Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjiv Kumar Etc. on 27 February, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI POORAN CHAND
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No.594/95
P.S. Tilak Nagar
U/s. 186/353/332 IPC
State vs. Sanjiv Kumar etc.
Sl. no of the case : 97/2
Date of commission of : 16-8-95
offence
Date of institution : 03.02.96
Name of Complainant : SI Raj Pal Dabas
Name, parentage and : 1.Sanjiv Kumar S/o Shanker Lal
address of the accused R/o H.No.RZ-86, Binda Pur Delhi PS
Janak Puri
2.Rajinder Singh & Bunti & Kala S/o
Sohan Singh R/o 403 DESU Colony
Shalimar Delhi ( declared PO on 1.2.99)
3.Sanjiv Kumar S/o Kashmiri Lal R/o
WZ-600 Tri nagar Rani Bagh Delhi
4.Sandeep Sharma S/o Sadhu Ram
R/o RZ-B 42 Binda Pur extention Uttam
Nagar PS Janak Puri Delhi
Offence complaint of : U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : convicted
Date of reserve of order : 26.02.08
Date of order : 26.02.08
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION 2
1. All the accused were charged on the allegations that on the 16.8.95 at about 4.30 PM at A block, JJ Colony Chokhandi road Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Tialk Nagar all the accused in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed SI Raj Pal Dabas and Ct. Mahinder Singh in discharge of their public functions thereby all the accused committed an offence punishable u/s 186/34 IPC. Secondly on the same date time and place all the accused in furtherance of their common intention also used criminal force qua SI Raj Pal Dabas and Ct. Mahnder Singh who were public servants and while they were executing of their duties as such public servants and all the accused used criminal force with intend to prevent them from discharging their duties as such public servants thereby all the accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 353/34 IPC . Thirdly on the same date time and place all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to ct. Mahender Singh and SI Raj Pal Dabas and thereby all the accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 332/34 IPC and within my cognizance.
2. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined PW1 Ct. Rajbir Singh who has stated that on 16.8.95 he was om emergency duty at about 5 PM one call received he along with ASI 3 Som Pal were present in front of A block Chaukhandi. There SI Raj Pal and Ct. Mahender Singh were present in civil uniform . Accused Sanjiv was caught hold by SI Raj Pal and accused Sandeep was caught hold by Ct. Mahender Singh . There is one Maruti car no. DL 4 CA-4576 with fake number and original number written on glass of car is DL 3CE 3929 in the mean time HC Hoshihar singh and SHO came at the spot. He remained on the spot and both the accused were taken to DDU Hospital by SI Raj Pal and Ct. Mahender Singh. Thereafter they came back at the spot and Rukka was given to him for registration of case and after registration of case he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. His statement was recorded by the IO. Confessional statement of accused persons were recorded which are ex.PW1/A to 1/D which bears his signature. Pointing out memo ex.PW1/E bears his signature .
3. PW2 Dr. B. Mishra who has stated that on 16.8.95 he was posted at DDU hospital as CMO he examined patient Ct. Mohinder Singh . MLC prepared by his Assistant Dr.R.S. Disodu which is ex.PW2/A bears the signature of said doctor at point A. The MLC prepared by the said doctor in his presence. He has also proved the MLC of SI Raj Pal prepared by the said doctor which is ex.PW2/B. 4
4. PW3 Ct. Mohinder Singh who stated that on 16.8.95 he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar and was including in the investigation of a case u/s 302 IPC along with SI Rajpal Dabas. They were on patrolling duty . He further states that he was in civil uniform and SI Raj Pal was in police uniform. They were present at about 4.30 PM at A block JJ Colony Chaukhandi Road one Maruti car came from Tilak Nagar side having no. DL 4CA 4576 and one Bunti was driving the car. One Sanjiv @ Golay was sitting on the front side by the side of driver and in the rear seat Sanjiv Kumar and one Sandeep were sitting. Their names ascertained later on. The above said car was coming at a very fast speed and it was indicated to stop by SI Rajpal Dabas. The front number plate was having the number of paper. After stopping it was found that the number engraved on the glasses was different and it was DL 3 CE 3938. They were directed to show the papers of the ownership of the vehicle. All the accused persons said to each other to show the papers of the car. SI Raj Pal was standing on the driver side and he was standing on the opposite side. They did not show the paper and accused Bunti said that take out the knife and attack. From the rear seat Sanjiv Gupta came and caught hold of SI Raj Pal Dabas and Bunti attacked SI Raj Pal and gave fist blows on his face. He was caught hold by Sanjiv @ Golay who came from front 5 seal and Sandeep gave him fist blows on his face. He sustained injuries on his lit. SI Raj Pal apprehended Sanjiv Gupta and he apprehended Sanjiv @ Golay. Thereafter SI Sompal came and they were sent for medical examination to DDU hospital. Accused Sanjiv @ Golay and Sanjiv Gupta were apprehended at the spot and the maruti car was also seized at the spot vide memo ex.PW2/A which bears his signature at point A. After coming from the hospital at the spot told all the facts to SI Som Pal. ASI Som Pal prepared a tehir and got the case registered through Ct. Rajbir Singh. . Both the accused Sanjiv @ Golay and accused Sanjiv Gupta both were arrested vide personal search memo ex.PW2/B and C both bears his signature at point A. All the accused are correctly identified by the witness.
5. PW4 ASI Sher Pal who proved the copy of FIR no. 532/95 u/s 379 IPC of PS Saraswati Vihar as ex.PW4/A.
6. PW5 SI Raj Pal who has stated the same facts as stated by PW3. He further states that his statement was recorded by the IO which is ex.PW5/A. He also proved the personal search of the accused persons which are ex.PW4/B and 4/C which bears his signature at point A. IO also seized the vehicle vide memo ex.pW2/A. He has proved the personal search memo of accused Sandeep which is ex.PW5/B which bears his signature at point B. 6
7. PW6 ASI Som Pal who is the IO of this case. He has stated that on 16.8.95 he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar on that day on receipt of DD No.11A and he along with Ct. Rajbir reached at the spot. He prepared rukka which is ex.PW6/A and he prepared site plan which is ex.PW6/B. He proved the pointing out memo ex.PW1/E prepared. He proved the personal search of accused Sanjiv as ex.PW2/C accused Sandeep ex.PW5/B and disclosure statement of accused Sanjeev ex.PW1/A and Sandeep ex.PW1/C. On next date other two accused Rajender and Sanjiv S/o Kashmere Lal were also arrested vide memo 6/C and 2/B and they also made disclosure statement which are ex. PW1/B and D and pointing out memo of alleged theft of car which is ex.PW6/D. He correctly identified all the accused persons.
8. PW7 Vijay Malik ACP crime branch who has stated that on 5.11.95 he was posted as ACP at PS Tilak Nagar and after pursuing the file and investigation of case FIR No.594/95 and by satisfying himself from the investigation he made a request u/s 195 Cr.PC of initiating action against all the four accused persons. His application u/s 195 C.PC is ex.PW7/A which bears his signature at point A. He also confirmed that SI Raj Pal and Ct. Mahender Singh were on official duty for investigation of case FIR No. 571/95 vide DD entry 7 no.50B dt.16.8.95.
9. PW8 HC Mahinder Singh he proved the copy of FIR of this case ex.PW8/A which bears his signature at point A. Rukka ex.PW6/A bears his signature at point B. He has proved DD entry register and relevant entries dt.16.8.95 DD no.11A and same DD was marked to ASI Som Pal. He proved the copy of DD ex.PW6/B and he also proved the another DD no.50B for departure of SI Raj Pal and Ct. Mahinder Singh for investigation of case FIR No.571/95 u/s 302 IPC which is ex.PW6/C.
10. PW9 SI Tika Ram who has stated that he brought the Goshwara register PS Sarasvati Vihar 1997 vide entry no.288 FIR No.523/95 has been destroyed . Copy of the relevant page of the register is ex.PW9/A.
11. Thereafter all the accused persons have been examined U/s 313 read with Section 281 Cr.PC in which they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They claimed to be innocent. No defence evidence was led by them.
12. I have heard ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused persons and perused the material on record carefully.
13. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution has to prove its case on the judicial file beyond reasonable doubts and such doubts in the prosecution story entitle the accused to acquittal. 8 In a case reported as Rama Kant Rai V/s. Madan Rai 2003 (8) Scale 243 it has been ruled that a person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise particular to each case. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously, be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how may of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analyze, rest on a brust common sense and, ultimately, on the 9 trained intuition of judge.
14. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed ligitimization of trivailities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. In Sucha Singh and Anr V/s State of Punjab J.T. 20- 3 (6) S.C. 248 it has been ruled that: exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and St. Vs. Sita Ram.sxw thereby destroy social defence, Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilt escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (See: Gurbachan Singh V/s. Satal Singh and oth res J.T. 1989 (4) S.C. 38; A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 209. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forwarded by the accused. (See: State of U.P. V/s Ashok Kumar Srivastava J.T.1992 (1) S.C. 340; AIR 1992 S.C. 840. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It is must grow of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether if the meticulous hypersensitivity for eliminate a rare innocent 10 from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. (See: Inder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1978 S.C. 1091). Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. " A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely see that no innocent man ins punished. Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are his public duties." Per Viscount Simon in Stirland V/s. Director of Public Prosecution, 1994 AC (P.C.) 315 quoted in State of U.P. V/s. Anil Singh JT. 1988 (3) SC 491; A.I. R 1988 S.C. 1998 . Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from am zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth".
15. In Visveswarn V/S. State 2003 Rajdhani Law Reporter 350 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that in a criminal trial duty of the courts is not to let off criminals on petty discrepancies of minor contradictions. They must show responsibility. Ground realities must be appreciated. Accused be not allowed the benefit of defective investigation. Prosecution lapses cannot be allowed to become escape route of criminals. If there is sufficient proof of guilt by border probability, court must ignore technical objections.
16. Now i come to the facts of the case. It is stated on behalf of 11 all the accused persons that complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC has not been proved on record. No MLC of accused persons is on record. Proceedings of investigation of case u/s 302 IPC is also not filed on record to show that injured were on duty. The alleged knife is also not recovered. TIP of accused persons were not conducted and no public person was cited as a witness in this case and school where the incident was taken place is also not shown in the site plan.
17. On the other hand it is stated by the Ld. State counsel that discrepancies pointed out by the accused persons are of minor in nature which does not disproved the case of the prosecution. It is also stated that complainant and other witnesses have supported the case of prosecution in toto accused persons be convicted for the offences charged.
18. In view of my above discussions I agree with the state counsel that discrepancies pointed out by accused persons are of minor nature. So far as TIP of accused persons is concerned it is not necessary to conduct TIP when during the scuffle accused persons and injured have seen themselves for a considerable time at the spot and sustained injures. So far as complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC is concerned complaint is duly proved by PW7 . So far as MLC of accused persons is concerned it is not necessary each and every 12 case MLC should be on record. I have gone through the testimony of PW Ct. Mahinder Singh and SI Raj Pal both the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and even during cross examination their testimony remained unimpeached. They have cited each and every act of the accused persons. So far as minor discrepancies pointed out by the accused persons that one of th witness has stated that accused gave fist blow when there was a scuffle between two parties. It is not always necessary to note down the each and every act of the accused persons which is not possible . In these circumstances prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of all the witnesses are corroborated with each other.
19. I have also perused the MLC of both the injured Ct. Mahinder singh and SI Raj Pal the injuries is of simple nature which is opined as blunt injury. MLC are duly proved.
20. In view of my above discussions prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt . All the accused persons are convicted for the offences charged against them.
Announced in the open court
on 26.02.08) (POORAN CHAND)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NEW DELHI
13
IN THE COURT OF SHRI POORAN CHAND
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No.594/95
P.S. Tilak Nagar
U/s. 186/353/332 IPC
State vs. Sanjiv Kumar etc.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
1. I have heard arguments on point of sentence from both sides.
2. It is argued on behalf of convict Sanjiv S/o Shanker Lalby legal aid counsel Sh.S.K. Soni that no previous conviction is enforced. He is a first offender . He is having four children and old aged mother . He is only bread earner in his family. Convict his repent so much . He is in J/C for the last about 8 months. He is facing trial since 1995.
3. It is argued on behalf of convict Sandeep by his counsel that no previous conviction is enforced. He is a first offender . He is having two children . He is only bread earner in his family. His conduct during trial is remained up to the mark. He is law abiding citizen.
4. It is argued on behalf of convict Sanjiv S/o Kashmiri Lal by his counsel that no previous conviction is enforced. He is a first offender . He is having minor children . He is only bread earner in his family. Convict his repent so much . Therefore being the first offender he may be released on probation of good conduct on furnishing bond. He is facing trial since 1995. On behalf of other convicts request of 14 probation is also made.
5. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued that keeping in view the circumstances of the case it is not fit case where convict persons should be released on probation of good conduct as offence committed by them is not entitled them to be released on probation. They have obstructed public servants while discharging their duties.
6. Heard.
7. It is correct that accused persons are facing trial since 1995. From the record it is also clear that convict Sanjiv S/o Shanker Lal is in J/C for the last about 8 months. Convict Sandeep and Sanjiv S/o Kashmiri Lal remained in J/C for about 12 days . Admittedly it is the first offence of the accused persons as no previous conviction is enforced against the convicts. Keeping in view the act of the convicts they have obstructed the public official i.e. Police official while discharging their duties . Conduct of the convicts do not entitled them to release on probation. Therefore request of all the convicts to be released on probation is declined.
8. As it is the first offence for all the convicts and they are facing trial since 1995 keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and their age. As at the time of commission of offence all the 15 convicts were between 20 to 21 years of age. They h ave requested to give them chance to reform themselves . Therefore keeping in view the condition of all the convicts as they are having their family fully dependent upon them it will serve in the interest of justice if all the convicts are sentenced for the period already undergone by them. Hence I order accordingly. Copy of this order and judgment be given to all the convicts free of costs. BB of convict Sandeep and Sanjiv s/o Kashmiri Lal stands cancelled. Sureties are discharged. Accused Sanjiv be released from Jail if not required in any other case. File be consigned to record room with the direction to the Incharge record room not destroy the file as one of the accused is PO in this case.
(Announced in open court
on 27.02.2008) (POORAN CHAND)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI.
16
FIR NO. 594/95
27.2.08
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Sanjiv S/o Shanker Lal produced from J/C with Sh.S.K. Soni LAC.
Convict Sanjiv and Sandeep on bail.
Convict/accused Rajinder is PO.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Vide my separate order on the point of sentence all the convicts are sentenced for the period already undergone by them. Hence I order accordingly. Copy of this order and judgment be given to all the convicts free of costs. BB of convict Sandeep and Sanjiv s/o Kashmiri Lal stands cancelled. Sureties are discharged. Accused Sanjiv be released from Jail if not required in any other case. File be consigned to record room with the direction to the Incharge record room not destroy the file as one of the accused is PO in this case (POORAN CHAND) MM/ROHINI 17