Delhi District Court
State vs . Amrit Lal Singhal on 16 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 92/2011
Unique Case ID: 02404R0112402007
State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal
S/o Raja Ram
R/o 2477, Gali No. 190,
Onkar Nagar 'A'
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
FIR No. : 274/2005
Under Section : 353/186/333 Indian Penal Code.
Police Station : Keshav Puram
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 20.07.2007
Date on which orders were reserved : 16.03.2012
Date on which judgment pronounced : 16.03.2012
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
As per the allegations, on 30.05.2005 at about 10 AM near Delhi Jal Board, Talab Road Office, Tri Nagar, the accused Amrit Lal Singhal along a mob, obstructed Balaji, Sanjay and Bansh Gopal (all working Sewer Beldar) in discharge of their public duties. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid time and place the accused State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 1 of 36 Amrit Lal Singhal assaulted Balraj, Sanjay and Bansh Gopal to deter them in discharge of their public duties. It is also alleged that the accused Amrit Lal Singhal caused grievous injuries on the person of Balraj by giving fist blow on his face and as a result of which his one teeth was broken and also given injuries on the person of Sanjay and Bansh Gopal in order to deter them both in discharge of their public duties and the accused thereby committed the offence under Section 186/353/333 Indian Penal Code.
Case of Prosecution in Brief:
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.05.2005 on receipt of DD No. 11, Inspector Satya Prakash along with other staff reached at the spot where he met the injured / complaint Balraj Bansh Gopal and Sanjay who had given their complaint in writing to the police. The complainants Balraj, Bansh Gopal and Sanjay have stated in their statement that they were working as Beldars in Delhi Jal Board Office at near Talab Road, Tri Nagar, and on 30.5.2005 at about 10 AM they were on duty and were present at the Store Room when Jagdish, who was the assistant of the area Councillor Amrit Lal Singhal, came to them and informed that Amrit Lal Singhal was calling them, on which they along with their colleague Ajeet left their office and were going to the house of Amrit Lal Singhal but on the way they saw Amrit Lal Singhal coming along with a mob and on State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 2 of 36 seeing them (complainant) they started abusing them. The complainants further stated in their complaint that Amrit Lal Singhal gave fist blow on the mouth of Balraj as a result of which one of his teeth were broken. They further stated that Amrit Lal Singhal also hit Sanjay on his face as a result of which three of his teeth got dislocated. Thereafter, they informed the police and were treated at BJRM hospital for the injuries received by them. Thereafter, rukka was prepared and FIR was registered. During investigations the accused Amrit Lal Singhal was arrested and after completing the investigations the charge sheet was filed in the court. CHARGE:
Ld. Predecessor of this court settled charges under Section 186/353/333 Indian Penal Code against the accused Amrit Lal Singhal to which he pleaded not guilty and claim trial. EVIDENCE:
In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses:
Public Witnesses:
PW1 Balraj has deposed that on 30.05.2005 he was working as Beldar (Sewer) in Delhi Jal Board, having office at Tri Nagar Delhi and was on duty in his office when one person stated to State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 3 of 36 be the P.A. of accused Amrit Lal Singhal who was the area Councillor, came to him and told him that Amrit Lal Singhal had called them. According to the witness, thereafter he along with Bansh Gopal, Ajit Srivastava, Sanjay and other colleagues were going to the office of Amrit Lal Singhal when they were attacked by 2530 people and Amrit Lal Singhal was part of that mob of 2530 people. Witness has further deposed that in that attack, his tooth was broken and he was taken to BJRM hospital by his colleagues, where he was medically examined but he does not know who had caused him injury. According to him a complaint was written by Ajit, his superior officer and he signed the same at point A on the complaint Ex.PW1/A. Observing that the witness was resiling from his earlier statement, Ld. APP for the State with due permission of the court has cross examined the witness wherein the witness has deposed that complaint Ex.PW1/A was written by Ajit and he signed the same. According to him Ajit wrote the complaint on the basis of whatever he had seen whereas some of the facts of the complaint were disclosed by him. Witness has further deposed that he had stated in his statement that accused Amrit Lal Singhal did give abuses to him and to his other colleagues. According to him the blow with which his tooth was broken was given to him by some public person and not by the accused Amrit Lal Singhal. Witness has denied the State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 4 of 36 suggestion that he had deposed falsely on the point of giving the fist blow on his face by accused that resulted in breaking of his tooth.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that they had gone to BJRM hospital after 23 hours of the incident and before going to the hospital, their officers had arrived in the office and a meeting was held there and they went to the police station. According to him, from the police station, they had gone to the hospital. Witness has further deposed that the complaint Ex.PW1/A was handed over to the SHO police station Keshav Puram after returning from the hospital but nothing was asked from him in the meeting regarding lodging of report in the police station. Witness has further deposed that the complaint was lodged as per the facts stated by him and he did not state the name of accused as the person who gave him fist blow and also did not receive injury on any other part of his body except his mouth. Witness has further deposed that his mouth was not swollen because of the impact of injury and states that blood was oozing out from his mouth on which he put his handkerchief to stop the blood and later on he washed his handkerchief. Witness has further deposed that he does not know for which work the accused had called them and states that the mate of the store knew the said work. According to him he did not make any entry at his office on 30.05.2005 when he had left the office for the house of the accused and also does not have any State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 5 of 36 knowledge whether the accused on the day of incident had no control over Delhi Jal Board as he was the only councilor of the area. Witness has further deposed that prior to 30.05.2005 he was not called by the accused and admits that in front of the office of Delhi Jal Board there is an Anaj mandi and at the back side subzi mandi is situated and they went from the side of subzi mandi. According to him the incident on 30.05.2005 had occurred at a distance of about 200 feet from the gate of Delhi Jal Board office and he cannot say for how much time quarrel took place as he had fallen down after receiving fist blow at his mouth. Witness has further deposed that at the time of incident, the other officials of Delhi Jal Board did not make any call to the PCR regarding Amrit Singhal and states that the officials of Delhi Jal Board who were with him did not try to stop Amrit Singhal at the spot and has explained that everybody was trying to run away from the spot. According to him he does not know when accused left the spot after quarrel and states that in all there were about 2530 people including men and women who came for demonstration. Witness has further deposed that he does not know why demonstrator came along with the accused. He has also stated that he went to hospital after two hours of the incident and from the spot first he went to his store then to other store which is situated at Kal Bhairon and then they went to police station and then to hospital. Witness has denied the suggestion that in May, 2005 State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 6 of 36 there was acute problem of sewage and water supply in the area and the people had brought this problem to their notice and to the notice of their officials or that in spite of this the problem was not sorted out. Witness has further denied the suggestion that on 30.05.2005 people had gathered at the store to demonstrate and that accused was not part of the said demonstration or that fearing action for not sorting out the water sewage problem, he with other officials of Delhi Jal Board has falsely implicated the accused or that he was deposing falsely.
PW4 M.S. Khan has deposed that on 13.09.2006 he was posted as Zonal Engineer, North West III, Delhi Jal Board, Kanahiya Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi and on that day he had gone through the statement of witnesses, contents of FIR and MLC of the injured and made a complaint to the concerned court U/s 195 Cr.PC. His complaint is Ex.PW4/A. According to him, he forwarded an application in respect of filling of complaint U/s 195 Cr. P.C. against the accused Amrit Lal Singhal regarding inflicting injuries on the person of Bans Gopal, Balraj and Sanjay and same is Ex.PW4/B. Witness has further deposed that he also mentioned in his application that on 30.05.2008 that Balraj and Bans Gopal were present on duty on 30.05.2005, who are employees of the Delhi Jal Board and posted in Tri Nagar area as sewer gang beldar. According to him he also attached the photocopy of the attendance register. Photocopy of the State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 7 of 36 attendance register is marked as Mark PW4/C, the name of Bans Gopal is mentioned at Point X. The another copy of attendance register is marked as Mark PW4/D, the name of Balraj and Sanjay are mentioned at point Y and Z. Witness has also correctly identified the accused Amrit Lal Singhal, as he was the councilor of MCD.
PW7 Sanjay has deposed that on 30.5.2005, he was working as Beldar in Delhi Jal Board office at Totaram Bazar, Tri Nagar. According to him on that day he was sitting in the store since 9:00 AM along with other staff when one Jagdish P. A. of accused Amrit Lal Singhal came there and told them that he (accused) was calling them. The witness has further deposed that on that day, accused was Municipal Councillor of the area. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he along with Ajit, Balraj, Bansgopal and other staff went to the office of accused but on the way they met accused along with 1520 ladies and 1520 gents. The witness has deposed that accused caught hold of the collar of Balraj and gave a fist blow and due to the impact of this fist blow, one tooth of Balraj was broken. He further deposed that thereafter the accused caught hold of him and gave fist blow to him due to which his three teeth were dislocated which are till today not properly fixed. The witness has deposed that the accused had also abused them and thereafter they somehow managed to escape and came to their office and disclosed the incident to JE Jagdish Prasad who removed them to State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 8 of 36 BJRM hospital where they received treatment and were the doctor also seized the broken tooth of Balraj.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he joined the Delhi Jal Board in the year 1994 and was posted at Tri Nagar since then. Witness has admitted that he knew the accused prior to the incident as he was the Municipal Councillor of the area. According to the witness the JE was not with them at the time of incident. He admits that the statement Ex.PW1/A is not in his handwriting and has stated that it was written by the senior officers on the basis whatever was told to them by him and other injured. He has denied the suggestion that complaint Ex.PW1/A was lodged and written by his senior officer after consultation and discussion. The witness is unable to tell the names of 1520 females and 1520 males who were accompanying the accused at the time of incident nor he is able to identify them. He has denied the suggestion that accused was complaining against his senior officers as they were not discharging their dues properly in the area due to which reason the present false case has been lodged.
PW8 Bansh Gopal has turned hostile and has not supported the earlier version given by him to the police on the presence of the accused at the spot at the time of incident. He has deposed that he does not remember the date, month and year, however, 5 years back he was present at the store of Delhi Jal Board State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 9 of 36 office at Tri Nagar along with Ajit and other labour. According to him at about 10:30 AM, all the labour went for their job while he remained in the office and was preparing the khapacchi for cleaning the sewer. He has deposed that within one hour a crowd of local residents gathered there and a hungama took place on which he immediately seeing this ran away from office in order to save his life. He has further deposed that after that hungama, he along with Ajit Bihari, Jagsuran and other staff went to their senior officer and thereafter they all went to the police station and lodged a complaint. According to the witness he does not know anything about the quarrel but when police inquired from him he told that he did not see the quarrel.
Observing that the witness was resiling from his earlier statement, the Addl. PP for the State with permission of the court has cross examined the witness wherein the witness has admitted that the date of incident was 30.5.2005. The witness further deposed that he knew the accused Amrit Lal Singhal being the municipal Councillor of the area. He admits that at about 10 PM, Jagdish came to his office and said that accused was calling Sanjay and Balraj. He further admits that thereafter Jagdish, Ajit, Balraj and Sanjay left the office and went to the office of accused but after some time they came back along with the accused. The witness has denied the suggestion that the accused gave beatings to Balraj and Sanjay. State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 10 of 36 Witness has voluntarily added that he did not see the beatings given by accused to Balraj and Sanjay. The witness admits that accused also given beatings to him but he did not sustained any injury. He has denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not disclosing the fact regarding the beatings given by the accused to Balraj and Sanjay.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that the complaint Ex.PW1/A was got prepared by JE and he does not about its contents. The witness has admitted that accused Amrit Lal Singhal had not come to the store on the date of incident.
PW9 Jagdish Prasad has deposed that on 30.5.2005 he was working as JE Incharge of Trinagar store and as per record Bansh Gopal, Sanjay and Balraj were on duty on that day. According to him on 30.5.2005 the accused Amrit Lal Singhal taken the complaint register from the office of Jal Board, Tri Nagar and returned the same after a gap on his (witness) demand. He deposed that after 30.5.3005 no entry were made in the complaint register as it remains with the accused.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed his statement was not recorded by the IO nor he lodge any complaint regarding accused having taken the complaint register. He has deposed that at the time of incident, he was present in the office situated at Lawrance Road and he came to know about State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 11 of 36 this incident later when the victims reached to the police station along with Executive Engineer. He has denied the suggestion that the complaint register has been fabricated or that he is deposing falsely in this regard.
Medical Evidence:
PW5 Dr. Abhilasha has deposed that on 30.05.2005 patient Balraj was referred to her from casualty and she examined the patient and found that upper left lateral incisor was missing and slight bleeding was present from the empty socket. According to her full tooth was present with the patient which was asked to be sealed and occlusion was normal. Witness has further deposed that the patient was advised XRay which showed that upper left lateral incisor was missing. Her report is encircled at portion X on Ex.PW5/A and it bears her signatures at point X1. Witness has further deposed that she also given the opinion in respect of nature of injury on 13.08.05 and a nature of injuries received by the patient Balraj was grevious and it bears her signature at point X2 and opinion is encircled at point X3 on MLC Ex.PW5/A. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
PW6 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has deposed that he was deputed by medical superintendent to depose the MLC No. 13364 of State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 12 of 36 patient Balraj, aged 35 years male. According to him the patient was examined by Dr. Delie and patient was brought with alleged history of assault on 30.05.2005. Witness has further deposed that the patient was examined by Dr. Delie who had left the hospital and his whereabouts are not known and he has identified his handwriting and signing as he was worked with him. According to him as per local examination left lateral upper incised tooth was missing, no active bleeding, patient was referred to dental OPD for further management and the MLC is Ex.PW5/A. Witness has further deposed that on the same day, the patient Sanjay, aged 29 years, male brought in casualty with alleged history of assault and the patient was also examined by Dr. Delie. According to him as per ME No. 36260 no fresh external injury seen and the ME is Ex.PW6/A. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
Police / Official Witnesses:
PW2 W/ASI Manju Bala has deposed that on 30.05.2005 she was posted as ASI at police station Keshavpuram and on that day she was working as duty officer from 9AM to 5 PM then Ct. Narender brought rukka at 3:15 PM. According to the witness, she recorded FIR No. 274/05 U/s 353/186/333/34 IPC. Witness has also brought original FIR which is seen and returned copy of which State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 13 of 36 is Ex.PW2/A and he made his endorsement at the rukka which is Ex.PW2/B. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
PW3 HC Harkesh has deposed that on 30.05.2005 he was posted as DD writer at PP Shanti Nagar of PS Keshavpuram from 8AM to 8PM and on that day at about 10:55AM control room informed that some persons were sitting on Dharna at Delhi Jal Board, near Ashok Vihar Metro Station, Kanahiya Nagar. According to him he made entry in this regard vide DD No. 10 and the DD was handed over to HC Johar Singh, who left the police station with Ct. Raghubinder. Witness has also brought the original DD register, photocopy of the said DD is Ex.PW3/A. Witness has further deposed that on the same day at about 11:05 AM the control room further informed that at Delhi Jal Board office, the Councillor Amrit Lal hit a man with fist blow at Ward No. 29, Tri Nagar, Delhi. According to him he recorded DD No. 11 and handed over to incharge PP Shanti Nagar, who left the police station, attested copy of the DD is Ex.PW3/B, original DD seen and returned. Witness has further deposed that on the same day at about 11:38AM control room informed that a quarrel took place at Dhan Dhan Sat Guru, Delhi Jal Board, copy of DD No. 12 is Ex.PW3/C, original DD seen and returned and the information of the DD was sent to HC Johar Singh through wireless set. The witness has not been cross examined on State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 14 of 36 behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
PW10 Ct. Raghvender Singh has deposed that on 30.05.05, he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram, Police Post Shanti Nagar. According to him on that day, on receipt of DD No. 11 and 12, he along with HC Johar Singh reached at the spot of incident, i.e. Talab Road, in front of Delhi Jal Board, where SI Satya Prakash along with Ct. Narender also reached. According to the witness, three public persons namely Sanjay, Balraj and Bansh Gopal met them and IO / SI Sataya Prakash got the medical examination of Sanjay and Balraj through Ct. Narender at BJRM Hospital. The witness has deposed that the IO handed over rukka to Ct. Narender who took the same to police station and got the case registered and brought FIR at the spot at about 3 pm. He has further deposed that Ct. Narender had also produced one sealed parcel containing broken teeth of Balraj duly sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital and the IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, the witness has admitted that he did not sign any document during the investigation. He has denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation in this case, therefore, his signature was not taken anywhere on any document by the IO.
PW11 HC Narender has deposed that on 30.05.05, he was posted at police post Shanti Nagar, police station Keshav Puram State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 15 of 36 and on that day, IO SI Satya Prakash called him at the spot at about 11.40 AM where SI Satya Prakash, Ct. Rajender and HC Johar Singh met him. He has deposed that he took the injured Balraj and Sanjay to BJRM Hospital and got their medical examination conducted after which the doctor concerned handed over one sealed parcel containing broken teeth of injured Balraj, duly sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital. He has deposed that he brought the MLC and the said parcel and handed over the same to IO / SI Satya Prakash who took the said parcel into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. According to the witness one written complaint signed by Balraj, Sanjay and Bansh Gopal was given by them to IO / SI Satya Prakash which is Ex.PW1/A. He has further deposed that SI Satya Prakash prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him which he took to police station and got the case registered and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused, the witness has denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation in this case. He has further denied the suggestion that he did not got at the spot and did not take the injured Sanjay and Balraj to BJRM Hospital nor their medical examination got conducted by him.
PW12 ASI Johar Singh has deposed that on 30.05.05, he was posted at police post Shanti Nagar, police station Keshav Puram as HC and on that day, he was on patrolling duty with Ct. State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 16 of 36 Raghvender and on receipt of DD No. 11 and 12 regarding quarrel at about 11.05 and 11.30 respectively, he along with Ct. Raghvender reached at the place of incident, i.e. Talab Road, near the office of Delhi Jal Board, where SI Satya Prakash was already present. He has deposed that thereafter Ct. Narender was sent to BJRM hospital along with Sanjay and Balraj for their medical examination whereas Bansh Gopal had refused to get his medical examination conducted. The witness has further deposed that the aforesaid persons had given a written complaint signed by all of them to SI Satya Prakash on which he prepared rukka and got the case registered through Ct. Narender who came back at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and same were handed over to the IO.
In his cross examination on behalf of the accused the witness has admitted that he did not sign any document during the investigation. The witness has denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation in this case, therefore, his signature was not taken anywhere on any document by the IO.
PW13 Inspector Satya Prakash has deposed that on 30.05.05, he was posted at police post Shanti Nagar as Incharge and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 11 Ex.PW3/B, he along with Ct. Raghvender and HC Johar Singh reached at near the office of Delhi Jal Board, Talab Road, Tri Nagar, Delhi, where one Balraj along with Bansh Gopal and Sanjay met them who alleged that they were State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 17 of 36 beaten by Amrit Lal Singhal. He has further deposed that he thereafter called Ct. Narender from patrolling duty and sent Balraj and Sanjay to BJRM Hospital through Ct. Narender. According to the witness, aafter getting their medical examination, Ct. Narender brought both of them to the spot along with their MLC vide Ex.PW5/A and M.E Ex.PW6/A along with onc sealed parcel containing broken teeth of Balraj duly sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital and onc sample duly sealed with same seal which he seized vide memo Ex.PW10/A. The witness has deposed that Balraj had produced one complaint before him signed by himself, Sanjay and Bansh Gopal which is Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which he prepared Rukka Ex.PW 13/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Narender. The witness has deposed that thereafter he prepared the site plan at the instance of Balraj vide Ex.PW13/B and recorded the statements of Balraj, Sanjay and Bansh Gopal and the police officials under Section 161 Cr.PC on 07.06.05. He has deposed that the investigation was handed over to vigilance department, therefore, he handed over the case file to MHC(R). On 10.10.05, the further investigation was again handed over to him.
In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, the witness has deposed that DD No. 11 was received by him at 11.05 AM and he reached at the spot on his personal two wheeler scooter but did not go inside the Jal Board office, therefore, he cannot say State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 18 of 36 whether the employee / staff of Jal Board were present in the office or not. He has deposed that the exact place of incident at some distance from the Jal Board office. According to him, two to three public persons were moving at the spot as it is a running road whom he requested to join the investigation but they had refused. He has denied the suggestion that no investigation was done by him, therefore, he is unable to tell as to how Ct. Narender went to BJRM Hospital and how Ct. Narender came at the spot from patrolling. Witness has further denied the suggestion that the entire proceeding was done while sitting in the police station or that he did not conduct the investigation properly or did not join the public persons deliberately.
PW14 SI Rajender Prashad has deposed that on 12.07.05, he was posted at Vigilance, District North West, Ashok Vihar and on that day, he received case file and perused the same. According to him, on 18.07.05, he went to the office of Jal Board where one Vinod Kumar, Assistant met him who informed him that the injured Balraj, Sanjay and Bansh Gopal were on duty in the area and after finishing their duty they would directly go to their houses. According to the witness thereafter on 24.07.05 he went to the house of accused Amrit Lal Singhal where he came to know that he had already gone to Chennai. The witness has deposed that he talked the accused on telephone who informed him that he would meet him State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 19 of 36 after coming back from Chennai. The witness has further deposed that on 29.07.05, he sent Ct. Sant Ram to BJRM Hospital along with MLC of Balraj who got the same deposited for taking opinion of injuries. Thereafter on 09.08.05 he went to the office of Jal Board again and recorded the statement of Ajit. According to him on 10.08.05 he again went to the office of Jal Board and recorded the statements of Balraj, Sanjay and Bansh Gopal. Thereafter on 19.08.05 Ct. Sant Ram was sent to BJRM Hospital for taking opinion of injury on the MLC of Balraj and the doctor had opined the nature of injury as grievous on the MLC Ex.PW5/A at point X. The witness has further deposed that on 05.09.05, he went to the house of accused Amrit Lal but he was not available and was reported to be out of Delhi. The witness has deposed that thereafter the further investigation of this case was handed over to the police station Keshav Puram.
In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, the witness has denied the suggestion that he did not investigate into this case or that whatever proceeding was done by him, same was done while sitting in office of Vigilance Department. He has further denied that he did not got anywhere during the investigation.
PW15 SI Ranvir Singh has deposed that further investigation of this case was handed over to him on which he collected the copy of attendance register of Balraj, Sanjay and Bansh State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 20 of 36 Gopal from the office of Jal Board, Talab Road, Tri Nagar. He has placed on record the photocopy of attendance register for the month of April 2005 Ex.PW9/A, the attendance sheet of May 2005 Ex.PW9/B, the photocopies of said relevant entries of complaint registers is Ex.PW9/C, the photocopy of the month of April 2005 showing the name of Bansh Gopal at Serial No. 2 is Marked PW4/C and the name of Balraj and Sanjay are shown at Serial No. 19 and 20 respectively in the copy Ex.PW9/A. The witness has deposed that he also collected the attendance register of the month of June 2005 which is Ex.PW9/X1. Thereafter, on 13.09.6, he moved an application vide Ex.PW15/A before Zonal Enginner, seeking complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC. Sh. MS Khan, Zonal Engineer, had accorded sanction / complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW4/A. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, the witness has denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation properly and independently or that investigation was motivated. The witness has admitted that he did not participate in any material investigation in the present case and has voluntarily added that he had only prepared and filed the chargesheet. Statement of Accused and Defence Evidence:
After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 21 of 36 in which all the incriminating evidence / material was put to him which he denied. The accused has stated that he was the Municipal Councillor of the area and there is severe shortage of water in the area due to which earlier he talked to the officials of Delhi Jal Board and told them that if they would not rectify the problem he would make a complaint to higher authorities. He has further stated that he was the Municipal Counceller only and the Delhi Jal Board comes under Delhi Govt. and the officials would not hear him so he had to make complaint against them to higher authorities and it is for this reason they falsely implicated him in this case. The witness has examined as many as three witnesses in defence.
DW1 Balak Ram has deposed that on 30.5.2005 he was working as Sanitary Inspector in Ward No. 27 Tri Nagar of MCD Rohini Zone and his office was situated near Talab Subzi Mandi, Tri Nagar on ground floor of the building and on the first floor there was an office of Sewerage Department, Delhi Jal Board and the building belongs to MCD. According to him in the morning of 30.5.2005 at about 10:30 he was in his office when 2025 people including women came to his office and complained for sewerage problem in the area. He has deposed that he asked them to go at first floor to the office of Sewerage Department and they went on the first floor and after some time they came down shouting and went away. He has deposed htat he knew the accused Amrit Lal Singhal as he was the Municipal State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 22 of 36 Councillor of the area. According to this witness, the accused Amrit Lal Singhal had not come along with the people who had come to his office and had also gone to the office of the Sewerage Department. He has deposed that after about one hour, he heard that there was some quarrel between the public and officials of Sewerage Department.
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, the witness has admitted that the quarrel did not start in his office. According to him when the quarrel started, he was not present in that room because his room was on the ground floor. He has deposed that he cannot tell whether Amrit Lal Singhal was present at that time at the spot where the quarrel started and took place.
DW2 Jagdish Chand Goel has deposed that he is doing his own work in Weekly Bazars and he knew the accused Amrit Lal Singhal since he was the Municipal Councillor of the area and he used to often call him in his office for some odd works but he is not his Personal Assistant. According to this witness on 30.5.2005, he went for his shop in weekly Bazar and had not gone to the office of Delhi Jal Board on that day. He has deposed that in the evening, he learnt that there was some quarrel between the public and officials of Delhi Jal Board. He has further deposed that after about two months police called him in the police chowki and inquired him about the incident of 30.5.2005 on which he told them that he had not gone to State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 23 of 36 the office of Delhi Jal Board on that day.
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, the witness has deposed that he is not related to Amrit Lal Singhal but has admitted that he is on visiting terms with Amrit Lal Singhal for the last many years. He has denied that he had gone to the office of Delhi Jal Board along with Amrit Lal Singhal. He has also denied the suggestion that he is the party worker or that he has close relations with Amrit Lal Singhal or that he has deposed falsely only to save the accused from penal consequences.
DW3 Bal Kishan Jindal has deposed that he was having a grocery shop in Tri Nagar at 1433/98, Talab Road, Tri Nagar. According to him in the morning of 30.5.2005 at about 11:00 AM, he was at his shop when there were some quarrel near on which he went there and saw that some public persons and officials of Delhi Jal Board were quarreling. He has deposed that he knew Amrit Lal Singhal since he was the Municipal Councillor of the area. According to him, the accused Amrit Lal Singhal was not present at the spot where quarrel was taking place.
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has deposed that his shop opens at 9:00 AM and closes at 8:00 PM. According to him he is not related to the accused Amrit Lal Singhal. He admits that he supported and voted for Amrit Lal Singhal in election. According to him his shop is at a distance of State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 24 of 36 about 50 feet from the spot of the incident and he was at his shop at the time the quarrel took place. He has voluntarily added that he had gone to the spot after noticing that the quarrel had aggravated. He has denied that a large number of persons from the area had also collected and has voluntarily added that very few persons had collected. The witness has further denied that being closely associated with Amrit Lal Singhal and being his supporter, he has deposed falsely to the extent that Amrit Lal Singhal was not present at the spot where quarrel was taking place.
FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and also the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused. My findings are as under: Identity of the accused:
In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, there is no dispute as he was the councellor of the area at the relevant time and has been specifically named in the complaint. The complainants/ injured were previously known to the accused in official capacity and has specifically stated that Amrit Lal has only given abuses to him but the blow with which his teeth was broken, was given to him by State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 25 of 36 some public person and not by the accused Amrit Lal Singhal. However, the another injured Sanjay (PW7) has identified the accused Amrit Lal Singhal as the person who had caught hold of Balraj and gave fist blow to him due to which one tooth of Balraj was broken. Injured Snajay further stated that thereafter the accused Amrit Lal caught hold of him and gave fist blows as a result of which his three teeth were dislocated which teeth are still not properly fixed. This being the background, I hereby hold that the identity of the accused Amrit Lal Singhal stands established being previously known to the victims / injured and being the elected representative i.e. Councillor from the area.
Medical Evidence:
Dr. Abhilasha (PW5) and Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary (PW6) have duly proved the MLC Ex.PW5/A of the injured Balraj who was brought to the BJRM hospital on 30.5.2005 with alleged history of physical assault and during examination it was found that upper left lateral incisor was missing and slight bleeding was present from the empty socket and since the full tooth was present with the patient the same was sealed. It is evident from the MLC that when the injured was brought to the hospital with history of assault he did not disclosed the name of the person who had assaulted him. PW6 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary proved that on 30.5.2005 Sanjay was also brought State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 26 of 36 to the hospital casualty with the history of assault who was examined by Dr. Delie vide ME Ex.PW6/A which shows that no fresh injury was present on the person of the patient. It is evident from the medical record that in so far as the injured Balraj is concerned the injury received by him i.e. broken tooth has been duly proved and established but in so far as the injured Sanjay is concerned, the ME Ex.PW6/A does not show any sign of injury. Further, both the injured were conscious and oriented at the time when they were brought to the hospital but despite having known the name of the assailants they have not disclosed the name of assailants to the doctor. This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully prove and establish the injuries upon the person of Balraj but not the injuries regarding dislocation of tooth as alleged by Sanjay since his ME does not show any dislocation of teeth. Oral testimony of Sanjay with regard to dislocation of tooth does not find any support from the medical record. Defence of the Accused:
The accused Amrit Lal has tried to raise an alibi that at the time of the incident he was not present at the spot and was in fact in his office near Talab Subzi Mandi, Tri Nagar and on the ground floor and in this regard he has examined DW1 Balak Ram who testified that at the time of incident on 30.5.2005 at about 10:30 AM State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 27 of 36 when he was at his office, 2025 people came to his office for complaint about sewerage problem in the area and gone to the Sewerage Department on the first floor and thereafter came down and went away while shouting. This witness has stated that Amrit Lal had not come along with the people to his office, as alleged by the complainant. I this regard I may observe that in his cross examination DW1 Balak Ram has admitted that when the quarrel had started he was not present in that room as his room was on the ground floor and therefore he cannot say if Amrit Lal was present at the spot or not.
The accused has also examined one Jagdish Chand Goel (DW2) who used to assist Amrit Lal in discharge of his public duties.
He has stated that on 30.5.2005 he went to his shop in weekly Bazar and had not gone to the office of Jal Board on that day and in the evening he came to know that there was some quarrel between the public and the officials of Delhi Jal Board but he has specifically stated that he had not gone with the public persons to the spot and has denied being won over. I may observe that the testimony of Jagdish Chand Goel does not assist the accused Amrit Lal in any manner since his specific stand is that he had not gone the office of Delhi Jal Board. Naturally, he under the given circumstances would not be in a position to tell what exactly had happened. I, therefore, hereby hold that the testimonies of witnesses examined by accused. State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 28 of 36 Complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC:
The complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC Ex.PW4/A against the accused has been duly proved by M. S. Khan, Zonal Engineer, (PW4), which has not been disputed and controverted by the accused in any manner.
Allegations against the accused:
The case of the prosecution is that on 30.5.2005 the accused Amrit Lal came to the office of the complainant along with 2025 persons and assaulted the officials of Delhi Jal Board working in the office of Delhi Jal Board itself pursuant to which Balraj at received injuries as a result of which his incisor / tooth was broken and had to be rushed to the hospital. The most important star witness of the prosecution is Balraj who has turned hostile on the role attributed to the accused Amrit Lal Singhal, though he admits the presence of Amrit Lal at the spot but states that Amrit Lal did not hit him but in fact it was somebody in the mob who hit him. The relevant portion of this testimony is as under:
"On 30.05.2005, I was working as Beldar (sewer), in Delhi Jal Board, having office at Tri Nagar, Delhi and was on duty in my office when one person stated to be P.A. of Amrit Lal Singhal, Area Councillor, accused (present in the court State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 29 of 36 today), came to me and told me that Amrit Lal Singhal has called us. I, Bansh Gopal, Ajit Srivastava, Sanjay and other colleagues were going to the office of Amrit Lal Singhal when we were attacked by 2530 people. Accused Amrit Lal Singhal was part of that mob of 2530 people.
In that attack, my tooth was broken. I was taken to BJRM Hospital by my colleagues, where I was medically examined. Police met me in the police station.
I do not know who had caused me injury. A complaint was written by Ajit, my superior officer and I signed the same at point A on the complaint Ex.PW1/A. Observing that the witness was not supporting the case of the prosecution, Addl. PP for the State with due permission of the court has cross examined the witness, which is as under:
XXXXX by Addl. PP.
Ex.PW1/A was written by Ajit and I signed the same. Ajit wrote the complaint on the basis of whatever he had seen. Some of the facts of the complaint were disclosed by me. I had State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 30 of 36 stated in my complaint that accused Amrit Lal Singhal did give abuses to me and to my other colleagues. The blow with which my tooth was broken was given to me by some public person and not by the accused Amrit Lal Singhal. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely on the point of giving of fist blow on my face by accused that resulted in breaking my tooth."
It stands established from the aforesaid that Balraj has turned hostile on the role attributed to the accused Amrit Lal Singhal and categorically stated that it was not the accused who inflicted the injures upon him but it was some unknown person from the mob.
The only witness is PW7 Sanjay who has stated that it was Amrit Lal Singhal who had inflicted injuries upon Balraj. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
" ..... On that day, accused was Municipal Councillor of the area. I along with Ajit, Balraj, Bansgopal and other staff went to the office of accused. On the way, we met accused along with 1520 ladies and 1520 gents. Accused caught hold collar of Balraj and gave a fist blow. Due to the impact of fist blow, one tooth of Balraj was State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 31 of 36 broken. Thereafter, accused caught hold of me and gave me also fist blow. As an impact my three teeth were dislocated. Till today, they are not properly fixed. Accused also abused us. ....."
In his cross examination the witness Sanjay has admitted that the complaint Ex.PW1/A is not in his handwriting and he and Balraj had stated this fact to JE Jagdish Prasad. He has denied the suggestion that the complaint was lodged by the senior officers after consultation and discussions. He is unable to identify any of the other persons who were present along with accused Amrit Lal Singhal.
I have gone through the testimonies of both Balraj and Sanjay and I may observe that Firstly both these witnesses are the Beldar in Delhi Jab Board and their testimonies do not find any independent corroboration. The incident had taken place inside the office of Delhi Jal Board and it is natural that a large number of officials would have been present there despite which none of them have been cited as witness. Secondly, the witness Balraj does not identify the accused Amrit Lal Singhal as the person who had assaulted him and it is only PW7 Sanjay who has stated that it was Amrit Lal Singhal who assaulted Balraj, which does not appears to be plausible. Sanjay has further stated that Amrti Lal also gave him State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 32 of 36 fist blow as a result of which three of his tooth got dislocated. The medical record does not corroborate this version of Sanjay. Rather, it is evident from his MLC that no injuries have been found on his person nor he has informed the doctor about his teeth being dislocated and therefore this version being an after thought cannot be ruled out. Thirdly, both the injured Balraj and Sanjay were conscious and oriented when they were admitted in the hospital and it was open for them to have told the name of assailants to the doctor, which is not the case and therefore possibility of any other person involved in the incident and false implication of accused Amrit Lal Singhal later on at the instance officials of Delhi Jal Board, cannot be ruled out. Fourthly, PW8 Bansh Gopal who is also stated to be Beldar of Delhi Jal Board has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has simply stated that when the Hungama had taken place on seeing the same, he ran away in order to save his life. In his cross examination he has denied that the accused had given beatings to Balraj and Sanjay and stated that he has not seen who has given them injuries. Fifthly, in so far as the PW9 Jagdish Prasad is concerned, he in his crossexamination has admitted that at the time of incident he was not present at the spot and he only came to know about the incident when the injured came to him and informed him. He has admitted that the accused has not lifted any register in his presence but he came to know from his State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 33 of 36 colleagues about the missing of register. Lastly, it is evident that the incident took place at 10:30 AM whereas the complaint has been lodged much later during the day at around 3 PM and the FIR has been registered at about 3:15 PM and therefore the possibility of false implication of the accused after due consultation with the senior officers, cannot be ruled out.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 34 of 36 except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigations conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officer. The identity of the accused stands established being the councillor of the area. The presence of the accused Amrit Lal Singhal at the spot does not stand established. It also does not stand established that it was the accused who gave punches to both Balraj and Sanjay as a result of which Balraj lost one tooth and there was dislocation of three teeth of Sanjay, rather, there were no injuries on the body of Sanjay nor any evidence of dislocation of teeth as per his MLC. The allegations and the role attributed to the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution in view of which I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also not State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 35 of 36 consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There is nothing on record to definitely establish that the accused had actually committed the offence. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The materials brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient to hold that the accused Amrit Lal Singhal was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstances evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Amrit Lal Singhal, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to him who is acquitted of the charges under Section 186/353/333 Indian Penal Code.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 16.03.2012 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Amrit Lal Singhal, FIR No. 274/2005, PS Keshav Puram Page 36 of 36