Sharma JE (PW1) alongwith Sh. Ramji Lal (PW2) for removing the encroachment in street no. 3, Narang Colony. He did not know as to whether the owner of the house where one pillar had been illegally constructed, was present there or not. He deposed that the said pillar was demolished by them as per direction of concerned JE and when he was leaving the spot after demolishing the pillar, he heard some noise coming from the spot. He saw that some quarrel was going on which he informed the PCR and by the time, he came back to the spot after informing the PCR, the quarrel was over. He categorically deposed that he did not see the accused prior to his appearing in the present case and police did not record his statement at all. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP on behalf of State during which all the suggestions on the lines of prosecution story were put to him but same were denied. He categorically denied that accused herein was present at the spot or had quarreled with said JE or gave any beatings to him in his presence. He also denied to have made any statement appearing at portion A1 to A2 of the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C mark D.
10. As already discussed above, the accused has been charged in respect of offences U/s 186/353/332 IPC. It is needless to mention here that complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC is sine quanon for proving the offence U/s 186 IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to prove FIR No.33/99 Page No.6/10 7 the complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC in the present case. For the purpose of proving the said complaint, the prosecution ought to have examined Sh. Hari Shankar Singh ZE (Works) MCD Rohini Zone who had filed complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C but same has not been done in this case. Not only this, there is no material collected during investigation which may show or even point out that complainant namely Sh Rajiv Kumar Sharma (PW1) was directly working under the supervision of Sh. Hari Shankar Singh during the relevant period and said Sh Hari Shankar Singh was even otherwise competent person to make complaint in writing in terms of Section 195 Cr.PC. That being so, Court is in agreement with the respectful submission made by Ld counsel of the accused that prosecution has failed to prove the charge in respect of offence U/s 186 IPC against the accused.
11. So far as the other offences are concerned, it is relevant to mention here that one of the essential ingredients for the purpose of proving the offences U/s 353/332 IPC is that those offences were committed against a public servant during discharge of his/her official duty as such public servant. In other words, it was essential for the prosecution to lead cogent evidence on record in order to show that complainant namely Sh Rajiv Kumar Sharma (PW1) was on official duty at the time when offences were allegedly committed against him. However, the prosecution has failed to do so in the present case. It is appropriate to mention here that investigating agency did not care to seize relevant record like pay slip, appointment letter, copy of service identity card etc. of the complainant Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sharma (PW1) during investigation in order to show that he was an employee of MCD during the relevant period. Not only this, the prosecution witnesses also failed to prove the attendance register of 03.02.99 when the incident allegedly took place FIR No.33/99 Page No.7/10 8 in order to prove that complainant Sh Rajiv Sharma was actually on official duty at the time of alleged incident or not. Moreover, investigating agency also did not consider it appropriate to examine any official from the office of MCD in order to ascertain as to whether or not, the complainant Sh. Rajiv Sharma was discharging his official duty at the time of alleged incident. There is no evidence available on record which may prove that complainant Sh. Rajiv Sharma was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 IPC. Likewise, no evidence has been led on record to prove that complainant Sh Rajiv Sharma was on official duty at the alleged date and time of the incident.
12. Furthermore, Court also finds considerable force in the submission made on behalf of accused that there are apparent and material contradictions appearing in the testimonies of PW1 Sh Rajiv Kumar Sharma (complainant), PW2 Sh. Ramji Lal and PW4 Sh. Daryao Singh. PW1 testified that he was obstructed in the discharge of his official duty and was beaten up by the accused at the time when the illegal construction was being demolished but PW4 deposed during his chief examination that illegal construction in the form of pillar had already been demolished and he had heard the noise coming from the spot while he was leaving the spot. PW1 deposed that some unknown person had called the police whereas PW4 claimed that he had informed the PCR. The Court also finds considerable force in the submission made by Ld. defence counsel that there is a material improvement made by complainant Sh. Rajiv Sharma in his testimony recorded as PW1 during trial as compared to the statement Ex.PW1/A made before the police. He never told the police that he had disclosed his identity as such to any person prior to the alleged incident but he improved his version by testifying during trial that he had told the FIR No.33/99 Page No.8/10 9 mason that he had come from MCD for removing the encroachment. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is nothing on record to show that the complainant (PW1) had disclosed his identity as public servant to the accused herein or that the accused had otherwise knowledge about the identity of complainant being public servant and despite said knowledge, the alleged offences were committed against the complainant. That being so, Court is of the view that testimony of PW1 Sh Rajiv Kumar Sharma does not inspire confidence and reasonable doubt has been created in the story of the prosecution.
13. It is well settled law that whenever doubt is created in the case of prosecution, benefit thereof must be given to the accused as prosecution has to stand on its own legs and is required to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also relevant to note that the investigating agency did not care to cite Dr. Sanjay Aggarwal of Hindu Rao Hospital who prepared the MLC of complainant, in the list of witnesses and consequently, the said doctor has also not been examined during trial with the result that MLC of complainant could not be proved during trial. In view of the same, it could not be proved during trial that the complainant had suffered any injury whatsoever. It was essential for the prosecution to prove that the complainant had actually received any injury during discharge of his official duty as such in order to prove the offence u/s 332 IPC which has not been done in this case.
14. The net result of the above discussion is that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, accused namely Satwant Singh is hereby acquitted in respect of offences U/s 186/353/332 IPC. His personal bond FIR No.33/99 Page No.9/10 10 stands cancelled. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement and after proper verification and identification. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (VIDYA PRAKASH)
Dated: 01.05.2012 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate1
Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No.33/99 Page No.10/10