Delhi District Court
State vs . Praveen on 27 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR GAUTAM
ACMM / NORTH EAST : KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Praveen
FIR No : 18/2010
CR No. : 464834/15
U/S : 419/120-B
PS : Sonia Vihar
1 FIR No. of the case : 18/2010
2 Date of commission of offence : 28.1.2010
3 Date of institution of the case : 04.8.2011
4 Name of the complainant (if any) : Ct. Ravindra Kumar
5 Name of accused person
parentage and address : Praveen s/o Azad Singh
R/o Village Nandal P.S.
Maham, Distt. Rohtak
(Haryana)
6 Offence complained of or proved : U/s 419/120B IPC
7 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 Date of arguments : 27.1.2020
9 Date of judgment/final arguments : 27.1.2020
10 Final order : Acquitted
Judgment :
Vide this judgment, I shall decide this case under Section 419/120B
IPC. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
State Vs. Parveen Page no.1/9
1.Prosecution has alleged that on 28.1.2010 the accused enterred in to a criminal conspiracy with another person for impersonating him for giving examination of Constable Male (Executive), 2009 Phase-II in Delhi Police and on the aforesaid date at 12 pm at PTS Wazirabad ground, Sonia Vihar in pursuance of the said conspiracy the said person pretending himself to be the accused, has appeared in place of the accused in the written examination. The accused was arrested under Section 419/120 B IPC and chargesheeted after investigation.
2. Accused appeared before this Court and after compliance under Section 207 IPC, charge under section 419/120B IPC was framed against him vide order dated 22.8.2016 and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. PW-1 H.C Gopal Singh has handed over the copy of FIR and original Rukka to the IO. H.C Ravinder Kumar Tomar is also shown as PW- 1 who is the complainant of the case. PW-3 HC Anil has assisted in the investigation of the case along with IO. PW-4 ASI Puran Singh has also assisted in the investigation of the case alongwit the IO. PW-5 SI Subhash Chand was the first IO of the case. P.W-6 Inspector Vijay Bhushan was the State Vs. Parveen Page no.2/9 second IO of the case. Accused admitted admitted the genuineness of the FIR registered in the present case and formal proof of the said document was dispensed with. Thereafter, PE was closed as no other witness remained to be examined.
4. The version of the prosecution as adduced in its evidence is that on 28.01.2010 PW-1 HC Ravinder Kumar was posted as constable at PS Phaharganj and on that day his duty was at ground no.4, PTS Wazirabad, Delhi where recruitment of constable was going on and his duty was to conduct finger print at the biometric machine. At about 12 pm after conducting first biometric finger print of second batch he took the candidate to second and last biometric and the admit card of the candidate were distributed. He started the matching the name and photograph of the candidate pasted on admit card with the candidate. Then the photograph of one candidate namely Praveen did not match with the photograph. The admit card was having PE & MT No. 1177193 Ex.PW1/A. The candidate managed to flee from the spot. He tried to apprehend the accused but failed. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused in court.
5. Thereafter PE was closed as all the material witnesses had been State Vs. Parveen Page no.3/9 examined. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused. The accused submitted that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. Accused chose not to lead DE and the matter was fixed for Final Arguments.
6. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the material on record.
7. Ld. APP for the State has contended that on the evidence which has come on record, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused has submitted that the accused was called by the police official at PS Sonia Vihar as for some inquiry and signatures were obtained on the blank papers and was falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that all the writing work was done at the police station.
State Vs. Parveen Page no.4/9
9. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused in a criminal conspiracy with one other person has deputed that other person to give the examination of Constable (Executive 2009) on his behalf. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the other person who the accused has allegedly deputed to give examination on his behalf has not been arrested, even his identity is not known. It is the case of the prosecution that the said other person has fled away from the spot when the complainant PW1 tried to match the photograph of the candidate with the photograph which was on the admit card. PW1 tried to apprehend that other person but he managed to flee away from the spot.
10. It has come in the evidence that the PTS ground where the examination was to be conducted was covered by boundary wall CCTV cameras were also installed at the said ground. PW1 HC Ravinder Kumar has also stated that adjoining the spot there were many tents which were occupied by the police of different states. Therefore, in the presence of several people and the boundary wall, the version put forth by the prosecution that the other person managed to flee away from the spot is not beyond reasonable doubt.
State Vs. Parveen Page no.5/9
11. Moreover, in the normal course of the circumstances, if the person had fled away then in that case the police would had obtained CCTV footage for ascertaining the identification of the person who has fled away. PW6 has also stated in his cross-examination that he had given a letter to concerned authority at Kingsway Camp, Police line for providing CCTV footage regarding the incident but the prosecution has not proved any such document on record. There is also no evidence on record that the police has obtained any such footage or such footage was examined to ascertain the identity of the person who has run away from the spot. Therefore, the same also creates doubt on the version of the prosecution case.
12. PW-1 HC Ravinder Kumar has deposed that after completion of first bio-matric finger print, when he was conducting second and last biometric finger print, he found that one candidate's face was exactly not matching with the photo attached. The prosecution has not produced on record the first biometric finger prints which was done of the other person in place of the accused to corroborate the testimony of the PW-1 which further creates doubts on the story of the prosecution.
13. As per DD no.23B dated 28.01.2010 of PS Sonia Vihar, it was State Vs. Parveen Page no.6/9 informed that one boy was arrested at PTS Wazirabad during the physical test, however, it is an admitted case that no such person was arrested on the spot as alleged in the DD no.23B, which also creates doubts on the story of the prosecution.
14. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B of the indian Penal Code it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is no doubt true that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and, therefore, from established facts inference could be drawn but there must be some material from which it would be reasonable to establish a connection between the allegd conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the said conspiracy. In the present case, there is no materials produced even for inferring a conspiracy between the two accused persons. The allegation must be corroborated by some documentary evidence. In the present case, no material has been produced by the prosecution to establish that there was any conspiracy between the accused with the other person either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
15. In view of my above discussions, false implication of the accused may not be ruled out. In fact, the prosecution has failed to prove the State Vs. Parveen Page no.7/9 allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I hereby give benefit of doubt to the accused. Accused is hereby acquitted of all the charges. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD
KUMAR GAUTAM
KUMAR Date: 2020.01.27
GAUTAM 17:29:22 +0530
Announced in Open Court (VINOD KUMAR GAUTAM)
On 27h JANUARY, 2020 Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
NE/KKD Courts/Delhi
State Vs. Parveen Page no.8/9
State Vs. Parveen
FIR No. 18/2010
CR No. 464834/15
P.S. Sonia Vihar
27.01.2020
Present: Sh. S.K. Dubey, Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Heard arguments.
Put up for orders at 4 pm.
(Vinod Kumar Gautam)
ACMM/NE/KKD COURTS
27.01.2020
At 4 pm.
Present: Sh. S.K. Dubey, Ld. APP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Vide my separate judgment, the accused Parveen is acquitted in the present case. Fresh bail bonds u/s 437-A CrPC in the sum of Rs.20,000/- are furnished by the accused and accepted for the period of six months from today. Previous bail bonds stand cancelled and surety is discharged. Any documents of the accused or his previous surety on record be returned to them after cancellation of endorsement.
File be consigned to record room.
(Vinod Kumar Gautam) ACMM/NE/KKD COURTS 27.01.2020 State Vs. Parveen Page no.9/9