Delhi District Court
State vs . on 24 January, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE1 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
State
Vs.
Chander Pal
FIR NO. 125/02
P.S. Krishna Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 160/2/2002
2. Date of institution : 02.11.2002
3. Name of the complainant : Ct. Mukesh Kumar
4. Date of commission of offence : 26.06.2002
5. Name of accused : Chander Pal,
S/o. Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o H. No. 14/17, Gali no. 9,
East Azad Nagar, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : Section 186/332/353 IPC
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the Judgment : 21.01.2013
9. Final order : convicted u/s. 332 & 353 IPC
10. Date of such Judgment : 24.01.2013
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2002, at about Page no. 1 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02 2 10.15 am, at between Chander Nagar Picket to Chander Nagar Bus Stand, accused Chander Pal voluntarily obstructed and used criminal force and voluntarily caused simple hurt to public servant Ct. Mukesh while he was discharging his public duty. First Information Report (in short 'FIR') No. 125/02 under section 186/332/353 IPC was registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before this court under section 186/332/353 IPC and thereafter, accused was summoned for the said offence.
2. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings, after making compliance of provisions of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C") vide order dated 05.03.2004, finding a prima facie case, Sh. S. S. Malhotara has framed charge for the offence punishable under section 186/332/353 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. For proving its case, the prosecution has produced eight witnesses. Dr. Kalpana Kumar, examined as PW1; Assitant Sub Inspector Gyan Prabha, examined as PW2; Ct. Dharamvir Tyagi, examined as PW3; Ct. Tarun Vikram, examined as PW4; Ct. Mukesh, examined as PW5; Head Constable Vijay Partap examined as PW6; Ct. V. Rajender, examined as PW7 and Assitant Sub Inspector Raghuwar Dayal, examined as PW8.
Page no. 2 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02 3
4. Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 (1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. When accused was briefed on all the incriminating evidence and documents, he denied the allegations and mentioned that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, he opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
5. I have heard the State through Sh. M.A. Khan, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sh. P. K. Khanna, counsel for accused. I have perused the material placed on record.
6. Learned APP for the State argued that prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and they have identified the accused and case property in their respective evidence and therefore, accused may be convicted. On the other hand the other hand, Learned defence counsel had contended that vehicle by which Constable of Police Station Mayur Vihar was hit and the vehicle on which accused came on the spot are different and accused has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore accused may be acquitted.
7. Complainant PW5 Ct. Mukesh has fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has clearly deposed that on 26.06.2002, he was alongwith Ct. Tarun (PW4) on petrolling duty on motorcycle bearing no.
Page no. 3 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02 4 DL1SJ5435 and at about 9.20 am, they received an information regarding a motorcycle bearing no. DL7SS1401 ran away towards Shyam Lal College after hitting a constable at Preet Vihar Barricades when they were present at Chander Nagar Morh picket. Ct. Dharmveer (PW3) and Ct. Rajender (PW7) were also present there. Thereafter, they started checking the vehicles after installing barricades. At about 10.15 am, abovesaid motorcycle came from the side of Ram Nagar Morh. By seeing the abovesaid registration number, he gave a signal to stop the motorcycle but driver of motorcycle did not stop. When motorcycle reached near them, he caught hold the motorcycle from the back side but the motorcycle rider did not stop the same and by seeing him, driver hold the bike and raced the motorcycle and pulled him about 1520 foot and thereafter, he fell down on the road. He also stated that Ct. Tarun started the motorcycle and chased the accused and apprehended him near chander Nagar Bus Stand with the help of the public persons. He also mentioned that he alongwith other constable reached there and informed at Police Station regarding apprehension of accused through wireless and after some time Head Constable Raghuwar Dayal (PW8) and Ct. Vijay (PW6) reached at the spot. Hence, victim (PW5) have clearly described the incident. At the time of incident, PW3 Ct. Dharamveer, PW7 Ct. Rajinder and PW4 Tarun Vikram were also present at the spot with the victim (PW5) and they have also corroborated the version of the complainant. The information Page no. 4 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02 5 regarding the incident was given through wireless by Ct. Mukesh at police station. and DD No. 13A was registered in this regard. Thereafter, after receiving said DD No. 13A, Ct. Vijay Partap (PW6) alongwith Assistant Sub Inspector Raghuwar Dayal (IO) (PW8) reached at the spot, where, Ct. Mukesh, Ct. Dharamveer, Ct. Rajender and Ct. Tarun met them. They found that Ct. Mukesh in injured condition and he handed over the accused and motorcycle of the accused to the IO. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Ct. Mukesh. IO has also proved that Ct. Mukesh and accused were sent to hospital for medical examination. PW1 Dr. Kalpana Kumar examined the complainant and accused Chander Pal and proved the MLC of accused and complainant bearing no. 2484/2002 and 2485/2002 respectively and opined the nature of injury simple by blunt object. Hence, from the MLC of the Ct. Mukesh, it has been proved that he had received the injury. Accused has also received the injury. In respect of injury of the accused, Ct. Mukesh has deposed that accused received injury at the time of his apprehension as he was fallen down on the road. Hence, prosecution has explained the injury of the accused received by him at the time of incident. PW2 W/Assistant Sub Inspector Gyan Prabha has proved the FIR which was registered on the same day vide Ex. PW2/A. Nothing has been come in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses in favour of the accused.
Page no. 5 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02 6
8. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. it has been mentioned by the accused that on the date of the incident, he was going to Khureji to deposit the water bill of his employer by motorcycle and at about 09:30 a.m. while passing by Chander Nagar Morh, two police officials gave signal to stop there and he slowed down the speed of the motorcycle but motorcycle was caught hold from behind by the police officials. The motorcycle got slipped and he and said police official fell down and they received injuries. Thereafter he was beaten by the police officials and they brought him to the police station and police officials told him that he has hit one person and he should confess his guilt but he denied for the same. He was then beaten by police officials at the police station also. Thereafter on his asking the Ct. who was hit by some one was called to the police station and he denied that he was hit by him. Thereafter they stopped beating him but they have already registered the present case against him falsely and he has been falsely implicated in this case. From the statement of accused it is very clear that accused had admitted his presence at the spot on the relevant date and time. He has also admitted that he alongwith police official have received injuries on that day. He also admitted the presence of the police officials at the spot. It is also observed that accused has stated in the statement that he was beaten by police officials but in this regard no evidence has been produced by accused that he was beaten by police officials at the spot while spot is public place. Further accused has Page no. 6 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02 7 mentioned that he has been falsely implicated in this case but he had nowhere stated that he had prior enmity with the police persons and therefore, he has been falsely implicated. This is a case of obstruction and beating etc. of a public servant Ct. Mukesh when he was discharging his official duty and not the case of hiting the Ct. of Police Station of Mayur Vihar and therefore, submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the vehicle by which Ct. of the police station Mayur Vihar was hited and the vehicle on which the present accused was coming are different is not acceptable.
10. Charge for the offence under section 186 IPC was also framed against the accused. As per Section 195 of Cr.P.C. cognizance of the offence under section 186 IPC may be taken only on the complaint of the public servant or his superior. One report under section 195 Cr.P.C. is attached with the file but same has not been proved by the prosecution. Victim/public servant Ct. Mukesh has not deposed in his evidence that he had filed the report/complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. before this Court. Said report has not got examined by any witness of the prosecution side. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the said complaint and therefore, accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 186 IPC.
11. In light of discussions made above, I am of the opinion that Page no. 7 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02 8 prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused for the offences punishable under section 332 and 353 IPC and accordingly, accused is convicted the said offences but accused is acquitted for the offence under section 186 IPC.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Kumar)
th
On 24 Day of January, 2013 Metropolitan Magistrate1 (East)
(total eight pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Page no. 8 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02
9
FIR NO. 125/02
P.S. Krishna Nagar
State Vs. Chander Pal
31.01.2013
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused/convict on bail with counsel Sh. P. K. Khanna. Heard on the point of sentence.
It is stated by Ld. counsel for convict that convict is the first offender and is the only bread winner and earner of his family containing old mother and father at his village. It is also submitted that accused is not previously convicted in any other case and no other criminal case has been registered against the accused and therefore this is a fit case where accused may be released on probation.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that accused should not be released on probation and may be sentenced as per law.
Accused has been convicted for the offence under section 332/353 IPC which is punishable with the imprisonment up to 3 years and 2 years respectively. Hence, this is not a case where offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the present case, police personals have given signal to the accused to stop but he did not stop and thereafter, Ct. Mukesh caught hold the accused from behind and due to which Ct. Mukesh pulled about 1520 feet. Hence, nature of the offence is of such Page no. 9 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02 10 type that accused can be released on probation.
Section 361(a) of the Cr.P.C. provides that where in any case the court have dealt with an accused person under section 360 or under the Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons for not having done so.
Hence, it is mandatory to the Court to give special reasons if accused is not released on probation under section 360 or under the Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Accused is not stated to be previously convict. Offence under section 332/353 are not punishable with the death or imprisonment for life. I do not find any special reasons from the facts and circumstances of the case and from the character of the offender for not releasing him on probation and therefore, accused is released on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for one year on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Accused is also directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/ of the proceedings under section 5 (1) (b) of Probation of Offenders Act. Bail bond furnished and accepted. Cost paid.
Copy of judgment and of this order be supplied to convict free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Sanjeev Kumar )
st
on 31 Day of January, 2013 Metropolitan Magistrate1 (East )
Karkardooma Courts,Delhi.
Page no. 10 of 8 St. vs. Chander Pal; FIR No. 125/02