Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunder Lal & Anr. on 7 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE04 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sunder Lal & Anr.
FIR No. 320/2006
U/s 186/353/506/34 IPC
P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 496/2
Unique Identification No. : 02406R0711972006
Date of Institution : 07.12.2006
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 23.04.2013
Date of judgment : 07.05.2013
Name of the complainant : Sh. Chander Prakash
s/o Late Sh. Munshi Lal
r/o E328, Jagjeet Nagar, New Delhi
Date of the commission of offence: 06.05.2006
FIR No. 320/2006
P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.1 of 11
Name of accused : (i) Sunder Lal
s/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad
r/o H. No. O327, Sewa Nagar,
New Delhi
(ii) Smt. Anita
w/o Sh. Sunder Lal
r/o H. No. O327, Sewa Nagar,
New Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 186/353/506/34 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 186/353/506(II)/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Both the accused acquitted.
Date of Institution : 07.12.2006
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 23.04.2013
Date of judgment : 07.05.2013
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
As per prosecution case, on 06.05.2006 at about 10:50AM at Safdarjung Terminal, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur, FIR No. 320/2006 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.2 of 11 both the accused, in the furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed the complainant (working as conductor in DTC), a public servant, in the discharge of his public duty. Both the accused persons, in the furtherance of their common intention, also assaulted the complainant, with intention to prevent or deter the complainant from discharging his official duties as a public servant. The accused persons also threatened to kill the complainant.
2. The report U/s 173 Cr. PC was filed on 07.12.2006. Cognizance of the offences was taken. Compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC was done.
3. Charge for the offences punishable U/s 186/353/506(II)/34 IPC against both the accused was framed on 29.03.2011. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined seven (7) PWs in all.
PW1 HC Ram Bharosi (duty officer) is a formal witness. He proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A (OSR). His endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW1/B. PW2 Sh. Chander Prakash (the complainant) stated, on 06.05.2006 I was posted as DTC conductor on bus bearing registration No.DL1P6359 (number wrongly stated by the witness, actual number is DL1PB6359) plying on route No. FIR No. 320/2006 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.3 of 11 543 between Vinod Nagar & Safdarjung Terminal. When we reached at Bus Stand, South Extension, the passengers were alighting and boarding the bus. In the meanwhile, one blue line bus plying on route No.479 came from behind and stopped in front of our bus. I was issuing tickets to the passengers. In the meanwhile, I heard some noise. Some persons were quarreling with the driver of our bus. They were abusing him. Some passengers were objecting to it. I went to the driver and tried to pacify those persons. Out of them one young boy abused me also. At the request of the passengers we went to Safdarjung Terminal, the said boy was taken to Safdarjung Terminal. The other person ran away from the spot. I called the PCR on 100 number. Both the accused (correctly identified) were also present at Safdarjung Terminal. They were called by that young boy. Both the accused persons had scuffle with the police officers. The father of the said young boy hit the head of that young boy on his own car and threatened me. Both the accused scuffled with me and they also threatened me. Local police reached the spot. I informed my senior officers. We went to the police station. I made my complaint Ex.PW2/A with the police.
(With permission of the Court Ld. APP put leading question to the witness) PW2 stated that both the accused persons obstructed me in discharge of my official duty.
During crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW2 stated, I did not tell the police that I heard the noise that some persons were quarreling with the driver of the DTC bus and they were abusing the driver. I told the police that I informed the PCR at 100 number (confronted with statement Ex.PW2/A where it is FIR No. 320/2006 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.4 of 11 not so recorded). I told the police that when we reached the Safdarjung Terminal, both the accused persons were already present there (confronted with statement Ex.PW2/A where it is recorded that the accused Sunder & his wife reached the spot later). I did not tell the police that the accused persons scuffled with the police officials. I told the police in my statement Ex.PW2/A that the accused persons threatened me at the police station in the presence of police officials (confronted with statement Ex.PW2/A where it is not so recorded). I told the police about the fact that accused Sunder hit his son's head on their car for falsely implicating me (confronted with statement Ex.PW2/A where it is not so recorded). During the scuffle the accused persons slapped me and the DTC driver. Since there were no noticeable injury, I did not tell this fact to the police.
PW3 W/Ct. Philomina stated, on 06.05.2006 I was posted at P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur. On that day, at the instruction of IO, I went to the spot i.e. Safdarjung Terminal. There I conducted personal search of accused Anita vide memo Ex.PW3/A. Accused Anita & Sunder Lal were arrested vide memos Ex.PW3/B & Ex.PW3/C respectively. I identify the accused Anita & Sunder Lal present in the court today.
During crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW3 stated, I went to the spot along with the IO on his motorcycle.
PW4 retired Traffic Inspector Ramesh Chand stated, on 06.05.2006 I was posted as Traffic Inspector (DTC) at East Vinod Nagar Depot. On that day, police officer came to my office. I gave a statement regarding the duty of conductor FIR No. 320/2006 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.5 of 11 Chandra Prakash on bus plying on route No.543 from 06:35AM to 02:45PM. The said statement is Ex.PW4/A. In response to leading question by Ld. APP, PW4 stated, the aforesaid bus plying on route No.543 was bearing registration No.DL1PB6359.
PW5 Ct. Bhim stated, on 06.05.2006 I was posted at P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur. On that day upon receiving DD No.17B, I along with IO SI Rajnish Kumar went to the spot. There, complainant Chandra Prakash met us and IO recorded his statement. IO prepared a rukka and got the case registered through me. IO arrested the accused Sunder Lal and conducted his personal search vide memos already Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW5/A. IO also arrested the accused Anita and conducted her personal search vide memos already Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/A respectively. I identify both the accused persons present in the court today.
PW6 SI Rajnish (IO of this case) stated, on 06.5.2006 I was posted at P.S. K.M. Pur. On that day, on receipt of DD No.17B, I along with Ct. Bhim went to spot i.e. Safdurjung Terminal where complainant, namely, Chander Parkash who was the conductor in DTC bus met us. Both of the accused persons who are present in the court today also met us there. I recorded the statement of complainant and prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/A. The rukka was handed over to Ct. Bheem and case was got registered through him. Ct. Bheem returned to the spot along with one Lady Ct. Philomina. He handed over to me carbon copy of FIR and original rukka. I arrested the accused Sunder and conducted his personal search vide memos already Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW5/A respectively. I also arrested the accused, namely, Anita and FIR No. 320/2006 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.6 of 11 her personal search was conducted by Lady Ct. Philomina vide memos already Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/A respectively. At the instance of the complainant, I prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/B. I recorded the supplementary statement of the witnesses. I prepared the challan, thereafter I was transferred. I handed over the file to MHC(R).
During crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 stated, when I reached the spot, the accused persons were found quarreling with the complainant. Lady Ct. Philomena came to the spot along with Ct. Bhim. No public persons were found at the spot. The passengers of the bus had already left. While I conducted the proceedings, except for the complainant conductor, no other staff or public persons were present.
PW Sh. Khalid (driver of the bus) was reported untraceable despite service through DCP concerned.
Vide order dated 13.02.2013, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED :
5. On 05.03.2013 statement of both the accused persons U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded. Both the accused denied all the allegations against them. They did not wish to lead defence evidence.
FIR No. 320/2006 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.7 of 11 DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
6. No defence evidence was led by both the accused persons. ARGUMENTS :
7. Arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for both the accused.
It was argued by Ld. APP for the State that the complainant has fully supported the prosecution case. At the time of the incident, the complainant was performing his official duties. Both the accused persons have voluntarily obstructed the complainant in the discharge of his duty. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It was argued by Ld. Counsel for both the accused that at the time of alleged assault the complainant was not performing his official duty. The bus was already at the terminal, the passengers had left. During crossexamination, the complainant PW2 was confronted with his previous statement. He made several improvement in his examinationinchief. The complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. was not proved. No PW was examined to exhibit the said complaint. The testimony of PW2 is not reliable. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. REASONING :
8. In the complaint Ex.PW2/A, the complainant has specifically stated FIR No. 320/2006 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.8 of 11 that one boy along with conductor of another bus plying on route No.479 entered the bus and started abusing the driver of the bus. The passengers of the bus of the complainant tried to pacify the said boy but he abused the passengers. It is further stated that the said boy particularly abused a lady, she caught hold of that boy and she said that she will hand over the boy to the police. All the passengers insisted that the bus should be taken to Safdarjung Terminal.
In view of the facts as mentioned in the complainant, it appears that out of all the passengers in the bus of the complainant, one lady passenger was particularly offended. She insisted upon handing over the said boy to the police. Due to this very reason, all the passengers in the said bus insisted that the bus should be taken to Safdarjung Terminal. It is surprising that the said lady passenger did not wait at the Safdarjung Terminal for the police to arrive. She was not examined as a prosecution witness. During crossexamination, PW6 stated that when he reached the spot, the passengers of the bus had already left.
9. In his examinationinchief, PW2 stated, both the accused persons also scuffled with the police official. This fact is not mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW2 did not specify as to who were the police officers with whom the accused persons scuffled. PW3, PW5 & PW6 are the police officers who reached the spot, they did not say anything about the scuffle mentioned by PW2. However, during his crossexamination, PW2 admitted that he did not tell this fact to the police.
During crossexamination, PW2 was repeatedly confronted with his FIR No. 320/2006 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.9 of 11 statement Ex.PW2/A. In crossexamination, PW2 stated that the accused persons were already present at the spot when he reached there. Whereas in the complaint Ex.PW2/A, the complainant stated that when he along with the son of the accused persons reached Safdarjung Terminal, after some time the accused Sunder & his wife (the other accused) also reached the spot.
10. I have seen the list of witnesses. The prosecution has not cited any witness to prove the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. In the "Tafsil Kaghzat" that is the list of documents attached with the challan, the complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC is mentioned. However, no witness was cited or examined to prove the said complaint. In the present case, charge for the offences punishable U/s 186/353//506(II)/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons. In the absence of the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C., the accused persons cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences.
11. In view of the above observations and the infirmities in the testimony of PW2, the prosecution case is suffering from reasonable doubt. In the absence of the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C., the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both the accused persons, namely, Sunder Lal & Anita are acquitted of the offencs punishable U/s 186/353/506(II)/34 IPC. FIR No. 320/2006 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.10 of 11
12. Put up on 30.05.2013 for furnishing bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Pronounced in open court (RAJINDER SINGH)
on 07.05.2013 MM04 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:07.05.2013
FIR No. 320/2006
P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.11 of 11