Delhi District Court
State vs . Ghanshyam Meena Etc. on 4 January, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL-04): DELHI
FIR No. 329/1996
ID 02401R0701222003
U/s. 392/323/504/34 IPC
PS NDRS
State vs. Ghanshyam Meena etc.
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 1279/G/03
2. Date of commission of offence 19.3.1996
3. Name of complainant Sh. Karan Singh
4. Name of accused (i) Ghanshyam Meena
s/o. Sh. Shankar Lal
r/o. H No 4828 Mathura Road
Bhogal, New Delhi.
(ii) Jyoti Swaroop Malhotra
s/o. Sh. PN Malhotra
r/o. H No E-60 College Lane
Tilak Bridge, New Delhi.
(iii) Hari Singh Meena
s/o. Sh. Ramsaran Meena
r/o. H No. 790, Sunder Puri near
Mandirwali Gali, Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh.
5. Offence complained of u/s. 392/323/504/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Convicted
8. Date of such order 6.12.2010
329/1996-NDRS page1/
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:-
1. The present case was registered against all the three accused persons on the basis of a written complaint made by the complainant i.e. Sh. Karan Singh to Chowki Incharge GRP, Kosikalan, Mathura (UP). In his written complaint complainant had alleged that on 19.3.1996 he had boarded the Malwa Express Train from Kosikalan, Mathura (UP) for Delhi and he was mistakenly sitting in the III Tier coach of the train. It is further alleged that three TT boarded the train at Faridabad Railway Station and asked the passengers to show the tickets. It is further alleged that the complainant showed the monthly season ticket i.e. MST to TT on which the TT imposed fine of Rs. 124/- upon him whereas they had imposed a fine of Rs. 62/- only on other co-passengers who were similarly placed. It is further alleged that when the complainant requested the TT to reduce his fine, he was verbally abused and was also physically beaten up. It is further alleged that thereafter he was taken to New Delhi Railway Station where he was robbed of his money i.e. Rs. 2400/-, HMT watch as well as MST I Card. It is further alleged by the complainant that his head and moustache were got shaved off forcibly by those persons and they also obtained his signatures on some blank papers and was also threatened of being implicated in some criminal case. The said complaint of the complainant was forwarded to police station New Delhi Railway Station and investigation of the case was conducted by police of police 329/1996-NDRS page2/ station New Delhi Railway Station.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
Accused persons were summoned and provision of section 207 cr.p.c. were complied with.
3. The particulars of offence were explained to accused persons in Hindi language and a charge for offence punishable u/s. 392/323/504/34 IPC was framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trail and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. During the course of trial prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case.
5. PW1 is Sh. Karan Singh i.e. the complainant; PW2 is Sh.
Raman Lal i.e. an eye witness; PW3 is Insp Dharambir Singh; PW4 is Sh. Sanjay i.e. the barber; PW5 is Sh. Moolchand Sharma i.e. an eye witness.
6. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 3.7.2008 and statement of accused persons was recorded wherein accused persons denied the evidence that has come on record against them. They examined one witness in their defence and defence evidence was closed on 12.10.2009.
7. I have heard Ld APP for state as well as Ld counsel for accused persons and have also carefully gone through the file.
329/1996-NDRS page3/
8. PW1 Sh. Karan Singh deposed that on 19.3.1996 at about 9.00- 9.30 AM he alongwith some other 7-8 persons had boarded the reserved compartment as the other compartments were over crowded where all the three accused persons were already present. He further stated that the accused persons asked them to get the receipt or otherwise to go to jail and they took the MST from them and issued the receipts. He further stated that thereafter accused Ghanshyam Meena stated that he will issue the receipt for him(PW1). He further stated that the MST of other passengers were returned but his MST was not given back and another receipt was issued to him at Nizamuddin Railway Station and his signatures were obtained on the receipt. He further stated that thereafter accused Ghanshyam Meena dragged him inside the Ist class compartment and Sh. Raman Lal also came inside it. PW1 has further stated that all the three accused persons present in court court gave beatings to him and Sh. Raman Lal and shirt of Sh. Raman Lal was also torn. PW1 has further stated that the accused persons kept on beating them till New Delhi Railway Station and took them to platform no. 1 of New Delhi Railway Station where he was made to sit in a toilet. PW1 further stated that all the three accused persons robbed him of his belongings i.e. HMT wrist watch and cash of Rs. 2400/-. He further stated that he was beaten up with kicks and fists and also by stick and his signatures were taken on blank papers. PW1 had further deposed that accused persons threatened 329/1996-NDRS page4/ him not to report matter to any authority. PW1 further deposed that thereafter accused persons took him to Paharganj and got his head as well as moustache shaved off. PW1 further stated that aforesaid incident was witnessed by Sh. Raman Lal, Mahesh Nagpal and Moolchand Sharma. He further deposed that he made a complaint to Chowki Incharge, Kosi Kalan and the same is Ex. PW1/A.
9. In his cross examination, PW1 stated that he was left near the bridge on Paharganj Road at about 2.00 PM. He further stated that he reached at Kosikalan at about 5.30 PM by train. He further stated that first of all he had gone to his house and thereafter he went to police station and before going to his house he had not gone to any doctor. He further stated that Ex. PW1/A was written by GRF personnel which was narrated by him. He further stated that he might have not stated in Ex. PW1/A that due to rush in the coach he had boarded the reserved compartment. He further stated that he had got recorded in Ex. PW1/A that three accused persons had boarded the train at Faridabad Railway Station and name of Moolchand was not mentioned in it. He further stated that he had also got recorded that the accused persons had put them in fear of jail if receipt is not taken. He was confronted with his statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A on this point. He further stated that he don't remember whether accused Ghanshyam had stated that he will issue the receipt. He further stated that he had got recorded in Ex. PW1/A that he 329/1996-NDRS page5/ told him that receipt was already issued to him. He was confronted with his statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A on this point. He further stated that he had got recorded in Ex. PW1/A that the train had stopped at Nizamuddin and then another receipt was issued to him. He was confronted with his statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A on this point. He further stated that he had got recorded in Ex. PW1/A that he got angry and had put his signatures in anger. He was confronted with his statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A on this point. He further stated that he had not got recorded that he was taken inside the coach and Raman Lal also came there. He further stated that he had not stated to police that Raman Lal was also beaten up and his shirt was torn. He further stated that he had not stated to the police that they were taken inside a cabin at New Delhi Railway Station. He further stated that he had stated to the police that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. He was confronted with his statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A on this point. He further stated that he had mentioned the names of all the three accused persons in Ex. PW1/A which was lodged at police station Kosi Kalan. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A where the same is not mentioned. He further stated that he had not mentioned the description of the persons who had assaulted him in his complaint Ex. PW1/A. He voluntarily stated that he had mentioned in his complaint that he can recognise the accused persons by face. He further stated that he did not participate in any TIP proceedings to identify the accused 329/1996-NDRS page6/ persons. He further stated that he did not go for first-aid immediately even in any private hospital in Delhi. He admitted that on the way to Kosi Kalan or after reaching there he did not take any medical treatment. He further stated that Raman Lal and Mahesh Nagpal were with him throughout and they left New Delhi Railway Station for their village Kosi Kalan by train at about 4.30 PM and reached Kosi Kalan at about 7.00 PM and he was taken to the house of Raman Lal. He further stated that his family members were not informed about the incident and his house is nearby to the house of Raman Lal. He further stated that no person named Jeevan Lal accompanied him to Kosi Kalan from New Delhi Railway Station. He further stated that there was no person named Jeevan who witnessed the incident. He further stated that Raman Lal accompanied him to the police station Kosi Kalan and he was in same clothes which were worn by him at the time of incident. He further stated that there were no blood stains on his clothes and it were not torn in said incident. He further stated that he had told about the incident to the police at police station Kosi Kalan when he was sent for medical examination and he had also told the same to the doctor who examined him. He further stated that the statement of Raman Lal was not recorded at police station Kosi Kalan. He further stated that he was relieved from police station Kosi Kalan at about 9.00 PM and thereafter he went to his house and Raman Lal stayed there. He further stated that no police 329/1996-NDRS page7/ official of police station Kosi Kalan accompanied him to trace the accused in Delhi. He further stated that he did not go to police station Kosi Kalan to enquire about the action taken on his complaint. He further stated that his statement was recorded by the police of police station New Delhi Railway Station after about one month. He further stated that police did not record statement of any other eye witness in his presence and he did not accompany the police to get the site plan prepared. He further stated that he remained with the officials of Delhi Police for about 15 minutes and thereafter he left for Kosi Kalan. He further stated that he used to travel by train since the last three years prior to the date of incident on MST. He further stated that he was aware that a person holding MST can't travel in reserve compartment or the IIIrd Tier. He further stated that he is aware that if a person is found travelling in Mail train he has to pay the excess fare i.e. double the amount of ticket. He further stated that excess fare was imposed twice upon him but only one receipt was issued to him. He further stated that many other persons were also travelling in the compartment in question where he was found travelling. He further stated that the concerned railway official had prepared first excess fare receipt prior to his checking and the second excess fare receipt thereafter. He further stated that he had mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW1/A that out of two receipts only one receipt was given to him. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A where 329/1996-NDRS page8/ the same is not mentioned. He further stated that he did not hand over the said excess fare receipt to the police either at police station Kosi Kalan or at New Delhi Railway Station. He admitted that he was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 100/- on 6.2.1997. He also admitted that fine was imposed upon him on 10.5.1996 when he was found travelling with luggage without booking. He also admitted that many public persons as well as Railway Staff were present at the place where this incident took place. PW1 further stated that no one out of these public persons and Railway Staff tried to rescue him from the accused. He further stated that the other persons travelling with him alighted from the train and were standing near him. He further stated that he was beaten up for about half an hour continuously with dandas at New Delhi Railway Station and he had received 3-4 danda blows on his head. He further stated that blood did not come out from his head on receiving danda blows. He further stated that he did not raise alarm while being taken to the barber shop at Paharganj. He voluntarily stated that accused had threatened him. He further stated that he remained at the barber's shop for about half an hour and during this period none of the persons namely Moolchand, Raman Lal and Nagpal called the police or railway officials to the barber's shop. He further stated that he was taken to the shop of photographer but cannot tell the name of the photographer or the area of the said shop. He further stated that thereafter neither he nor other persons went to police 329/1996-NDRS page9/ station New Delhi Railway Station to lodge the complaint. He further stated that he had come to New Delhi Railway Station alongwith Raman Lal and remained there till 4.00 PM and he did not tried to report the matter to the police or any railway authorities. He denied the suggestion that accused never gave him beatings. He also denied the suggestion that no such incident ever took place. He also denied the suggestion that he had made false report against the accused persons in order to restrain them from checking him for travelling with MST in the Mail Train and Reserve Compartment.
10. PW2 Sh. Raman Lal deposed that on 19.3.1996 he alongwith Dulichand, Moolchand and some other persons had boarded the Malwa Express in the IIIrd Tier compartment from Kosi Kalan for Delhi. He further stated that when the train reached at Faridabad Railway Station, the checking staff namely Ghanshyam, Hari Singh and Malhotra i.e. accused persons present in court boarded the train. He further stated that the said checking staff collected the MST of all the passengers and decided to impose a excess fare of Rs. 124/- each upon all the passengers and upon their request the excess fare was reduced to Rs. 62/- each. He further stated that the checking staff had also issued the excess fare receipt to one passenger namely Karan Singh who was the daily commuter in said train but the checking staff insisted on issuing another excess fare receipt to him and in the meantime the train reached 329/1996-NDRS page10/ Nizamuddin Railway Station and the checking staff made the complainant get down from the train there. He further stated that he also got down from the train there. He further stated that accused persons issued excess fare receipt of Rs. 124/- to the complainant. He further stated that Karan Singh got angry on being issued a receipt of Rs. 124/- and in anger paid a sum of Rs. 130/-. Thereafter, all the three accused persons forcibly took Karan Singh to the IIIrd Tier compartment and gave him beating and he also boarded the said compartment and when he objected to this, the accused persons also gave beatings to him and his shirt got torn. He further stated that at the New Delhi Railway Station the accused persons detained them in the said compartment till all the passengers deboarded from the train and thereafter took them to a room at platform no. 1. He further stated that thereafter the accused persons again gave kicks, fists and danda blows to Karan Singh and thereafter accused persons took personal search of complainant and took the purse containing Rs. 2400/-, one MST and wrist watch of Karan Singh. He further stated that thereafter accused persons obtained their signatures on blank papers and took them outside the station and searched for a barber for some time and got shaved off the head and moustache, eye lashes etc. of Karan Singh. He further stated that accused persons also tried to get his hairs shaved off but he resisted and thereafter accused persons got Karan Singh photographed from a photographer and thereafter accused 329/1996-NDRS page11/ persons had tea on his money and thereafter they were let off. He further stated that thereafter they left for Kosi Kalan and got him medically examined from a Government hospital and thereafter lodged the complaint with GRP. He further stated that names of the three accused persons are Ghanshyam Meena, SS Meena and JS Malhotra.
11. In his cross examination, PW2 stated that Delhi Police had not recorded his statement in present case. He further stated that he had given his statement to the police of police station Kosi Kalan. He further stated that his statement was recorded on 19.3.1996 at about 7.00-7.30 PM. He further stated that the statement of one Mahesh Nagpal was also recorded in his presence by the police of police station Kosi Kalan. He further stated that he do not remember whether his statement was recorded prior to Karan Singh being referred for medical. He further stated that he did not get himself medically examined in the hospital. He further stated that he did not hand over his torn clothes to police but had shown the same to the police. He further stated that the vest and brief of Karan Singh were having blood stains. He further stated that he do not remember whether blood stained clothes were seized by the police or not. He further stated that he alongwith Karan Singh had reached police station Kosi Kalan at about 7.00 PM and they had reached Kosi Kalan at about 6.45 PM. He further stated that they straightaway went to the police station and remained there for about 20 minutes. He further stated 329/1996-NDRS page12/ that he had accompanied Karan Singh to the hospital. He further stated that he do not remember whether Karan Singh had handed over his vest to the doctor or not. He further stated that Delhi Police had called him through some police officials and Karan Singh did not accompany him. He voluntarily stated that Karan Singh was already interrogated. He further stated that the clothes worn by Karan Singh got torn. He admitted that a person holding MST is not allowed to travel in IIIrd Tier compartment. He further stated that he do not remember whether the person travelling so are given excess fare receipt which is double the fare. He further stated that accused persons had imposed fine upon him, Karan Singh and 8-10 other passengers. He further stated that he is not aware whether excess fare was imposed on Karan Singh earlier also. He further stated that the accused persons had beaten them in the compartment and had imposed the excess fare in the compartment itself but issued the receipt at the platform. He further stated that he had handed over the photocopy of said receipt to the police of Kosi Kalan who forwarded it to the Delhi Police. He denied the suggestion that no such receipt was given by him to the police officials. He further stated that Karan Singh did not receive any danda blow on his head. He further stated that no passengers deboarded the train at Nizamuddin Railway Station. He further stated that the barber shop was in Paharganj area and he again stated that the barber was sitting on the footpath and public persons were passing 329/1996-NDRS page13/ through that way. He further stated that he made hue and cry and protested not to get himself shaved. He further stated that he had seen 3- 4 blood spots on the head of Karan Singh after his head was shaved by ustra. He further stated that he and Karan Singh did not take any treatment from doctor and they reached Kosi Kalan as they were afraid. He further stated that Mahesh Nagpal had also accompanied them to Kosi Kalan. He further stated that he did not show the place where the barber was sitting or the shop of photographer to the police. He further stated that accused gave beatings continuously for about 20-25 minutes in the train compartment and thereafter they again gave beatings for about 15- 20 minutes in the TT room at the platform. He further stated that he was given merciless beatings for about 5-7 minutes. He further stated that he had not mentioned in his statement given to the police that Duli Chand and Mool Chand were also travelling with them on that day. He further stated that he had stated to the police that they were detained in the compartment by the accused persons at New Delhi Railway Station. He further stated that he had stated to the police at police station Kosi Kalan that they were taken to a room at platform no. 1. He further stated that he had stated to the police of police station Kosi Kalan that he and Karan Singh were beaten up by fist and danda. He further stated that he had stated to police that before they were taken outside the Station their signatures were obtained on plain papers. He further stated that he had 329/1996-NDRS page14/ also stated to the police of police station Kosi Kalan that accused had asked him to get his hair cut but he protested. He further stated that he had stated to the police of police station Kosi Kalan that accused persons thereafter had tea and he had paid the money. He denied the suggestion that no such incident took place with him or Karan Singh. He also denied the suggestion that he had made false statement against the accused persons in order to restrain them from checking them in future while travelling in goods train and reserved compartment holding MST. PW2 replied to the court question that he was called by the Delhi Police and his statement was recorded. He further stated that his statement was also recorded by the police of Kosi Kalan but he is not sure whether the said statement was given to Delhi Police or not. He admitted that his statement was reduced into writing by the Delhi Police.
12. PW3 Insp Dharambir Singh testified that on 27.5.1996 he was posted at police station New Delhi Railway Station and on that day he had prepared rukka which is Ex. PW3/A on the complaint of Karan Singh which was sent by Chowki Incharge GRP, Kanshikala, Distt Mathura, UP and thereafter got the case registered from duty officer. He further stated that he made effort to record the statement of witnesses but he could not record the statement of any witnesses except one Mahesh Nagpal, as they were not willing. He further stated that thereafter he was transferred and handed over the file to MHCr.
329/1996-NDRS page15/
13. PW4 Sh. Sanjay testified that he was earlier working as barber in the area of Paharganj and has since left the said work. He further stated that he do not know anything about present case. He again stated that on 19.3.1996 the accused persons present in the court had approached him for getting them shaved. He further stated that thereafter his statement was recorded by the Delhi Police as well as by police of Agra Railway Station. He further stated that he do not know any person named Karan Singh. This witness was cross examined by Ld APP for state.
14. In his cross examination by Ld APP for state, PW4 denied the suggestion that he knew Karan Singh resident of Kosi Kalan. He admitted that accused persons had brought one person named Karan Singh and got his moustache, eyebrows and hair cut forcibly. He also admitted that the said persons present in the court are the TT. He further stated that he had not disclosed the names of the accused persons in his statement recorded u/s. 161 cr.p.c. He reiterated that accused persons are the same persons who had got shaved one person by the name of Karan Singh forcibly. He further stated that he did not mention the name of Karan Singh as he did not knew his name prior to the incident.
15. In his cross examination on behalf of accused persons, PW4 admitted that all the accused persons were not known to him prior to the incident. He also admitted that he did not disclose the name of accused 329/1996-NDRS page16/ persons who had brought one person for being shaved forcibly. He also admitted that he did not give the description of the accused persons in his statement. He also admitted that he did not participate in any TIP to identify the persons who had produced before him one person for getting him shaved. He also admitted that he did not disclose to the police in his statement the name, parentage, address as well as the physical description of the person who was brought by alleged persons for being forcibly shaved. He further stated that he cannot tell how many persons came to him for getting shave etc. on 19.3.1996. He further stated that he was not having shop of barber. He further stated that he was not having the tehbazari or licence or permission from MCD or Railways to work as barber on the footpath in the area of Paharganj. He further stated that he used razor for shaving. He further stated that the said person did not receive any cut on his face etc. from the razor. He further stated that no public person was accompanying said person at that time. He further stated that said person remained with him for about 1½ hours and he did not see blood stains on the clothes of said person. He denied the suggestion that he had not shaved any person at the instance of accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of complainant. He further stated that he did not go the police of police station New Delhi Railway Station to give his statement.
16. PW5 Sh. Mool Chand Sharma deposed that on 19.3.1996 he 329/1996-NDRS page17/ alongwith some other persons were coming from Kosi Kalan to Delhi by Malva Express train in the Ist class coach. He further stated that the checking staff boarded the train at Faridabad Station who prepared excess fare receipt against them as they were travelling in the Ist class coach carrying only the MST. He further stated that some altercation took place between the checking staff and one passenger namely Karan Singh and when the train reached at Nizamuddin Railway Station, the checking staff and other passengers alighted from said coach and boarded another coach in said train. He further stated that thereafter quarrel took place between the checking staff and the daily passengers and thereafter at New Delhi Railway Station all of them got down. He further stated that he cannot tell the name of said checking staff due to lapse of time. He further stated that he can identify one or two persons out of them if shown to him and identified accused JS Malhotra and Hari Singh. He further stated that he cannot tell what was done while quarreling. This witness was cross examined by Ld APP for state.
17. In his cross examination by Ld APP for State, PW5 denied the suggestion that on the day of incident all three accused persons present in the court had took Karan Singh to their cabin and got his moustache, eyebrow and hair cut forcibly and had also beaten him. He denied the suggestion that he had given said statement to the police which is Ex. PW5/DA where it is so recorded. He also denied the suggestion that he is 329/1996-NDRS page18/ deposing falsely as he has been won over by accused in order to save them.
18. In his cross examination on behalf of accused persons, PW5 stated that one police official from Delhi had come to Kosi Kalan and took his statement. He further stated that he cannot tell the date, month and year when said Delhi Police official came to Kosi Kalan. He further stated that he had not made any statement on his own nor he had reported the matter to the police. He further stated that he had left for Kosi Kalan from Delhi at about 8.00- 9.00 PM. He further stated that there were about 8-10 checking staff who had checked the passengers on that day. He further stated that his excess fare receipt was prepared in the train between Faridabad and Nizamuddin Railway Station. He admitted that he had not participated in TIP to identify the checking staff. He also admitted that he had not mentioned in his statement Ex. PW5/DA the name of the checking staff namely JS Malhotra, Hari Singh etc. He voluntarily stated that he had stated only about three TTs. He further stated that altercation took place between the checking staff and about 100-200 passengers who were in the said coach. He admitted that travelling with MST in the Ist class is an offence. He denied the suggestion that no altercation took place between the passengers and two accused persons whom he had identified in the court.
19. Accused persons in their statement recorded u/s. 281/313 cr.p.c.
329/1996-NDRS page19/
denied the evidence that has come on record against them. Accused
persons stated that they are innocent and had been falsely implicated in present case. They further stated that on 19.3.1996 at about 11.55 AM they alongwith other staff boarded Malwa Express as TT and while they were checking the passengers many persons were found travelling without ticket and they charged the fare and issued the receipt to passengers which included the complainant. It is further stated that complainant got agitated and he and some other passengers extended threats to them that they will see them in future and will see how they will work as TT and in case they check them again on Mathura route they will get them killed. It is further stated that they reported the matter in writing to their immediate boss i.e. Sh. Kulbir Singh the then Chief Ticket Inspector, New Delhi Railway. It is further stated that the copy of said letter is Mark A bearing their signatures. It is further stated that one passenger namely Mahesh Nagpal had also given a letter dated 7.6.1996 to the Divisional Commercial Manager, Railways regarding the incident and the copy of same is Mark B. It is further stated that PW1 was convicted earlier also and fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed upon him and the certified copy of order is Mark C. It is further stated that PW1 was convicted on 10.5.1996 also and the copy of excess fare receipt is mark D. Accused persons examined one witness in their defence i.e. Sh. Kulveer Singh as DW1.
329/1996-NDRS page20/
20. DW1 Sh. Kulveer Singh deposed that in the year 1996 he was working as Chief Ticket Inspector at New Delhi Railway Station. He further stated that all the accused persons were working during that period as Ticket Inspector/ Traveller Ticket Examiner. He further stated that the application dated 19.3.1996 mark A bearing the signatures of accused persons was received by his subordinate in his office. He further stated that accused persons had appeared before him at about 3.45 PM and had stated that passengers were extending threats of dire consequences. He further stated that he had forwarded the said application mark A to the Divisional Commercial Manager at New Delhi.
21. In his cross examination by Ld APP for state, DW1 stated that he had not brought the original of letter mark A as the same is not traceable. He further stated that he have no personal knowledge about the contents of said letter and the same was forwarded by him on same day to Divisional Commercial Officer, Divisional Railway Office.
22. The basic contention of Ld defence counsel is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused persons are entitled of being acquitted in the present case. Ld defence counsel had specifically argued that:-
(i) The IO i.e. the investigating officer of the present case who had conducted the investigation has not been produced and examined 329/1996-NDRS page21/ by the prosecution in support of its case.
(ii) The investigating officer of Kosi Kalan is also not produced and examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
(iii) The doctor who conducted the medical examination of the complainant at Kosi Kalan was also not produced and examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
(iv) The photographer who is alleged to have taken the photographs of the complainant is also not produced and examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
(v) One important eye witness i.e. Sh. Mahesh Nagpal was dropped by Ld APP for State.
(vi) NO recovery has been effected from the possession or at the instance of accused persons.
(vii) No reliance can be placed upon testimony of complainant as he was previously convicted for travelling without ticket.
Moreover, the complainant made certain material improvements in his statement recorded in the court.
(viii) The accused persons also made a complaint to their superior officers regarding the incident in which they had categorically stated that the complainant had threatened them to implicate them in false case.
(ix) There are material contradictions between the
329/1996-NDRS page22/
testimony of PW1 and PW2. It is specifically pointed out by Ld defence counsel that PW1 had stated that his clothes were not torn but PW2 stated that clothes of PW1 were torn. It is also specifically pointed out by Ld defence counsel that PW1 had stated that there were no blood stains where as PW2 had stated that blood stains were there.
(x) It is further argued by Ld defence counsel that no receipts of fine have been produced and proved by the prosecution in the present case.
(xi) It is further argued by Ld defence counsel that the filing of chargesheet is also not proved in present case as IO of the case is not produced and examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
(xii) It is further argued by Ld defence counsel that the testimony of PWs is totally contradictory to each other and the contradictions are on very material aspects and the contradictions make the whole prosecution story doubtful.
23. Ld defence counsel has also placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i)State of Punjab vs. Rakesh Kumar reported as 1998 Cri. L.J. Supreme Court 3604
(ii)State of Rajasthan vs. Rajender Singh reported as 1998 Cri. L.J. Supreme Court 3628
(iii)Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2009(2) C.C. 329/1996-NDRS page23/ Cases(SC) 327
(iv)Kanan & Ors vs. State of Kerala reported as 1979 Cri. L.J. Supreme Court 919
(v)Badruddin Rukonddim Karpude & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra reported as 1981 Cri. L.J. Supreme Court 729
(vi)Sher Singh & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan reported as 1989(1) Crime 283
(vii)Rajawa Kebat @ Rajender Mandal vs. State of Bihar reported as 1988(1) Crime 709
24. On the other hand Ld APP for the state vehemently argued that prosecution has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of the offences for which accused persons have been charged beyond reasonable doubt and thus, all the accused persons are liable to be convicted in the present case. Ld APP for the state also submitted that minor discrepancies here and there in the testimony of witnesses do not make whole prosecution story unreliable and such discrepancies are bound to occur as the statement of the witnesses was recorded in the court long after the date of incident. Ld APP for state has also placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(i)Shivappa & Ors vs. State of Karnataka reported as AIR 2008 SC 1860
(ii)Ramesh Bhai Mohan Bhai Koli & Ors vs. State of Gujrat 329/1996-NDRS page24/ reported as 2010 V AD (Crl.) (SC) 261
25. I have carefully gone through all the judgments upon which reliance has been placed by Ld defence counsel as well as by Ld APP for state. I have also carefully considered the submissions made by Ld defence counsel as well as by Ld APP for the state and have analysed them in the light of the evidence produced by the prosecution during the trial of the present case.
26. In Rakesh Kumar's case (supra) the Hon'ble Suprem Court held that while appreciating the testimony of eye witnesses if the court comes to the conclusion that there are number of infirmities in it, then such evidence could not form the basis for conviction of accused. In Rajender Singh's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Courtheld that if the eye witnesses are not willing to give true version and are suppressing material facts then no reliance can be placed upon their evidence. In Jarnail Singh's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is unsafe to convict a person on the basis of unreliable and untrustworthy evidence particularly when such statements are full of embellishment and contradictions without corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial.
27. In Kanan's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the court for the first time his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there 329/1996-NDRS page25/ has been a previous Test Identification Parade to test his power of observation. In Badruddin's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no reliance can be placed upon testimony of such witnesses who make improvements in the prosecution story propounded by them at investigation stage in material particulars. In Sher Singh's case (supra) the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that discrepancies, omissions, contradictions and improvements on vital issues cast serious doubts on the veracity of the witnesses. It was further held that if the witness changes one version and substitutes it by another as the exigencies require, the testimony of such a witness fails to inspire confidence. In Rajawa Kebat's case (supra)the Hon'ble Patna High Court held that non examination of investigating officer in a criminal trial causes serious lacunae in prosecution case and prejudice to accused and the tendency of IO's to keep away from court is not good.
28. In Shivappa's case (supra) upon which reliance has been placed by Ld APP for State, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies or some improvements would not justify rejection of the testimony of the eye witnesses, if they are otherwise reliable. It was further held that discrepancies are bound to occur because of the sociological background of the witnesses as also the time gap between the date of occurrence and the date on which they give their deposition in court. In Ramesh Bhai's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held 329/1996-NDRS page26/ that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution choose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
29. In the present case charge for offences punishable u/s. 392/323/504/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons. The relevant provisions of law are reproduced herein for the sake of convenience and ready reference. Section 392 IPC provides punishment for robbery. Section 390 IPC defines robbery as under:
Section 390 Robbery:- In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery: Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, of that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery: Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the 329/1996-NDRS page27/ person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
30. Section 323 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Section 319 IPC defines hurt as under:-
Section 319 Hurt: Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
Section 321 IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt and it postulates: whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".
Section 504 IPC deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and it lays down that: Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
31. As far as contention no. (i), (ii) and (xi) of Ld defence counsel 329/1996-NDRS page28/ are concerned, they pertain to non examination of investigating officer of the present case. Ld defence counsel had vehemently argued that non examination of IO is fatal for prosecution case. However, this contention of Ld defence counsel is not sufficient to disbelieve the whole prosecution story. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as Mohd Anwar vs. State of Delhi reported as 2000 I AD (Crl.) SC 225 had held that mere non examination of IO is not fatal for prosecution case. Reliance can also be placed in this regard upon a case titled as Rajinder Singh vs. The State reported as 2000 I AD (Crl.) SC 289. The investigation of present case was conducted by SI Manohar Lal of police station New Delhi Railway Station. Summons to the IO were sent for his evidence but the same were received back with report that IO had already expired. Hence, IO could not be examined in present case and non examination of IO is not due to any fault on part of prosecution. Hence, I find no merits in the aforesaid contention of Ld defence counsel. As far as the non examination of IO of PS Kosi Kalan is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that he had merely forwarded the complaint made by the complainant to him to Delhi. The IO of PS Kosi Kalan had not investigated the present case and whole of the investigation of the present case was conducted by Delhi Police. Hence, the testimony of IO of PS Kosi Kalan is not very much material and his non examination is not a serious lacuna in the prosecution case as his testimony is of formal 329/1996-NDRS page29/ nature.
32. As far as contention no. (iii) of Ld defence counsel is concerned, the same is pertaining to non examination of the doctor who had conducted the medical examination of the complainant at Kosi Kalan. Ld defence counsel had vehemently argued that non examination of the said doctor casts a serious dent in the prosecution case and due to non examination of the said doctor, nature of injuries sustained by the complainant could not be proved. The present contention of Ld defence counsel is also without merits because in th e present case, charge for offence punishable u/s. 323 IPC was framed against the accused persons and the same pertains to causing of hurt only and is not concerned with the nature of injuries. For proving the essential ingredients of offence punishable u/s. 323 IPC prosecution is not under an obligation to prove that the nature of injuries sustained by the injured are either grievous or dangerous. If a person voluntarily inflicts simple injury upon another then he is liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offence punishable u/s. 323 IPC. Hence, non examination of the doctor who had medically examined the complainant in the present case is of no consequence and accused persons cannot derive any benefit from the same.
33. As far as contention no. (iv) of Ld defence counsel is concerned, the same is pertaining to non examination of photographer who is alleged to have taken photographs of the complainant. Ld defence 329/1996-NDRS page30/ counsel had argued that the prosecution has failed to produce and examine the photographer in support of its case and this fact also makes the whole prosecution story doubtful. The said contention of Ld defence counsel is also not of much significance because as per the prosecution case, the accused persons got the complainant photographed after getting his head etc. shaved off. The testimony of photographer would have been of corroborative value and mere non examination of photographer would not make the testimony of other witnesses unreliable. Moreover, the said photographer is not cited by the IO as a witness in the list of witnesses.
34. As far as contention no. (v) of Ld defence counsel is concerned, the same is that an important eye witness i.e. Sh. Mahesh Nagpal was dropped by Ld APP for the State. With regard to this contention, it is pertinent to mention that PW Mahesh Nagpal was dropped by Ld APP for the State and statement of Ld APP for the state was recorded in court on 19.4.2005 in this regard. The said witness was dropped by Ld APP for the State on the ground that he has been won over by the accused as per the information given by the complainant. Ld APP for the State is well within his right to drop a witness who he believe to have been won over by the accused persons. Hence, Ld APP for the State acted within his powers and the defence cannot claim much advantage over the dropping of said PW. Thus, this contention of Ld defence counsel also lacks merit.
35. As far as contention no. (vi) of Ld defence counsel is 329/1996-NDRS page31/ concerned, the same is that no recovery has been effected from the possession or at the instance of accused persons. As per prosecution story the accused persons had robbed the complainant of cash to the tune of Rs. 2400/-, his HMT wrist watch and MST. The said articles could not be recovered in the present case during the investigation of the present case. It is pertinent to mention th at in the present case case chargesheet was filed without arresting the accused persons and no police remand of accused persons was taken by the IO for recovery of the aforesaid articles on the ground that all the three accused persons are Railway employees and their arrest would have created law and order problem on the railway station. Due to aforesaid reason recovery of robbed articles could not be effected. I am of the considered view that non recovery of the said articles is not in itself sufficient to disbelieve the whole prosecution story. The non recovery has been explained by the prosecution and the accused persons cannot derive much benefit from it. Hence, I am of the considered view that this contention of Ld defence counsel is also not of great significance.
36. As far as contention no. (vii) of Ld defence counsel is concerned, the same is that no reliance can be placed upon testimony of complainant as he was previously also convicted for travelling without ticket. It was also contended by Ld defence counsel that the complainant made certain material improvement in his statement recorded in the court.
329/1996-NDRS page32/ As far as factum of previous conviction for travelling without ticket is concerned the same is admitted by the complainant in his cross examination and he had not concealed the same. The accused persons have nowhere claimed that on previous occasion also the complainant made a hue and cry for being prosecuted for travelling without ticket. When the complainant was caught travelling without ticket he pleaded guilty for the same and peacefully paid the fine for which he was sentenced. The fact that complainant readily accepted the factum of his being a convict for travelling without ticket also shows that what he had stated in court is true and he had not made any attempt to conceal any facts from the court. The second contention of Ld defence counsel regarding making of material improvements by the complainant in his statement recorded in the court do carry some weight as perusal of testimony of the complainant recorded in the court shows that he was confronted by Ld defence counsel on various aspects. A perusal of testimony of the complainant recorded in the court clearly shows that he had made certain improvements in his statement. However, the said improvements are not on the material aspects of the present case and the said improvements are with respect to subsidiary aspects of the present case. In this regard reliance can also be placed upon the judgment referred to by Ld APP for State titled as Shivappa & Ors vs. State of Karnataka (supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 329/1996-NDRS page33/ minor discrepancies or some improvement do not justify rejection of the testimony of the eye witnesses if they are otherwise reliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that discrepancies are bound to occur because of sociological background of the witnesses as also the time gap between the date of occurrence and the date on which they give their depositions in court. In the present case also the incident occurred on 19.3.1996 and the testimony complainant was first recorded in court in year 2003. Thus, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the minor improvements are not unnatural and the same are bound to occur if the testimony of the witness is recorded in the court after about seven years. Thus, I am of the considered view that minor improvements made by the complainant in his testimony recorded in the court do not make the whole prosecution story doubtful and are no ground to disbelieve the statement of the complainant recorded in the court.
37. As far as contention no. (viii) of Ld defence counsel is concerned, the same is that accused persons had also made a complaint to their superior officers regarding the incident in which they had categorically stated that the complainant had threatened them to implicate them in false case. In order to prove the aforesaid contention the accused persons had also stated so in their statement recorded in the court u/s. 313 cr.p.c. The accused persons also produced and examined Sh. Kulbir 329/1996-NDRS page34/ Singh i.e. ECIT as DW1. In his cross examination, DW1 stated that he has not brought the original letter mark A (aforesaid complaint) as the same is not traceable. DW1 also deposed in his cross examination that he has no personal knowledge about the contents of the letter mark A as the same was forwarded by him to the Divisional Commissioner on the same day. Thus, testimony of DW1 is hardly of any use for the accused persons. The accused persons have failed to prove the said letter mark A as per Evidence Act. The original letter was never produced in court. Hence, this contention of Ld defence counsel is also without merits as no reliance can be placed upon the said letter mark A.
38. As far as contention no. (ix) and (xii) of Ld defence counsel is concerned, the same is that there are material contradictions between the testimony of PW1 and PW2 i.e. the two material witnesses of the present case. Ld defence counsel had argued that the testimony of other witnesses is also full of contradictions on very material aspects of the present case and the contradictions make the whole prosecution story unreliable. Ld defence counsel had specifically argued that PW1 had stated that his clothes were not torn in the incident whereas PW2 had stated that clothes of PW1 were torn in the incident. Ld defence counsel had also argued that PW1 had stated that there were no blood stains whereas PW2 had stated that blood stains were there. Perusal of testimony of PW1 as well as PW2 shows that both of them had deposed 329/1996-NDRS page35/ in somewhat contradictory terms on aforeasaid aspects. However, it is again reiterated that testimony of PWs was recorded in court in the year 2003 and thereafter whereas the incident happened in March 1996. The testimony of witnesses was recorded in court after more than seven years of the incident and it may be possible that the witnesses may have forgotten about some aspects of the case. The question as to whether the clothes of PW1 were torn or not is not very much material in the present case and the same is my view with regard to the blood stains. The said points raised by Ld defence counsel are not central and essential to the just and proper decision of the present case. The said contradictions are not on material aspects. In this regard reliance can again be placed upon case titled as Shivappa & Ors vs. State of Karnataka (supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies or some improvement do not justify rejection of the testimony of the eye witnesses if they are otherwise reliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that discrepancies are bound to occur because of sociological background of the witnesses as also the time gap between the date of occurrence and the date on which they give their depositions in court. Thus, I find no merits in the contention no. (xi) and (xii) of Ld defence counsel.
39. As far as contention no. (x) of Ld defence counsel is concerned, the same is that no receipt of fine has been produced and proved by the 329/1996-NDRS page36/ prosecution in the present case. With regard to this contention, it is pertinent to mention that the accused persons themselves have admitted in their statement recorded u/s. 313 cr.p.c. that PW1 Karan Singh was found travelling without ticket and PW1 as well as other ticketless passengers were charged for the fare and a receipt was issued to them. Thus, accused persons have themselves admitted that receipt was issued by the accused persons to the complainant. The accused persons h ave admitted that the complainant was travelling in the said train and they were also checking the said train. The accused persons have nowhere claimed during the trial of the present case that they were not checking the train in which the complainant as well as other PWs were travelling. Thus, during the trial of the present case the accused persons never disputed the presence of complainant as well as other PWs in the train in which they were checking. Infact, accused persons have also stated in their statement recorded u/s. 313 cr.p.c. that complainant got agitated when excess fare was charged from them.
40. In the present case, PW1 in his statement recorded in the court categorically stated that he was beaten up by the accused persons and his articles i.e. Rs. 2400/- in cash, HMT watch and MST was robbed by the accused persons. PW1 correctly identified all the accused persons and had supported the prosecution case in totality. The testimony of PW1 was put to lengthy test of cross examination by Ld defence counsel and 329/1996-NDRS page37/ during the lengthy cross examination extending for several dates, Ld defence counsel was able to shake the testimony of PW1 to a certain extent on some non material aspects. However, as far as material aspects of the present case are concerned, PW1 passed the test of cross examination with flying colors. The testimony of PW1 is reliable and inspire confidence.
41. PW2 had also supported the prosecution version in totality. In his testimony recorded in court PW2 fully corroborated the version of PW1 and categorically stated that the accused persons gave beating to him as well as to PW1. PW2 also categorically stated that all three accused persons had took the purse containing Rs. 2400/-, wrist watch and MST of the complainant i.e. PW1. PW2 also supported the version of PW1 on other material aspects. PW2 also categorically stated that the accused persons got the head etc. of the complainant shaved off from a barber. PW2 was also put to lengthy cross examination by Ld defence counsel. In the lengthy cross examination of PW2 also Ld defence counsel could not shake the testimony of PW2 on material aspects. PW2 also passed the test of cross examination.
42. The testimony of PW3 is of formal nature. PW4 i.e. Sh. Sanjay in his examination in chief stated that he was earlier working as barber on the footpath in the area of PS Paharganj. PW4 was cross examined by Ld APP for State and in his cross examination by Ld APP for State, PW4 329/1996-NDRS page38/ supported the prosecution version. In his cross examination by Ld APP for State, PW4 admitted that the accused persons on 19.3.1996 brought one person by the name of Karan Singh and got his hair, eyebrows etc. cut forcibly. PW4 correctly identified the accused persons present in the court. PW4 was also cross examined by Ld defence counsel and in his cross examination, PW4 stated that he cannot tell how many persons approached him for getting shave etc on 19.3.1996. The testimony of PW4 also corroborates the version of PW1 as well as of PW2 to some extent. The testimony of PW5 is not of much use from prosecution point of view and the same is also of corroborative value only. PW5 merely stated that a quarrel had taken place between the checking staff and one person namely Karan Singh who was travelling with them. PW5 was also cross examined by Ld APP for State. In his cross examination by Ld APP for State, PW5 denied that he is deposing falsely as he has been won over by the accused persons.
43. From the testimony of PW1 and PW2 all the essential ingredients of the offences punishable u/s. 323/392 IPC stand proved. However, as far as offence punishable u/s. 504 IPC is concerned, its essential ingredients do not stand proved in the present case as there is no material on record to show that the accused persons had committed the aforesaid acts to give provocation to the complainant knowing or intending that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace 329/1996-NDRS page39/ or to commit any other offence.
44. In view of the discussion made hereinabove I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against all the three accused beyond reasonable doubt for offence punishable u/s. 323/392/34 IPC. However, prosecution h as failed to prove its case against the accused persons for offence punishable u/s. 504 IPC.
45. Hence all the three accused persons are hereby convicted for offences punishable u/s. 323/392/34 IPC and all three of them are hereby acquitted for offence punishable u/s. 504 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT DEEPAK DABAS
on 6th of December, 2010 MM-Central-
04:DELHI.
329/1996-NDRS page40/
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL-04): DELHI
FIR No. 329/1996
ID 02401R0701222003
U/s. 392/323/34 IPC
PS NDRS
State vs. Ghanshyam Meena etc.
4.1.2011
Present: Ld APP for State.
All three convicts are present in person.
Ld counsel for convicts is also present.
The case is today fixed for orders on the point of sentence. Arguments on the point of sentence were heard on 20.12.2010.
With respect to convict GS Meena, Ld counsel for convicts had submitted that convict GS Meena is presently working in Northern Railways and is posted as Chief Ticket Inspector. It was further submitted on behalf of convict GS Meena that he is aged about 56 years and is having a family to support. It was further submitted that the family of convict GS Meena comprise of his three children (two sons and one daughter), his mother aged about 85 years and his wife. It was further submitted that one son of convict GS Meena is Class I Gazetted Officer and all the three children of convict GS Meena are of marriageable age. It was further 329/1996-NDRS page41/ submitted that convict GS Meena is serving the Railways since the last several years and is having an unblemished service record. It was further submitted that convict GS Meena was awarded several certificates for the meritorious service rendered by him to Railways. It was further submitted that on one occasion a sum of Rs. 8 lacs was recovered on the Railway platform and the same was deposited by the convict GS Meena with the Railways and this act of convict GS Meena was also published in the newspapers and he was also rewarded by the Railways for the same.
With respect to convict JS Malhotra, it was submitted by Ld counsel that the convict JS Malhotra is still working with the Northern Railways as Senior Ticket Examiner. It was further submitted that convict JS Malhotra is aged about 53 years and is having a family to support. It was further submitted that convict JS Malhotra is having three children (two daughters and one son) and all of them are studying and are dependent upon the convict. It was further submitted that convict is also the sole support for his old father aged about 75 years. It was further submitted that convict JS Malhotra had rendered exceptional meritorious service to the Railways for which he has been awarded by the Railways several times. Photocopies of certain documents were also filed in this regard.
With respect to convict HS Meena, it was submitted by Ld defence counsel that convict HS Meena is aged about 58 years and is still working in the Northern Railways and is presently posted as Chief Ticket 329/1996-NDRS page42/ Inspector. It was further submitted that the convict HS Meena is sole bread winner for his family comprising of his wife and five children (two boys and three girls). It was further submitted that three children of convict HS Meena are still unmarried and the convict is having the responsibility of their marriage on his shoulders. It was further submitted that convict HS Meena had also rendered exceptional service to the Railways and due to his meritorious service he was also awarded several times by the Railways.
Ld defence counsel had further argued that all the three convicts are not previous convicts and they were never involved in any other case. Ld defence counsel had also placed reliance upon a judgment titled as Ashok & Ors vs. State passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 84/2010.
On the other hand Ld APP for the State, had argued that the convicts be sentenced to maximum punishment as prescribed for the offences for which they have been convicted.
In the present case, the convicts have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 392/323/34 IPC. The maximum punishment for offence punishable u/s. 392 IPC may extend upto ten years with fine and if the robbery is committed on the Highway between sunset and sunrise the imprisonment may extend upto 14 years. The second part of punishment as prescribed u/s. 392 IPC is not applicable in the present case. The maximum punishment for offence punishable u/s. 323 IPC may extend upto one year 329/1996-NDRS page43/ or with fine or with both.
In the present case, no previous conviction has been alleged or proved against the convicts. All the convicts are Government servants and all of them are aged about 55 years. All the convicts are having good service record and they are having family to support.
Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 postulates that when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the Offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct than not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering a bond, with or without sureties to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
In the present case also the offences for which the convicts have been convicted are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the Offenders, I deem it expedient to release the convicts on probation of good conduct on their entering into a bond with 329/1996-NDRS page44/ sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- for a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The convicts are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each to the complainant i.e. Sh. Karan Singh in terms of section 5 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT DEEPAK DABAS on 4th of January, 2011 MM-Central- 04:DELHI. 329/1996-NDRS page45/