Delhi District Court
State vs . Satbir & Ors. on 3 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARVINDER SINGH,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 03 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI - 110 054.
FIR No.587/2006
PS - Nangloi
State Vs. Satbir & Ors.
Unique Case ID No.02401R1433762007
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of the case 1412/2
(b) Date of offence 11.06.2006
(c) Complainant Sh. Fateh Singh, S/o Sh. Hari Singh, R/o H.
No. 46, Rajendra Park, Nangloi, Delhi.
(d) Accused 1. Satbir, S/o Sh. Shiv Narain, R/o 19/3/10, Daya Basti, Delhi.
2. Dharambir, S/o Sh. Gopi Chand, R/o C-73, Amar Colony, Delhi.
3. Rambir, S/o Sh. Shiv Narain, R/o RZ-262, Rosan Garden, Najafgarh, Delhi.
(e) Offence Under Section 336 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 68 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914. (f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty (g) Final Order Acquitted (h) Date of institution 26.02.2007 (i) Date when judgment was Not Reserved reserved (j) Date of judgment 03.08.2013
1. In the present matter, the accused persons naemly Satbir, Dharambir and Rambir have been charge sheeted for committing offences under Section 336 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 68 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The allegations against the FIR No.587/2006 Page No.1 to 8 accused persons are that on 11.06.2006 at about 09:45 pm at Kamruddin Nagar, Main Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi, all the accused persons were found consuming liquor at public place and when they were interrupted by Arun Dala, accused Satbir fired from his licensed revolved in the air and they all in furtherance of their common intention committed such act rashly and negligently as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. According to the prosecution, accused persons have committed offences punishable under Section 336 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 68 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the challan was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Notice under Section 336 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 68 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was put to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the guilt of accused persons, prosecution has examined five witnesses. PW1 Sh. Fateh Singh is the complainant in the present case. PW1 Fateh Singh has deposed that he does not remember the exact date, month and year of incident, however, it occurred around three years back and at about 09:30 pm to 10:00 pm on hearing some loud noises, he went to Dharamshala compound where large public had gathered and few people were fighting/quarreling. However, due to night time, he could not recognize anyone. The FIR No.587/2006 Page No.2 to 8 local people of the colony had gathered at the spot and they were quarreling amongst themselves, however, he cannot name any particular. PW1 further deposed that he had heard the noise of firing of bullet on which he intervened and tried to separate the persons involved in the fight. PW-1 further deposed that someone called the police on which PCR came at the spot. SHO of the area also reached at the spot and he was made complainant of the incident. He signed the complaint Ex.PW1/A. He signed at the instance of SHO. He admitted his signatures at point on Ex.PW1/B i.e. seizure memo. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State at length, not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and was discharged.
4. PW2 Arun Dalal has deposed that on 11.06.2006 at about 09:30 pm to 10:00 pm, he was studying for his exams of B. Tech and at about 10:30 pm to 11:00 pm, he came to know that his grand father Sh. Fateh Singh has been taken to police station regarding some quarrel/fight in the area and he also went to the police station. PW-2 further deposed that he does not know anything about the incident which happened prior to that in Dharamshala. PW-2 admitted in his cross- examination that he went to PS Nangloi on 11.06.2006. PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State at length, not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel and was discharged.
5. PW3 Sh. Jagbir Punia has deposed that he was secretary of the Rajendra Park, Residents Welfare Association in the year 2006 - 2007. In January, 2006, he wrote a letter on letter head of Rajendra Park, Residents Welfare Association, the same is Ex.PW3/A. PW-3 further deposed that that letter was written on behalf of all the association members to inform the general public, but, FIR No.587/2006 Page No.3 to 8 the same was not circulated and was kept in the record. PW3 was cross-examined by all the accused persons and was discharged.
6. PW4 HC Vijender has proved and exhibited the FIR Ex.PW4/A. PW4 was not cross-examined despite opportunity given and discharged.
7. PW5 Retired ASI Daya Chand has deposed against that on 11.06.2006, he was posted as ASI at PS Nangloi and on that day, he received D.D.No.47A Ex.PW5/A and he along-with Ct. Shri Bhagwan went to the spot i.e. Main Dharamshala, Main Rohtak Road, Kamruddin Nagar where he met with complainant Fateh Singh and other public persons. Complainant handed over to him one pistol on which Indian Ordinance Factory was inscribed and 05 live cartridges, one bottle of liquor of Bag Piper Gold containing less than ¼ liquor and 03 plastic glasses and handed over to him accused Satbir, Rambir and Dharambir. PW5 recorded statement of Fateh Singh Ex.PW1/A. PW5 seized pistol, 05 live cartridges, one bottle of liquor of Bag Piper Gold containing less than ¼ liquor and 03 plastic glasses after sealing the same with the seal of RSD vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. PW5 also seized license of the pistol presented by accused Satbir Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. License is Ex.PW5/C. Thereafter, he prepared the Rukka on the statement of complainant and handed over same to Ct. Shri Bhagwan who went to PS Nangloi and after registration of FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over to him copy of FIR and original Rukka. PW5 prepared site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW5/D. PW5 filled form M-29 at the spot Ex.PW5/E. PW5 arrested accused Satbir vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/E1 and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW5/F. PW5 also arrested accused Dharambir vide arrest memo FIR No.587/2006 Page No.4 to 8 Ex.PW5/G and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW5/H. Accused Rambir was also arrested by PW5 vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/I and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW5/J. PW5 recorded statement of witnesses. Thereafter, they went to PS Nangloi where case property was deposited in Malkhana. PW5 further deposed that on 15.06.2006, on his instruction, Ct. Dharambir took the samples from Malkhana and deposited the same at Excise Lab, ITO vide RC No.294/21/06. PW5 tendered the Excise Report Ex.PW5/K and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet in the Court for judicial verdict. He correctly identified accused persons and the case property as Ex.P1 (Collectively). PW-5 was cross-examined by accused persons and was discharged.
8. On 15.04.2013, further evidence of the prosecution was closed. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 281 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Incriminating evidence was put to them. Accused persons denied all the allegations and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons opted not to lead evidence in their defence.
10. Final arguments heard. Record is perused.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS & FINDINGS FIR No.587/2006 Page No.5 to 8
11. In this case, prosecution has examined five witnesses. PW3 is a formal witness and has exhibited document Ex.PW3/A in his evidence. PW4 is again a formal witness and has proved and exhibited FIR Ex.PW4/A in his evidence. PW5 retired ASI Daya Chand is the IO of this case and has deposed regarding proceedings done by him in investigation. He has exhibited D.D.NO.47A as Ex.PW5/A, statement of Fateh Singh Ex.PW1/A, seizure memos Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW5/B to Ex.PW5/K in his evidence. Now, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 remain which needs deliberations in the present matter. PW1 complainant has deposed that he does not remember the date, month and year of incident, however, it occurred around three years back and at about 09:30 to 10:00 pm, on hearing some loud noises, he went to Dharamshala compound, where public had gathered. Few people were fighting/quarreling, but due to night, he could not recognize anyone. He heard the noise of the firing of bullet on which he tried to intervene and separate the persons who were fighting. Someone called the PCR and SHO of area reached at the spot. He was made complainant to the incident. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he denied that he had stated to the police that on 11.06.2006, at about 09:45 pm, his grand son went to Rajendra Park, Dharamshala to take their Maruti Car where the present three accused persons were drinking liquor by keeping liquor bottles on their Maruti Car. He further denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP for the State that accused persons abused his grand son Arun Dalal and on hearing altercation, he also reached there and accused Satbir took out a pistol from his pocket and fired in the air. He further denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for the State that the accused persons endangered public safety by firing a bullet after consuming liquor. He further denied that pistol alongwith five live cartridges, one FIR No.587/2006 Page No.6 to 8 liquor bottle bag piper gold with little liquor and three plastic glasses were handed over by him to the IO. He deposed that nothing was seized in his presence or was handed over to him by IO. On being pointed out towards the accused persons, The PW-1 deposed that he can not identify the present accused persons as he has not apprehended anyone and several public persons had gathered at the spot and it was also dark due to being night time. PW-2 Arun Dalal has deposed that on 11.06.2006, at about 9:30 - 10:00 pm, he came to know that his grand father Fateh Singh has been taken to PS regarding some quarrel in the area on which he went to PS and he do not know what happened prior to that in the Dharamshala. Nothing substantial supporting the case of the prosecution also came in the cross-examination of PW-2 by Ld. APP for the State regarding the incident as he denied all the suggestions given by Ld. APP for the State. He also failed to identify the accused persons as the person who were consuming liquor on 11.06.2006 at about 09:45 pm on the roof of their car and deposed that no such incident occurred in his presence. He further deposed that nothing was seized in his presence.
12. In these circumstances, there is no evidence on record that the accused persons were seen or found drinking liquor at public place. Though, in the MLCs of the accused persons, smell of alcohol is mentioned but it is no help for the prosecution as there is no evidence on record that they were seen or found drinking at the public place. There is also no evidence on record that the accused Satbir fired from his pistol and thereby endangered safety of general public. There are seizure memos also qua seizure of pistol and cartridges in the present matter but without any evidence to the fact that any of these accused fired in public place as to endanger human life and safety of FIR No.587/2006 Page No.7 to 8 others, they are also of no help to the prosecution even if they are assumed to be proved. In these circumstances, all the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt in the present matter.
13. In view reasons discussed above, the prosecution has not been successful in proving the guilt of the accused persons for offence under Section 68 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and section 336 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt in this matter, therefore, the accused persons namely Satbir, Dharambir and Rambir stands acquitted for offence under Section 68 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and section 336 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Original documents of Satbir, Dharambir and Rambir and sureties, if any be returned to them after cancellation of endorsement against acknowledgment. Announced in the open Court on August 03, 2013.
(HARVINDER SINGH) M.M.-03/THC (West), Delhi/03.08.2013 FIR No.587/2006 Page No.8 to 8