Delhi District Court
State vs Abdul Wahid Fir No. 371/95 on 24 May, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH M.M DELHI
State Vs Abdul Wahid FIR No. 371/95
P.S. S/R
U/s 357/186/332/506 IPC
JUDGMENT
a. Sl. No. of the case : 317/0
b. Date of Commission of offence : 20.9.95
c. Name of the Complainant :Ct Davinder Singh
d. The name of the accused person : Abdul Wahid S/o
Mohd Yusuf
e. The offence complained of or proved :
357/186/332/506 IPC
f. The plea of the accused person :pleaded not
guilty
g. Final order : Acquitted
h. Date of order :24.5.07
i. Brief Facts of the Case
The accused is facing trial for an offence punishable U/s 357/186/332/506 IPC. The case of prosecution as per challan U/s 173 Cr.PC is that on 20.9.95, SI Veer Singh alongwith HC Shashi Kumar and Ct Ajit Singh were on patrolling duty. At about 10.30 |A.M, Ct Davender Singh of Traffic Police met them and got recorded his statement mentioning therein that he was posted in Sadar Bazar Traffic Circle and was on duty at Shahjada Bagh Road No. 37/40, Red Light crossing, -2- Inderlok from 8 A.M to 11 A.M on that day. At about 9.30 A.M, one Maruti Car no. DL1CD 4809 White colour being driven by accused herein, came from road no. 40 and crossed red light signal due to which he noted down the registration number of said vehicle in his diary due to which accused parked his car at some distance ahead and inquired from DHG Ct Brindaban about the reason for noting down his car number on which he was informed that he had jumped the red light signal. Said accused came to Ct Davender Singh and started arguing with him and also insisting to cancel his number on which accused gave threat to said Ct Davender Singh and also manhandled him during which his official uniform consisting of one button of the shirt towards shoulder side was broken and shoulder strip was also damaged.
On the basis of said statement of Ct Davender Singh, case was got regd against accused herein and he was arrested and later on released on bail. Investigation was completed and challan was filed before the Court.
After compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, the charge U/s 353/186/332 IPC was framed against the -3- accused on 7.8.97 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses i.e PW1 Vipnesh, PW2 Ct Devender Singh, PW3 SI Veer Singh, PW4 Dr Vinod Kumar, PW5 HC Shashi Kumar, and PW6 Brindaban Baghel.
In his statement U/s 313/281 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence put to him. He had also led defence evidence and have examined three Dws i.e DW1 Sh Mohd Ashraf, DW2 Sh Jamaluddin and DW3 Sh Sultan Ahmed.
I have heard Ld APP for State and Counsel Mr R.K Thakur Advocate on behalf of accused. I have also carefully considered the respective submissions made on their behalf as well as the material available on record.
PW-1 is formal witness i.e D.O who has proved copy of FIR No. 371/95 as PW1/A. PW4 Dr Vinod Kr of HRH has proved MLC of injured Davender Singh as PW4/A wherein the nature of injuries has been opined to be simple by the concerned doctor.
-4-
PW2 Ct Davender Singh who is the star witness of the prosecution, entered into witness box and deposed on the lines of prosecution story. In his chief examination, he deposed that accused caught hold the collor of his shirt due to which his uniform was torned. Said shirt was seized by SI Veer Singh vide memo Ex PW2/A and car of the accused was seized vide memo Ex PW2/B, his statement Ex PW2/C was recorded, accused was arrested vide memo Ex PW2/D and site plan Ex PW2/E was prepared by IO at his instance. One pullanda sealed with the seal of VS containing one shirt of white colour having torn shoulder from left side and right pocket being torned one, was produced before the Court and was identified by the witness. However, in his cross examination, said PW2 admitted that traffic constable are provided traffic challan book/log book but neither he nor DHG Ct Birndaban was having any such traffic challan book/log book. He also admitted that there was no one present at the spot having traffic challan book/log book. It was submitted by defence Cl that no such challan of the vehicle has been produced by the prosecution on record to -5- show that accused actually violated any such traffic signal or that he was challaned for the same. I find substance in the said argument. Reason being that the prosecution story is based on the very fact that accused started scuffling with Ct Davender Singh for noting down his car number for alleged red light jumping. In such background, the accused must have been challaned by the traffic police and IO was duty bound to collect evidence on this point but there is not even a single piece of evidence regarding challaning of vehicle of accused for jumping red light signal. IO examined as PW3 also has not deposed even a single word on this aspect.
PW2 further deposed in his cross examination that a traffic constable has no power to issue challan of any vehicle for violation of traffic rule. Said portion of his statement is contradicted to statement of PW-6 Ct Birndaban who has admitted in his cross examination that every traffic constable, log book is issued and such constable can challan the vehicle found violating the traffic signal. He has also deposed that Ct Davender Singh had noted down the number of car in question on such log -6- book and as per rules, such log book is deposited in the traffic circle. If that is so then no reason has been shown on behalf of prosecution for not seizing the said log book by the IO in which Ct Davender Singh had allegedly noted down the number of car of accused. PW2 also admitted in his cross examination that white shirt worn by traffic police is easily available in the market and the uniform of traffic police includes name plate, badge of Delhi Police, Dori and whistle. He further deposed that he was having small diary in which he had noted down car number of accused but he did not give said diary or any photocopy thereof to IO during investigation. He also cannot produce the said diary even in the Court. The said statement of PW2 shows that the diary has neither been handed over to IO during investigation nor could be produced before Court which casts serious doubt as to whether car number of accused was noted down in any such diary by Ct Davender Singh. It has also come in the cross examination of PW2 that he did not visit the spot nor joined any investigation after 11 A.M on 20.9.95 or even thereafter till date and has also stated that many public -7- persons were gathered at the spot but IO did not record statement of any such public person in his presence. He also deposed that he had handed over his complete official uniform to IO who seized the same but returned his name plate and shoulder dori alongwith whistle to him but no memo was prepared regarding return of said articles by IO to him. Again at this stage, I find force in the argument of Cl for accused that when complete uniform including name plate, shoulder dori and whistle was seized by the IO then it is not understandable as to how and under which provision or rule, IO returned back name plate, shoulder dori and whistle to Ct Davender Singh without preparing any memo in that regard. Same also cats doubt on the prosecution story as put forward before the Court.
PW3 SI Veer Singh who is IO of the case, deposed in his cross examination that he prepared document at red light and no public person was present at that time. Same is contrary to statement of PW2 Ct Davender Singh discussed above wherein he has categorically stated that many public persons were present at the spot but IO did not record statement of any such -8- public person in his presence. Same is further clarified from the statements of PW5 HC Shashi Kr and PW6 Ct Brindaban who have deposed in their cross examination that huge crowd of public was present at the spot when they reached there but he cannot tell if IO requested any public person to join the investigation. On being asked regarding seizure of diary by the IO, he deposed that he did not remember whether any such diary was seized by him. It is quite strange that IO of the rank of SI did not remember the factum regarding seizure of diary by him but he remembered all other allegations levelled against the accused. Any how, no such diary has been produced before the Court nor there is any seizure memo regarding seizure of such diary, available on record which falsifies the prosecution story to great extent.
PW5 HC Shashi Kumar admitted in his cross examination that shirt produced before the Court was not torned from anywhere but was only unsticthed at the place of shoulder. Specific question was put to the witness as to whether IO seized any challan under MVA against the accused for jumping red light but no reply could be given -9- by the said witness. He also deposed that Ct Davender was present at the spot till 2.45 P.M on that day. Said portion of his statement is again contradicted by PW2 Ct Davender discussed above who mentioned that he did not visit the spot after 11 A.M on that day.
At this juncture, it is relevant to note that public persons were available at the spot as stated by P|W2 Ct Davender Singh as well as PW5 HC Shashi Kumar but no effort whatsoever has been made by IO to join them in the entire proceeding which is a clear cut violation of Section 100 Cr.PC as well as the law of the land laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Catena of decisions. I also find merit in the argument of defence counsel that when prosecution has failed to prove on record that any challan under MVA for violating red light signal by the accused therefore, the very story of prosecution that accused jumped red light signal or that due to same his car number was noted down by Ct Davender Singh, itself falls on the ground.
PW6 Ct Brindaban deposed in his cross examination that incident had taken place at 11.30 A.M on -10- 20.9.95 as contrary to prosecution story. He also deposed that all documentary proceeding was conducted at PP inderlok which is again contrary to the prosecution story besides being contrary to the statements of other Pws. He also deposed that his statement Ex PW6/DA which is a statement U/s 161 Cr.PC, was signed by him but when being confronted with the said statement he had to admit that same does not bear his signature on which he improved his version and deposed that he did not give any such statement to the police. He also deposed that entire parts of shirt including button of the shoulder, name plate, shoulder dori, badge were seized by the police. Same is again contrary to the prosecution story.
Statement of PW6 clearly shows that either he was not part of investigation or that the writing work has been done while sitting in the PP Inderlok and this witness has been introduced by the IO to support his case.
Besides the above said doubts and gray areas in the prosecution story, there is one more defect i.e complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC has not been proved at all by the prosecution. There is not even a whisper regarding such -11- complaint either from the mouth of IO as PW3 or from any other prosecution witness examined before the Court. In other words, complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC has remained unproved and therefore cannot be looked into due to which offence U/s 186 IPC cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution.
Dws examined by accused have simply deposed that people were being harrased by some traffic police officials for greasing their palms due to which they had approached the accused who is social worker and leader of the local area and the accused had raised the issue with the traffic police officials on which he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The above said discussion clearly shows that the prosecution story is not free from doubt. It is well settled law that whenever two views are possible then the view in favour of accused should be adopted. It is also well settled that prosecution is to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt always to the accused. Hence Court is of the view that the accused Abdul Wahid -12- deserves to be acquitted and is acquitted accordingly. His bail bonds are cancelled. Surety discharged. Original documents if any be returned against proper receipt and identification. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court. (Vidya Prakash) Dt. 24.5.07 M.M Delhi.