Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Amar Singh @ Judi on 4 January, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.K.NAGPAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/SOUTH & SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
State Vs 1. Amar Singh @ Judi
S/o Sh Pritam Singh
R/o G-2/80, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi. (PO)
2. Salim @ Pandey
S/o Sh Riyazuddin
R/o C-144, Subhash Camp
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
(already acquitted)
3. Kishore @ Chuddi
S/o Sh Vijay Singh
R/o B-313, Subhash Camp
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
(already convicted)
4. Raj Kumar @ Raje
S/o Sh Suresh Chand
R/o 6/30, Dakshinpuri,
New Delhi.
(already acquitted)
5. Ajay @ Chintoli
S/o Sh Bhagwat Khatana
R/o H.No. 37, Gali No. 6,
Housing Board, Ambedkar Nagar
Sector - 7, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Presently at Village Shaitpur,
Gali No. 4, Daljeet Colony,
Faridabad.
SC No. 79/05
FIR No. 180/05
SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors
FIR NO. 180/05
PS: Greater Kailash
2
PS : GK I
Date of institution of the suit : 30.11.2005
Date on which order was reserved : 03.01.2011
Date of decision : 04.01.2011
J U D G M E N T
Charge sheet for offences punishable U/Ss 399/402 IPC as well as U/S 25 Arms Act was filed against all the above five accused, of which now only accused Ajay @ Chintoli is facing the trial. Accused Kishore @ Chuddi has already been convicted and accused Salim @ Pandey and Raj Kumar already stand acquitted whereas the other accused namely Amar Singh @ Judi is still 'PO'. The case of the prosecution as per the chargesheet filed is that on 18.07.05, at about 9.40 PM, all the above accused persons were apprehended while making preparations for committing dacoity and when they were apprehended one rod each was recovered from the possession of the accused Ajay @ Chintoli and Raj Kumar, one loaded katta and one live cartridge were recovered from accused Amar Singh @ Judi and a button actuated knife each was recovered from the possession of accused Salim @ Pandey and Kishore @ Chuddi.
2. Charge for offences punishable U/S 399/402 IPC was framed firstly against the accused Kishore @ Chuddi on 18.08.07 as he wanted to plead guilty in this case. On the basis of his plea of guilt he was convicted and sentenced by SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 3 the Ld predecessor of this court vide judgment of even date. The accused Amar Singh @ Judi (since PO) and Ajay @ Chintoli facing trial herein had both started absenting from the court proceedings and were declared ' P O ' vide orders dated 15.09.09 and 19.11.09 respectively. The charges for the abovesaid offences against the remaining two accused Salim @ Pandey and Raj Kumar @ Raje were framed on 26.11.09. Charge for the offence U/S 25 Arms Act was also framed against the accused Salim @ Pandey subsequently on 03.04.10 (as it was inadvertently not framed earlier) and after trial both the above accused persons were acquitted vide judgment dated 12.04.10 of the Ld predecessor of this court.
3. The accused Ajay @ Chintoli facing trial herein had been arrested as a ' P O ' in a kalandra U/S 41.1(c) Cr.P.C dated 24.05.10 and had been put on trial. A charge for the offences U/S 399/402 IPC was also framed against him on 08.07.10.
4. On behalf of prosecution, total ten witnesses have been examined in order to substantiate the charge against the accused Ajay @ Chintoli. (Though no witness has been examined as PW-3, but two witnesses have been given the same serial number as PW-5).
5. PW-1 SI Rajpal has deposed that on 18.07.05 he was posted at PS Greater Kailash and was on patrolling in the SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 4 area in a government vehicle alongwith HC Dinesh Kumar, HC Mange Ram, HC Sita Ram, Ct. Hakimuddin, Ct. Dharmender (due to typographical mistake it has been recorded as Ct. Harminder), Ct. Sanjiv and Ct. Anil, when a secret information was received by him about five criminals, likely to assemble in W Block, GK I Park for planning to commit dacoity at Satnam Electronics, M Block Market, GK I. PW-1 further deposed that 10-15 passersby were asked to join the raiding party, but none agreed. Then a raiding party consisting of the above police officials was prepared. Police party reached at the spot and HC Dinesh Kumar was directed to go inside the park and overhear the conversation of the accused persons. PW-1/SI Rajpal further deposed that at about 9.30 PM, the accused persons reached there in a TSR No. DL 1RM 1922, went inside the park and after a pre- decided signal by lighting the torch was given by HC Dinesh Kumar, all the accused persons were apprehended. From the possession of accused Amar Singh @ Judi, one desi katta loaded with cartridge was recovered and one cartridge was also recovered from the left pocket of his pant. The witness also deposed that from accused Raj Kumar and Ajay @ Chintoli iron rods were recovered and from accused Kishore @ Chuddi and Salim @ Pandey a knife each was recovered. The witness has prepared the sketches of the katta and the cartridge as Ex. PW1/A and of the knives as Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C and pullandas of the same were prepared and sealed with the seal of ' RSS ' , Form FSL was filled and the same were seized SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 5 vide memos Ex. PW1/D, PW1/E and PW1/F. The above two iron rods were also seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW1/G and PW1/H. He had then prepared the rukka Ex. PW1/J and sent the same to PS through HC Hakimuddin for registration of the case. After registration of the case, investigation of the case was handed over to ASI Ikramuddin, who reached at the spot alongwith HC Hakimuddin and this witness had then handed over the case property, memos and the accused persons to him. PW-1 also deposed that ASI Ikramuddin prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/K at his instance and had further identified the above katta as Ex. P1, cartridges as Ex. P2 collectively, knives recovered from accused Kishore @ Chuddi and Salim @ Pandey as Ex. P3 and P4 respectively and the rods recovered from accused Ajay @ Chintoli and Raj Kumar as Ex. P5 and P6 respectively.
6. PW-2 HC Dinesh Kumar was also a member of the raiding party and has deposed broadly like PW-1 regarding the above circumstances in which the accused persons were apprehended on 18.07.05 and an iron rod was recovered from the possession of accused Ajay @ Chintoli. He has also deposed about the above documents Ex. PW1/A to K and has further deposed about the arrest of the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex. PW7/B, PW7/D, PW7/F, PW7/H and PW7/K and their personal search memos Ex. PW7/C, PW7/E, PW7/G, PW7/J and PW7/L and has further identified the above exhibits P1 to P6.
SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 6
7. PW-4 HC Anil Kaushik, HC Hakimuddin and HC Sita Ram (both examined as PW-5), PW-6 Ct. Dharmender Soni, PW-7 Ct. Sanjiv Kumar and PW-10 HC Mange Ram are all also the members of the police team which had apprehended the accused persons from the abovesaid park and they had also deposed broadly in the manner as stated by PW-1 and PW-2. PW-4 and PW-5 HC Hakimuddin have also identified the above rod recovered from accused Ajay @ Chintoli as Ex. P5 and PW-5 HC Sita Ram has though identified the above two rods recovered from the accused Ajay @ Chintoli and Raj Kumar as Ex. P5 and P6, but he was not sure as to which rod was recovered from which of the above two accused. PW-4 HC Anil Kaushik and PW-6 Ct. Dharmender Soni both are also the witnesses of the seizure memo Ex. PW1/G of the rod recovered from accused Ajay @ Chintoli and PW-6 had further witnessed the above arrest memos and personal search memos of the accused persons, alongwith PW-10 HC Mange Ram and has further identified the above rod Ex. P5.
8. PW-8 is ASI Ikramuddin and he has deposed that on 19.07.05, at about 1.00 AM, he was handed over the rukka alongwith copy of case FIR No. 180/05, which was marked to him for further investigation. PW-8 deposed that he alongwith Ct. Hakimuddin reached W Block Park at about 1.10 AM, where SI Rajpal, HC Sita Ram, HC Mange Ram, HC Dinesh,Ct. Dharmender, Ct. Anil and Ct. Sanjiv, alongwith SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 7 five accused were found present. SI Rajpal handed over to the witness three sealed pullandas, sealed with the seal of 'RSS', and two iron rods in unsealed condition and TSR bearing no. DL 1RF 1922. PW-8 further deposed that he was also given the seizure memo and sketches etc. All five accused, including accused Ajay @ Chintoli, were arrested by PW-8 and subjected to personal search and the TSR was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and he had further prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/K (wrongly typed as Ex. PW1/A in his statement). He has also deposed that later on he had sent the exhibit/katta of this case to FSL, received the report Ex. PW8/A, obtained the sanction U/S 39 Arms Act Ex. PW6/A and filed the challan in the court after completing the investigation. However, that is not relevant so far as this accused is concerned.
9. PW-9 HC Devi Sahay was working as Duty Officer at PS GK I on 18.07.05 and has deposed on the formal point of recording of FIR in the case and has proved copy of the same as Ex. PW3/A.
10. All the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution on record was put to the accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. and same was denied by him to be incorrect. Accused has stated that he was picked up from bus stand Badarpur and after wrongful confinement he was falsely implicated in this case. However, no defence SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 8 evidence was led by the accused.
11. Arguments were heard on behalf of the State as advanced by Sh S.K.Raghuvanshi, Ld Additional PP for the State and also on behalf of the accused Ajay @ Chintoli as advanced by Sh A.K.Tiwari, Ld defence counsel. The evidence led by the prosecution on record has also been analysed.
12. There are various loopholes, lacunas, contradictions and inconsistencies in the story of the prosecution which render the case of the prosecution to be unworthy of acceptance and entitle the accused to be acquitted in this case giving benefit of doubt. It has been admitted by the IO/PW-1 SI Rajpal during his cross examination that he had not conveyed the above secret information to his SHO or any other senior police officer and rather he himself had acted upon the information straight away, though nothing prevented him from intimating his seniors about the same telephonically and seeking their directions to make the prosecution case more trustworthy and acceptable. Even if he had conveyed the above information in time to the SHO or the Duty Officer atleast, the same could had been recorded at the PS and it could have provided some veracity and strength to the prosecution story. As it also happens in most cases investigated by the police, no public person or independent witness has been joined by the IO at any stage of the investigation to corroborate their version SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 9 regarding the apprehension of the accused, alongwith his other associates/co-accused, in the manner as deposed by the PWs. Though almost all the police witnesses of the raiding party have vaguely stated that few passersby were requested to join the raiding team and none had agreed, but no resident of the locality or adjoining houses and even no shopkeeper of the adjoining market was asked to join the raiding process. There are even contradictions in the statements of the police witnesses of apprehension of the accused regarding the number of the passersby requested to join the raiding team because though PW-1 and PW-2 have both stated that 10-15 passersby were requested but PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 have all stated that only 4-5 passersby were requested.
13. Further, though the secret information received by the IO was specifically with regard to the planning of the accused persons for committing dacoity at Satnam Electronics, but even then no steps were taken by the IO to inform the owner or manager etc. of the above shop about the same or to inform the SHO or ACP of the area and to request them to make some special arrangements of security at the abovesaid shop. Without taking such steps he had straight away proceeded for the spot of information, alongwith few police officials, as if he was very much sure about their capacity to apprehend the offenders despite the fact that they were to assemble there for making planning to commit SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 10 dacoity and were likely to be armed with weapons. There are also contradictions in the statements of the members of the raiding party regarding the time spent at the spot during investigation because the IO/PW-1 has claimed to had left the spot after 2.30 AM and PW-2 states to had spent about 6/7 hours at the spot, but PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 have all claimed that they had remained at the spot only for 2-3 hours and if their these depositions are to be believed then they all were to be free from the investigation at the spot at the most by/around 12.30 AM. On the other hand the second IO ASI Ikramuddin/PW-8 has claimed to had arrived at the spot only after 1.00 AM as he was entrusted with the investigation of this case only at about 1.00 AM. There is also some inconsistency regarding the fixed signal which was allegedly given by HC Dinesh/PW-2, who was deployed to overhear the conversation of the accused persons, because only PW-5 HC Hakimuddin and PW-6 Ct. Dharmender Soni had claimed that the signal given was the lighting of the torch two times, whereas none of the other witnesses has claimed that the torch was lighted twice.
14. Further, there are also some contradictions in the statements of the members of the raiding team as to how the secret information was received because the depositions of PW-7 Ct. Sanjiv Kumar suggest that the secret information was received telephonically, which is not claimed by any other PW, because during his cross examination he has stated SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 11 that the phone of the informer had not come before him. There are also some contradictions in their statements with regard to the timings of their reaching at the spot of information and the arrival of the accused persons there in a TSR because though according to PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 HC Hakimuddin they had reached there before 9.30 PM and the above TSR had also arrived there at 9.30 PM itself, but PW-5 HC Sita Ram tells the time of arrival of the TSR to be 9.40 PM. PW-5 HC Sita Ram has contradicted himself regarding the identity of the accused in his examination-in-chief itself as he had identified the accused Ajay @ Chintoli as accused Salim at one place and as Ajay @ Chintoli at the other place. He even could not identify the iron rod recovered from accused Ajay @ Chintoli out of the two iron rods produced before him during trial. PW7 Ct. Sanjiv Kumar in his chief examination went on to state that a knife was recovered from accused Ajay @ Chintoli, instead of an iron rod recovered from him, and he had to be cross examined by the Ld APP on the above aspect and it only in his such cross examination that he had corrected himself and had stated that a rod was recovered from the above accused. However, his above conduct had made his entire depositions to be doubtful and unworthy of credence.
15. On further appreciation of the prosecution story, it is also found that as per their version PW-5 HC Hakimuddin had taken the rukka of this case to the PS, but SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 12 when the above police official was examined in this court he is silent in this regard and has not made any depositions or claim regarding taking of the rukka or his return back to the spot with the second IO. Even the Ld APP conducting the prosecution at that time had not questioned him regarding the above aspect and in view of the above the entire case of the prosecution regarding the spot investigation and sending of the rukka from the spot becomes highly doubtful. Again, it has been claimed by the above PWs that the entire writing work was done at spot itself and it has also been deposed by some of them that there were halogen lights in the park, but PW-7 was not sure whether there was any light in the park or not and even the source of the alleged light or poles have not been shown in the site plan Ex. PW1/K. It has further come on record during the statements of the above PWs that almost all of them had left the spot together with the accused and from the spot the accused was taken to hospital and then to the PS. It has also come on record that they had gone with the accused in their official vehicle make Tata Sumo, but none of them has deposed anything about as to what had happened with the above TSR in which the accused persons had allegedly arrived at the spot and how and by whom the same was taken to the PS. Most of the above PWs even do not remember as to whether they were in civil dresses or in uniform or where having any weapons or not.
16. Therefore, in view of the above, it is held that SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors FIR NO. 180/05 PS: Greater Kailash 13 the prosecution story being put forwarded regarding the apprehension and arrest of the accused persons is not trustworthy and reliable and the accused Ajay @ Chintoli, is therefore, entitled to be acquitted in this case giving benefit of doubt. Hence, the accused is being acquitted of the charges framed against him. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open
court on 04.01.2011 (M.K.NAGPAL)
Additional Sessions Judge
South & South East District
Saket Court Complex
New Delhi
SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors
FIR NO. 180/05
PS: Greater Kailash
14
SC No. 79/05
4.1.2011
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Ajay @ Chintoli on bail with counsel Sh A.K.Tiwari.
Accused Amar Singh @ Judi PO.
Vide separate judgement of the date, accused Ajay @ Chintoli is acquitted. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety discharged. File be consigned to record room U/S 299 Cr.P.C., as regard accused Amar Singh @ Judi, who is 'PO' and to be revived when he is apprehended.
(M.K.NAGPAL)
ASJ-Special Judge/NDPS SD
4.1.2011
SC No. 79/05 State Vs Amar Singh & Ors
FIR NO. 180/05
PS: Greater Kailash