Delhi District Court
State vs . Roop Chand on 9 May, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
STATE VS. ROOP CHAND
FIR NO. 319/92
U/S 353/186/332 IPC
PS-PATEL NAGAR
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the case : 521/2 DATED 15.09.2006
B The date of commission of offence : 22.05.1992
C. The name of complainant(if any) : Suresh Kumar Gupta
Inspector Karol Bagh, New Delhi
D. The name of the accused person : 1. Roop Chand S/o Mauzi Ram and his parentage and residence R/o T-23, Military Gate, Baba Faridpuri, Delhi
2. Raj Pal @ Raju S/o Mehar Chand R/o T-35, Baba Faridpuri, Delhi (sent for trial to children court)
3. Ramesh S/o Bhupan R/o T-35, Baba Faridpuri, Delhi
4. Ved Ram S/o Sita Ram R/o T-36, Baba Faridpuri, Delhi
5. Lal Chand S/o Ram Pat R/o T-41, Baba Faridpuri, Delhi
6. Sant Ram S/o Mata Din R/o T-35, Baba Faridpuri, Delhi 2
7. Ajab Singh S/o Boda Ram R/o T-159, Baba Faridpuri, Delhi E. The offence complained of or proved : U/S 186/353/332/506/34 IPC F. The plea of the accused and his : Plead not guilty Examination (if any) G. The final order : Acquitted H. The date of such order : 09.05.2007 A brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
1. In nutshell case of the prosecution against the accused as per statement EXPW3/A made by Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Milk Tax Inspector MCD Karol Bagh Zone is that on 22.5.92 at about 5.05 pm Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta along with his staff had reached at PS Patel Nagar (on Government vehicle No. DIG-
848) for taking police help to catch hold of the vagabond kettles. Ct. Vipin Kumar and Surender Kumar were sent with Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta along with other staff of the MCD. At about 7 pm the raiding party along with Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta, other staff of the MCD and Ct. Vipin and Surender had reached near Main Patel Road, Taxi Stand, West Patel Nagar and by that time they had catched hold of 16 vagabond kettles (cow and calves). In the meantime accused Roop Chand along with other accused persons who were having lathis and iron rods in their hands came at the spot and they surrounded the truck belonging to MCD staff and opened the 'dala' of the truck forcibly. As a consequence of this some of the kettles which had been caught hold of by Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta with the help of other MCD staff and 3 police were scot free and only 10 kettles remained in the truck of the MCD. Further the accused persons with their intention to forcibly got scot free kettles attacked the MCD staff and Ct. Vipin Kumar and Ct. Surender Kumar. By reason of this Ct. Vipin Kumar who was with the MCD staff received injuries on his back side and also on his right hand. After seeing the quarrel at the spot public persons had also gathered at the spot. Further after seeing ASI Vijender Singh coming to the spot of the incident along with Ct. Ved Prakash, the accused persons fled away from the spot. However, while fleding away from the spot accused persons had threatened the MCD staff that if they will come to their Elaka to caught the vagabond kettles they will be killed. Accused Roop Chand was apprehended at the spot while he was fleding away. As per complainant he can identify the other accused persons if produced before him. Further as per the complainant accused persons had obstructed him and the other staff in performing his duty and had also attacked him and threatened them to kill. On the basis of this statement and pursuant to rukka EXPW10/A sent by ASI Vijender Singh formal FIR Ex.PW2/A was registered for the offences u/s 186/353/332/506/34 IPC. The case was investigated into. The investigation ended in the filing of the charge sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C. charging the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under section 186/353/332/506/34 IPC.
2. Vide order dated 29.10.1996 accused was charged for the offence punishable under section 186/353/332/506/34 IPC by Ms. Reena Singh Nag, the then Ld. MM, Delhi. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Vide order dated 20.7.96 accused Rajpal was sent for trial by the children court.
44. To substantiate its case on the judicial file prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. PW1 is Ct. Ved Prakash who was with the IO who had reached at the spot of the incident after receiving DD Entry No. 23A. PW2 is HC Zile Singh the DO who had registered the formal FIR Ex.PW2/A. PW3 is Suresh Kumar Gupta who is the complainant of the present case. PW4 is Joginder, PW5 is Hayat Singh, PW6 is Babu Ram who were on duty along with complainant Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta. PW7 is Ct. Surender Kumar who was sent along with PW3 Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta from Patel Nagar Police Station. PW8 is Chand Ram. PW9 is Sri Bhagwan who were also with PW3 Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta for catching the kettles. PW10 is SI Vijender Singh who is IO of the case. Thereafter vide order dated 31.08.2001 PE was closed by court order. On 8.12.2006 statement of the accused persons was recorded wherein they denied the case of the prosecution in toto. However, accused persons did not intend to lead DE.
5. I have heard APP for the State and Shri R.K. Verma Advocate for the accused persons and gone through the case file very carefully.
6. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on the jud icial file, by leading cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence, beyond reasonable doubts. Further it is settled proposition of criminal law that case of the prosecution has to fall or stand on its own legs and it can not drive any benefit from the weaknesses if any in the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that it is not for the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution and onus to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts never shifts and it always remains on the prosecution. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always goes to the 5 accused and it entitles the accused to the acquittal.
7. In my opinion, on account of the cumulative effect of the following reasons all the accused persons in the present case are entitled to acquittal from the charges framed against them.
A. In the present case complainant of the case on the basis of whose statement FIR was registered has appeared in the witness box as PW3 but while appearing as PW3 he has not supported the prosecution version in terms of his earlier statement EXPW3/A which was allegedly made by him immediately after the incident and on the basis of which formal FIR EXPW2/A was registered. As per depositions made by PW3 Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta at the time immediately prior to the incident he was intending to catch hold of 4/5 more kettles and the MCD staff had seen one cow and therefore the truck was stopped with an intention to catch that cow and at that very moment the accused persons had surrounded the truck of the MCD staff but in the statement EXPW3/A there is no reference to above said intention on the part of Mr. S.K. Gupta to catch hold of 4/5 more kettles or the MCD staff seeing a cow and then stopping the cow for catching hold of the said cow. Further as per the prosecution version as is contained in statement EXPW3/A accused Roop Chand was apprehended at the spot at the time of the alleged incident but complainant PW3 Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta while appearing in the court as PW3 has deposed that he cannot identify the accused persons and he further cannot say whether the accused persons are present before the court or not. Further he has deposed that he was sitting inside the truck. Further this witness has deposed that accused persons were having lathis and iron rods in their hands and they had started beating the MCD staff and the police 6 Constables. Further as per prosecution version as is containing in EXPW3/A ASI Vijender Singh had reached at the spot of the incident along with Ct. Ved Prakash after receiving DD Entry No. 23A. Further as per the prosecution version statement of complainant Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta was recorded at the spot of the incident and rukka was sent through Ct. Ved Prakash for registration of the FIR but inconsistent with the above said version of the prosecution complainant PW3 Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta has deposed that he along with other MCD staff had went to the PS and the police had not come to the spot of the incident. Again PW3 Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta has deposed that he does not remember whether the police had come at the spot or not. Further he has deposed that otherwise police had not come at the spot. Further this witness has deposed that he had made a complaint at the PS regarding the alleged incident giving rise to registration of FIR EXPW2/A. Further complainant PW3 Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta has deposed that he cannot tell the name of the accused who had beaten him. This witness was declared hostile by the Ld. APP for the State and was cross examined. In the course of his cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State, this witness has deposed that it is wrong to suggest that accused persons who were present in the court are the persons who had attacked the MCD staff along with police Constables with lathis and rods. Further he has deposed that it is wrong to suggest that accused Roop Chand was apprehended at the spot. Further this witness has deposed that it is wrong to suggest that accused persons had threatened the MCD staff that if they will come again for catching the kettles they will be killed. In this way it can be seen that even the complainant is not supporting the prosecution in material aspects which factum raises a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
B. As per the prosecution version accused persons were carrying lathis and iron rods in their hands and they had attacked the MCD staff as well as the 7 police Constables accompanying the MCD staff. If this version of the prosecution is correct everyone in the MCD staff as well as both the police officials must have received some injuries but it is not so as per the material available on judicial file. PW1 in his cross examination has deposed that only Ct. Vipin had received the injuries and none else had received the injuries. PW7 has also deposed that he did not received any injury. As per prosecution version incident had happened at about 7.00 pm. Rukka was sent at 8.00 pm. As per MLC Ct. Vipin had reached at the RML Hospital at 9.45 PM. One fail to understand as to why it took Ct. Vipin to reach the Hospital about more than two hours.
C. As per the prosecution version accused persons had fled away from the spot after seeing the IO PW10 ASI Vijender Singh approaching the spot of the incident along with Ct. Ved Prakash. This version of the prosecution also does not appear to be true. Reason is very simple. PW3 complainant Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta has specifically deposed that police had not reached at the spot of the incident. When the police had not reached at the spot of the incident; it was the complainant who had made a complaint at PS after visiting the PS the question of ASI Vijender Singh reaching the spot of the incident along with Ct. Ved Prakash and the accused persons fledding away from the spot after seeing the IO does not at all arise. The factum that police has not reached at the spot of incident is further evident from the factum that in the rukka EXPW10/A IO ASI Vijender Singh has not stated that he had seen the incident/any part thereof happening and accused persons had fled away from the spot after seeing him. Also PW1 Ct. Ved Prakash who was with IO ASI Vijender Singh has not deposed on the said lines. Also even IO has not deposed while appearing as PW10 SI Vijender Singh that the accused had fled away from the spot after seeing him and Ct. Ved Prakash.
8D. In the facts and circumstances of this case where accused persons had succeeding in moving away from the spot after committing the alleged offence and there was no previous acquaintance between victims of offence and accused, prosecution ought to have got conducted the TIP Of the accused persons other than accused Roop Chand who was arrested at the spot of incident but prosecution has not got conducted the TIP of the accused who had fled away from the spot. It is a serious dent in the prosecution story/version.
E. The depositions made by PW7 Ct. Surender Kumar are not of much help to the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of this case particularly keeping in view the court observation that the witness had written the facts in brief over his left hand by pen and was looking at them while deposing. Even PW7 Ct. Surender Kumar has not identified the accused persons except accused Roop Chand. Also PW7 in his cross examination has deposed that he cannot tell when the other accused persons were apprehended; further he has deposed that the other accused persons were not shown to him at the time of their arrest. Further he has deposed that he cannot identify the accused persons even today by name. Also this witness has deposed that no recovery was effected. One fail to understand, if accused Roop Chand was apprehended at spot, why lathi/iron rod was not recovery/seized from his possession.
8. As such, all the accused are hereby acquitted. Their bail bonds stands discharged. File be consigned to R.R. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) COURT ON 09.05.2007 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
TIS HAZARI:DELHI 9