Delhi District Court
State vs . Inderjeet Singh @ Billa & Ors. on 20 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Inderjeet Singh @ Billa & Ors.
FIR No. 551/1995
U/s 142/143/147/149/186/332/323/353/451/506 IPC
P.S. Sriniwaspuri
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 168/2/14
Unique Identification No. : 02403R0007681996
Date of Institution : 24.04.1996
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 15.04.2015
Date of judgment : 20.04.2015
Name of the complainant : Shri Kuldeep Singh Bhogal
s/o Shri Harbans Singh
r/o 11, Hari Nagar Ashram,
New Delhi
FIR No. 551/1995
P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.1 of 34
Date of the commission of offence : 11.07.1995
Name of accused : (1) Indrajeet Singh @ Billa
@ Gandhi
s/o Shri Santokh SIngh
r/o H. No. 6, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
(2) Har Mohan Singh
Marwah
s/o Shri Lal Singh
r/o H. No.39, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
(3) Santokh Singh
s/o Shri Sardar Jagat Singh
r/o H. No.4, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
(since deceased)
(4) Amarjeet Singh
s/o Shri Bhuvinder Singh
r/o H. No.38, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
(5) Paramjit Singh
s/o Shri Parja Singh
r/o H. No.95, Bhagwan Singh
New Delhi
FIR No. 551/1995
P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.2 of 34
(6)Tajender Singh
s/o Shri Trilok Singh
r/o H. No.25, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
(7) Prakash Chand
s/o Shri Jagdish Chand
r/o H. No.40, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
(8) Man Mohan Singh
s/o Late Shri Harnam Singh
r/o H. No.28, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
(9) Pammy Singh
s/o Sardar Santokh Singh
r/o H. No.4, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi
Offence complained of :U/s 147/148/149/186/353/332/
427/452/506/323 IPC
Offence charged of :U/s 142 IPC read with Section
143 IPC, Section 323 IPC read
with Section 149 IPC, Section
147/186/332/353/451/506 IPC
FIR No. 551/1995
P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.3 of 34
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : All accused acquitted.
Date of Institution : 24.04.1996
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 15.04.2015
Date of judgment : 20.04.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint wherein the complainant stated that he contested the election for Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee for political party, namely Siromany Akali Dal on 09.07.1995. The result of the aforesaid election was declared on 10.07.1995 in which he had won the election against another contestant, namely, Tarvender Singh Marwah. On 12.07.1995 in the morning when the complainant was visiting the house of his supporters & voters to thank them for voting him and when the complainant along with some of his supporters reached at Bhogal, Jangpura, he found that his opponent Tarvender Singh Marwah along with his supporters came and started shouting slogan against him. They also started abusing the complainant and FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.4 of 34 picked up fight with the complainant but the complainant initially tried to avoid the same. Thereafter, the complainant along with his supporters reached near Feroz Shah Kotla but even there the supporters of Tarvinder Singh were shouting slogan against him and were using abusive language against the complainant. At that time, they stopped the complainant on his way and around 10:00PM in the night when the complainant returned to his house at Hari Nagar Ashram, the supporters of Tarvender Singh Marwah reached near the house of the complainant. The name of the supporters were Inderjeet Singh, Santokh Singh, Har Mohan Singh Marwah @ Mony, Paramjeet Singh @ Sweety, Tajinder Singh @ Aashu and Amarjeet Singh @ Pinti who were already known to the complainant along with another 810 people raised slogan and used abuses against the complainant and entered his house. When they entered into the house of the complainant, they started throwing soda water bottles & bricks in the house of the complainant, due to which wife of the complainant Kamaljeet Kaur sustained injuries. Thereafter, the complainant made a call at 100 number. PCR reached the spot and upon seeing the police, all accused persons came together and again entered into the house of the complainant and at that time person, namely, Pammi s/o Shri Santokh & Chhammo also entered into the house. Thereafter, the alleged accused persons were made to vacate the house of the complainant FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.5 of 34 but the aforesaid alleged persons together started pelting stones at the police official and then SHO of the area. At that time, the alleged persons also criminally intimidated the complainant and threatened him to kill while stating that since the complainant had defeated their candidate, he shall not be spared and his family shall be kidnapped and he will have to bear the consequences. The police used lathi charge to disburse the crowd and alleged persons had committed house trespass in the house of the complainant and had caused injuries to him. They had also broken the glass of the house of the complainant. The complainant along with his wife and his uncle Gursharan were taken for medical examination.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed. Copies of the chargesheet were supplied to all the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge for the offences punishable U/s 142 IPC read with Section 143 IPC, Section 147/186 IPC, Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 332/353/451/506 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.6 of 34 they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter. Prosecution cited as many as 27 (twenty seven) witnesses. Prosecution examined 18 (eighteen) witnesses as other witnesses were dropped being untraceable.
PW1 Shri Manmohan Singh deposed that on 11.07.1995 as Kuldeep Singh Bhogal won the election of Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee after defeating Tarwinder Singh Marwah, at around 10:00PM the supporters of Kuldeep Singh Bhogal were coming to congratulate him for his victory. On that, PW1 has also gone to his of the complainant to congratulate him but meanwhile supporters of Inderjeet Singh along with other 1012 persons started shouting slogan and pelting stones in the house of the complainant. After some time after accused Inderjeet Singh (correctly identified) left the spot but came again and repeated previous incident of shouting and pelting stones. Thereafter, the complainant dialed 100 number. The name of other persons who were with Inderjeet Singh at the time of incident are known to the complainant. Except accused Inderjeet Singh, he could not identify other persons who were present along with accused Inderjeet Singh and were pelting stones. The police arrived. The father of FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.7 of 34 accused Inderjeet Singh, namely, Santokh (since deceased) threw cap of SHO and again started quarreling with the police. Thereafter, the complainant also received injuries. Lathi charge was taken place. Stars of SHO were thrown away and his uniform was torn. Gursharan also received injuries.
On asking leading question by Ld. APP, PW1 replied that he did not tell the name of accused Amarjeet Singh, Paramjeet Singh & Tajinder Singh to the police as it was very dark at the spot, therefore, he was unable to see other except accused Inderjeet Singh.
During the crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, PW1 stated that quarrel took place but he cannot identify the person who participated in the quarrel. However, the police reached the spot. He did not know whether anybody in the quarrel had misbehaved or quarreled with the police or manhandled the police official.
PW2 Shri Ramcharan (record clerk, AIIMS Hospital) deposed that MLC No.50669, 50670, 50672 & 50673 prepared by Dr. Rakesh Bhasin on 12.07.1995 in respect to the injured Dhoop Singh, Dushyant, Sunil Kumar & SI Udaivir Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/D. During the crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused, PW2 stated that it was correct that MLC No.50629 relating to the FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.8 of 34 accused Inderjeet Singh, MLC No.50630 relating to the acused Prakash, MLC No.50632 was relating to accused Santokh Singh were also available in the MLC record brought by him and MLC No.50629 was in the handwriting of Dr. Amit Arora. However, MLC No.50630 & 50632 were in the handwriting of Rakesh Bhasin and same were Ex.PW2/DA to Ex.PW2/DC. None of the MLC were prepared in his presence.
PW3 Shri Kuldeep Singh Bhogal (the complainant) deposed that on 09.07.1995 election of Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee was conducted and he was candidate on behalf of Akali Dal Badal and result was declared on 10.07.1995. He won the election against Talwinder Singh Marwah as he (complainant) has won election so he offered thanks to the voters of Ashram & Bhogal. There Talwinder Singh Marwah alongwith his associate (all accused persons identified by witness) started pelting stones on him as well as supporters' vehicle. When they (complainant & his voters/supporters) reached Jangpura, there also accused persons reached and had burnt houses of the supporters and burnt their vehicles. Thereafter he reached Ferozshah Kotla in the evening. There Talwinder Singh Marwah and accused persons restrained him at the main gate at Ferozshah Kotla and they did not allow him to enter at Ferozshah. They (accused persons) started slogans "Vapas Jao" and also pelted bottles as well as stones upon the FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.9 of 34 complainant and his voters. He reached back to his house and accused persons entered his house and also damaged the furniture, glasses and doors. Thereafter, he informed the police on 100 number and police reached the spot and police officers were removing accused persons from the house of the complainant but the accused persons started quarreling with them and had torn the uniform of the police and when he tried to pacify them. They gave beating to the complainant and he sustained some abrasion on his right hand. Thereafter, police took him, his wife and his fufa Shri Gursharan to AIIMS Hospital. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. PW3 further deposed that persons who entered the house and committed the aforesaid acts. He had lodged the complaint against them. Those persons Harmohan Singh Marwah, Paramjeet @ Sweeti, one Santokh Singh (since deceased) & Tarvinder Singh were leading them. Out of them, PW3 identified Harmohan Singh Marwah & Paramjeet Singh @ Sweeti and he (PW3) further deposed that he was not able to identify the other persons as it was very dark at that time. PW3 further deposed that in his complaint Ex.PW3/A, he named the accused persons, namely, Manmohan Singh and Paramjeet Singh Sweeti. Accused persons Tarvinder Singh Marwah, Manmohan Singh, Paramjeet Singh Sweeti had threatened him & his family members to kill and also stated to the complainant that his children would be abducted from the school. FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.10 of 34 Accused persons used hockey stick and soda water bottles and bricks.
In reply to a leading question put by the Ld. APP for the State, PW3 replied that in his complaint, he mentioned name of accused persons Indrajeet Singh Gandhi, Santokh Singh, Harmohan Singh Marwah @ Moni, Paramjeet Singh @ Sweeti, Tajinder Singh @ Ashu and Amarjete Singh @ Pinki, being known to the complainant.
PW3 further deposed that apart from accused Harmohan Singh & Paramjeet Singh, he was not able to identify other persons. PW3 stated that in the evening when he came home, these accused persons, namely, Harmohan, Paramjeet Singh and Talwinder Singh entered in his house and damaged the household articles and pelted stones as well as glass bottles and when he called the police the aforesaid accused persons quarreled with the police and had torn dress of police official and gave beatings to them and also pelted stones upon them. He (PW3) further stated that during entire incident, wife of the complainant sustained injuries on her leg and chest and she became unconscious. Police took wife of the complainant to AIIMS.
During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State on the point of identity, PW3 had not identified the other accused persons apart from accused Harmohan Singh & Paramjeet Singh.
PW3 was was confronted by Ld. APP, portion A to A of his FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.11 of 34 complaint Ex.PW3/A to have denied to ever made.
During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, PW3 stated that his statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the police and the same was not in his own handwriting. Further he stated to the police that the houses and and vehicle of his supporters were burnt by the supporters of Tarwinder Singh and he was confronted on this point by counsel for accused since the same was not mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW3/A. PW3 further stated that house No.10 & 11 belonged to him and fight took place since he had won election against Talwinder Singh Marwah. He had named the accused persons in his complaint because people had informed him the name of these persons and he could not identify the accused persons except accused Harmohan and Paramjeet Singh since it was very dark. He (PW3) did not know that FIR No.552/95 was registered against him by the accused persons. PW3 further stated that he named Talwinder Singh in his complaint but he was deliberately omitted by the police and he had reported said incident on nonreporting of the name of Talwinder Singh Marwah to the senior officers but he did not have any copy of said complaint available with him. He further deposed that he could only identify accused Harmohan and accused Paramjeet and did not know other accused. He did not know if remaining accused persons were involved in the incident FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.12 of 34 reported by him. He could not say, if his statement was read over to him before taking his signature as incident is of 12 years ago.
PW4 Sardar Harvinder Singh deposed that he did not know anything about the case, therefore he could not identify any of the accused persons before the Court.
During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, PW4 denied the contents of statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
PW5 Shri Mandeep Singh @ Toni deposed that he did not know anything about the case, therefore he could not identify any of the accused persons before the Court.
During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, PW5 denied the contents of statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
PW6 Shri Maninder Singh deposed that he did not know anything about the case, therefore he could not identify any of the accused persons before the Court.
During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, PW6 denied the contents of statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
PW7 Shri Suresh Kumar Saini deposed that he did not know anything about the case. He further deposed that he did not know the persons Inderjeet Singh, Harmohan Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Paramjeet Singh, FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.13 of 34 Tajinder, Prkash Chand, Manmohan Singh and Pammy Singh. Police met him in the year 1995 and took him forcibly in a jeep to Nehru Place and obtained his signatures on the written paper forcibly without reading the same to him.
During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, PW7 denied the contents of statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
PW8 Shri Sant Ram deposed that he had no knowledge of this case.
During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, PW8 denied the contents of statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
PW9 Smt. Kamaldeep Kaur deposed that she has no knowledge of this case.
During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, PW9 admitted that he had sustained injuries in that assault and for the injuries I was got medically examined at AIIMS hospital emergency.
PW10 Shri Dharmender Kumar deposed that on 12.03.1996 he was posted as DCP (South District) and he had given complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. in the present case, same is Ex.PW10/A. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, PW10 stated that the police report including statement of witness FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.14 of 34 mentioned in his complaint had been put before him and he had gone through the same prior to filing complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. He had not mentioned this fact in his complaint.
PW11 Constable Kripal Singh deposed that at the time of incident, he was working as photographer and in the intervening night of 11/12.07.1995 on the direction of the IO, he reached the spot and took photographs from different angles and photographs were handed over to the IO. Photographs are Ex.P8 (collectively).
During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused, PW11 stated that photographs also showed the stones lying on the scene of occurrence.
PW12 Inspector Narender Singh deposed that on 12.07.1995 he was posted as InspectorSpecial Investigation Unit(South District) Nehru Place. On that day, upon receiving information from senior officer that at house No.10, Hari Nagar, Ashram, quarrel were going between sardars in support of Tarwinder Singh Marwah at the house of the complainant Kuldeep Singh Bhogal. Thereafter PW12 immediately reached at the spot and inspected scene of occurrence and found several persons assembled at the spot. All accused persons were identified by PW12. He further deposed that he had found broken piece of glasses and stones at the scene of occurrence. FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.15 of 34 He started investigation at the spot and called photographer who took the photographs Ex.P8. He recorded the statement of photographer and seized the glasses piece and stones vide Ex.PW12/A. He also sealed police uniform/shirt of the then SHO P.S. SHO Inspector D. S. Chaudhary as he was assaulted and in that assault his left shoulder flag was torn and his whistle chord was detached from his uniform. The seizure memo was prepared vide Ex.PW12/B. All the injured namely, Inspector D. S. Chaudhary, SI Udaivir, Constable Sunil Kumar, Ct. Dushyant & Constable Dhoop Chand were sent to AIIMS for medical examination. He prepared site plan at the instance of SI Udaivir vide memo Ex.PW12/C. He received MLC of injured and injured persons from the public namely Kuldeep Singh Bhogal and Gursharan from the hospital from another police officials visited prior to his arrival at the spot. He collected MLC and other medical documents relating to the injured persons. During investigation, he arrested eight accused persons in the court. Chargesheet was filed after completion of investigation. Case property is Ex.P1 & Ex.P2.
During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, PW12 stated that when he reached the spot. There were 2025 persons present at the spot and public present at the spot were mix supporters of Tarvinder Singh Marwah & Kuldeep Singh Bhogal. Further it FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.16 of 34 was not possible to identify them specifically. Place of incident was situated at distance of 400500 metres from the police station. In the incident, wife of the complainant was injured and she was taken to hospital before PW12 reached the spot. PW12 further stated that he could not say whether Kuldeep Singh Bhogal was present at the spot when he reached there and he did not remember if he met any family member at the spot. He reached the spot at around 01:30AM upon receiving the call after incident and some senior officer were also present at that time. He could not say if ACP O. P. Yadav was present or not. He reached the spot alone. When he reached 1520 police personnel were present at the spot to control the situation. The photographer from crime team was already present before he reached the spot. He took the photographs of the scene of the incident in the presence of PW12. Some of the police officer were having danda and other arms and during investigation it did not go to the knowledge of PW12 where any public persons were injured due to the force used by the police to control the situation. The injured police officer were present at the spot when he reached and they later on sent for medical examination but he did not accompany them to the hospital. PW12 further stated that he did not remember if he recorded statement of complainant Kuldeep Singh Bhogal or any other family member and he recorded statement of the injured police officers at the FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.17 of 34 hospital on the same day. He further stated that case FIR No.552/95 was also registered on the same day against the complainant and others and the same fact was brought to his notice during investigation that Tarwinder Singh Marwa and Kuldeep Singh Bhogal were politically rivals in SGPC Delhi. He (PW12) did not know, if the accused persons were close relatives of Tarwinder Singh Marwah.
PW13 Inspector Udaivir Singh deposed that on 11.07.1995 while he was posted as Incharge Police Post Sun Light Colony. On that day, upon receipt of DD No.22 Ex.PW13/A was received by him at around 10:30PM regarding quarrel at H. No.11, Hari Nagar Ashram near Shalimar Cinema which was entrused to HC Vikram Singh. HC Vikram Singh along with other staff went to the spot and he along with Ct. Dushyant also went to the spot where quarrel was taking place between the groups of Talwinder Singh Marah and Kuldeep Singh Bhogal. SHO P.S. Sriniwaspuri Dheer Singh Chaudhary also reached the spot and PW13 along with his staff and SHO were tried to control the public and to stop quarrel but the supporters of Talwinder Singh Marwa started pelting soda water bottles and bricks on the house of the complainant and on the police staff present at the spot. Inspector Ramesh Kumar, Addl. SHO P.S.Sriniwaspuri also reached at the spot. The police somehow controlled situation but they sustained injuries and FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.18 of 34 some of the accused persons pulled away left shoulder flap of inspector Dhir Singh Chaudhary and his whistle and peacap. Thereafter inspector Ramesh Kumar recorded statement of complainant on which the present case was registered by sending rukka through HC Vikram. PW13 along with other staff who sustained injuries went to the AIIMS Hospital for medical examination and investigation was transferred to SIU South District by the order of senior officers. Inspector Narender reached at the spot and took the photograph of the scene of crime. Inspector Narender Kumar seized some of the broken glasses of soda water and 1520 bricks from the spot vide memo Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, Inspector Narender Kumar who were investigating officer of the case, seized the torn shirt of inspector Dhir Singh Chaudhary which was without flap of left shoulder after making packet parcel of cloth and had sealed the same with seal of UBS vide memo Ex.PW12/B. Medical examination of PW13 was got conducted at AIIMS Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW2/B. IO recorded his statement. Khakee shirt of Inspector Dhir Singh Chaudhary was accordingly identified by the witness and same was Ex.P1. The katta/sack seal UBS containing the broken piece of glass and bricks and stones were Ex.P2 (colly).
During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused, PW13 stated that the place of incident from police post Sun Light Colony was FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.19 of 34 around 1 km and HC Vikram & HC Sunil and one PCR van were present when he reached. There were 5060 persons who gathered at the spot and family members of the complainant were also present at the spot. PW13 had scene the complainant at that time but he could not tell if the number of supporters of both the groups and he could not differentiate as to who were supporters of Kuldeep Singh and Talwinder Singh. Intimation of quarrel was given to higher authority by concerned SHO who was also present at the spot and ACP O. P. Yadav also reached the spot. Around 1520 police personnel were controlling the mob and quarrel continued for 4045 minutes. Some glass of house were broken in the incident. Inspector Ramesh Kumar reached the spot after the quarrel. In order to control the mob, the police used the minimum force and he did not remember if the police officers were carrying danda but he was having own pistol with him. He (PW13) further stated that he did not know if any public person sustained injuries by use of danda by the police and he remained at the spot after sustaining injury in the incident and left the spot after about four hours. He further stated that he sustained injuries on the chest and left lower abdomen and there were no apparent or visible injuries. In the course of quarrel, 45 police personnel sustained injuries. However, he could not tell if the complainant also sustained injuries in the incident but the family member of the complainant FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.20 of 34 were complaining him being injured, however, there was no apparent and visible injuries on their body. At that time, wife & brother of complainant was present and he did not remember if any other public persons was also got injured. Statement of complainant was recorded in his presence at the spot and the statement of PW13 was recorded at the police station. He did not know if the statement of any other public persons or neighbours were recorded. It was correct that FIR No.552/95 was registered against the complainant and it was correct that the complainant and Talwinder were political rivals and was existing MLA.
PW14 HC Sunil deposed that on 11.07.1995 he was posted at police station Sriniwaspuri and was present at P.P. Sun Light Colony and on that day upon receipt of DD No.22 Ex.PW13/A, he along with Ct. Yogesh & HC Vikram reached the spot and whether mob was found consisting of many sikh persons. Upon inquiry, they were informed that the incident of stone pelting had taken place between two groups. As they were unable to control the mob they had call senior officers from the police station and after some time SHO Inspector Dhir Singh Chaudhary and some senior police officers including SI Udaivir, chowki Incharge Sriniwaspuri. Inspector Ramesh Kumar & Addl. SHO P.S. Sriniwaspuri also reached the spot. The police officers somehow controlled the mob and in the event some official including PW14, FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.21 of 34 SHO D. S. Chaudhary sustained injuries. Some of the accused persons had pulled away the left shoulder flap of Inspector D. S. Chaudhary & his whistle chord and cap. Thereafter Inspector Ramesh Kumar recorded statement of Kuldeep Singh Bhogal Ex.PW3/A and upon which rukka was prepared and present FIR was registered through HC Vikram. PW14 along with other police official were medical examined in the AIIMS and investigation was transferred to SIU (South District). Inspector Narender reached the spot and got the photograph of the scene of occurrence. Broken glasses of soda water bottles and 1520 bricks were seized vide Ex.PW2/A and torn shirt/uniform of Inspector D. S. Chaudhary was seized vide Ex.PW12/B and medical examination of PW14 was conducted at AIIMS Hospital vide Ex.PW2/C. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons, PW 14 stated that DD No.22 was received at police post in his presence and they were first police party who reached the spot on the day of occurrence if any PCR van was already there. There were 4050 persons at the spot and he does not know if DCP & ACP of the area had also reached. SHO & other senior officers reached the spot after 1520 minutes and he did not know as to how he sustained injuries on their body as there was huge crowd. When he reached the spot, mob was pelting stones and throwing soda water bottles and at that time his would was bleeding. He did not know FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.22 of 34 as to how other police officers received injuries. IO recorded statement at the spot. IO recorded his statement, statement of photographer and SI Udaivir at the spot. Photographer had reached after half an hour and IO seized the soda water bottles and pieces of bricks from the spot in his presence. They remained at the spot for about 67 hours after the occurrence of the present incident. He did not know if IO recorded the statement if neighbours. Place of incident was well populated.
PW15 Dr. Naval Kishore deposed that on 12.07.1995 while he was posted at Medical Emergency duty at AIIMS Hospital, he examined injured D. S. Chaudhary vide MLC NO.50668 and same is Ex.PW15/A. Injured Kuldeep Singh Bhogal & Gursharan were examined vide MLC No. 50674 & 50676 and the same are Ex.PW15/B & Ex.PW15/C. PW16 ACP Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 11.07.1995 he posted as Addl. SHO P.S.Sriniwaspuri and on patrolling duty on motorcycle along with constable, at around 10:00PM upon receipt of wireless message regarding quarrel at H. No.10, Hari Nagar Ashram, he reached the spot and he met SHO P.S. Sriniwaspuri, Chowki Incharge Sun Light Colony and other staff and found about 1520 sardarji were gathered and pelting stones on the house of the complainant and police staff. One of the accused, namely, Santokh Singh (since deceased) had caught hold the neck of inspector D. S. FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.23 of 34 Chaudhary and accused Inderjeet had caught hold of the shoulder and removed the whistle chord from the shoulder and accused Pammy removed pecap of SHO and ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he recorded statement of complainant, prepared the tehrir vide Ex.PW16/A and got the FIR registered through HC Vikram Singh. Further investigation was ordered to be conducted by SIU South District upon the direction of ACP. Accused persons were identified by the witness in the court.
During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused, PW16 stated that when he reached the spot, he found some police officer were already present and he had seen the complainant present at the spot. He could not say if the family member of the complainant were also present. Spot was at a distance of one and half kilometre from P.S. Sriniwaspuri. Senior officers like ACP reached the spot after him and he had not called any senior officers at the spot. Upon seeing the crowd, he was not able to ascertain regarding the supporters of both parties and they were about 1214 police personnel armed with danda on duty at the spot to control mob. He did not know if any police personnel were armed. After he reached the spot. He did not remember, if any public person was injured in the incident but some police officers got injured. He did not observe any external injuries or blood on body of the police staff. Complainant was not injured in his presence. He FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.24 of 34 could not say, if any injuries on the complainant was visible. He did not observe any injury on the body of the complainant and it was correct that FIR No. 552/95 was registered against the complainant. He remained at the spot for about 203 hours.
PW17 ASI Parmnder Kumar deposed that in the intervenign night of 11/12.07.1995 he was posted as duty officer at P.S. Sriniwaspuri and upon rukka from Ct. Vikram, registered present FIR Ex.PW17/A. His endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW16/A. PW18 Inspector Ved Singh deposed that on 11.07.1995 he posted at P.S. Sriniwapsuri at ICPP Okhla and receiving information he along with staff reached the spot and met the SHO Sriniwaspuri and Addl. SHO Sriniwaspuri at the spot. There were large crowd which were shouting slogan. I saw uniform of inspector Vir Singh was torn. When the situation became calm, senior officers directed him to send the accused persons, namely, Inderjeet Singh, Santokh Singh, Daljit Singh, Prakash Chand for medical examination. After medical examination he collected MLC of accused persons and recorded statement of all accused persons, recorded statement of Inderjeet Singh had got registered FIR No. 552/95 through Ctr. Arun Kumar. Investigation of the present case was marked to inspector Narender Singh.
FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.25 of 34
During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for all accused, PW18 stated that he was not associated in the investigation of present FIR.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused for explanation on 13.01.2015 wherein accused stated that the present case was filed due to political rivalry and is false. Same has been registered to falsely implicate the accused persons.
6. Accused persons did not examined any witness in his defence.
7. Before appreciating the evidence, I would like to have a glance at relevant statutory provisions necessary for the disposal of this case.
Section 142 IPC reads as under:
Being member of unlawful assembly whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
Section 143 IPC reads as under:
Punishment Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.26 of 34 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Section 147 IPC reads as under:
Punishment Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
As per Section 451 IPC:
Housetrespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment--Whoever commits housetrespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years.
Section 506 IPC reads as under:
Punishment for criminal intimidation Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, As per Section 323 IPC :
Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt--Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.27 of 34 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 149 IPC reads as under:
Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Section 186 IPC reads as under:
"Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
Section 332 IPC reads as under:
"Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.28 of 34 which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 353 IPC reads as under:
Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both.
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
8. Learned APP for the State had argued that all the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and all the witnesses in their testimonies have very clearly deposed that the accused in the present FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.29 of 34 matter have caused injury to the complainant and obstructed the public servants in discharging their duties and therefore is liable to be convicted for the offences alleged.
9. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case since the prosecution witnesses in their crossexamination has deposed contrary to each other and the present case has been filed due to political rivalry and to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present matter. Therefore, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted. He further argued that main accused Tarwinder Singh Marwah had not even be arrayed as accused. Lastly, the neighbourers of the complainant have not been examined as witness by the prosecution.
10. I have heard Learned Counsel for accused and Learned APP for the State and gone through the material available on record and has considered the testimony of various witnesses and gone through the evidence on record.
11. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as eighteen witnesses. PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8 & PW9 are the FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.30 of 34 public witnesses and apart from them all other witnesses are formal in nature except PW3 i.e. the complainant all other public witnesses were decalred hostile by the prosecution and did not support the story of prosecution at all. PW3 being the complainant is the star witness of the prosecution and therefore, was required to prove the case of the prosecution on his shoulder. However, if we carefully peruse the testimony of PW3, it is seen that PW3 during his examinationinchief initially identified the accused persons but later during his examinationinchief stated that he was only in position to identify two accused persons, namely, Harmohan Singh and Paramjeet Singh. However, during the leading question put to the witness by Ld. APP regarding identity of the accused persons, he refused to identify any of the accused and stated that he had named them in his complaint as they were already known to him but again during crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, complainant/PW3 deposed that he had named the accused persons as he was informed regarding them by the people who were present at the time of incident. Further though the complainant had named Talwinder Singh Marwah in his complaint, he was not arrayed as an accused. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the testimony of PW3 cannot be relied upon, as they are self contradictory. Further, if we peruse the testimony of formal witnesses, even they had FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.31 of 34 deposed that at the time of incident there were many people who were present at the spot and therefore it was not possible for them to identify or differentiate between the aggressor and the victims.
12. With this judgment, the trial of 20 years have come to end and the most glaring part of the trial, is that, the prosecution witnesses which were about 18 (eighteen) in number have given contradictory statement and the prosecution was forced to crossexamine most of its witnesses. The testimony of all the prosecution witnesses when deeply examined does not inspire confidence as none of the witnesses have corroborated the story of prosecution in substance or in periphery. The prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the offence alleged against the accused persons since the prima facie requirement of establishing the identity of the accused persons had been completed derailed.
13. The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.32 of 34
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
"The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
14. In view of above discussion, the accused persons, namely, Indrajeet Singh @ Billa @ Gandhi, Har Mohan Singh Marwah, Amarjeet Singh, Paramjit Singh, Tajender Singh, Prakash Chand, Man Mohan Singh & Pammy Singh are acquitted of offences punishable U/s 142 IPC FIR No. 551/1995 P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.33 of 34 read with Section 143 IPC, Section 147/186 IPC, Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 332/353/451/506 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN)
on 20.04.2015 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:20.04.2015
FIR No. 551/1995
P.S. Sriniwaspuri Page No.34 of 34