Delhi District Court
State vs . Illyas Ahmed on 8 December, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.R.K. PANDEY, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : 02
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 295/01
PS: Timar Pur
U/s. 218 IPC
State Vs. Illyas Ahmed
JUDGMENT
1. Sl No. of the case : 02401R0526602003
2. Date of Commission of the offence : In between 29.11.2000 to
07.02.2001
3. The name of the informant : On the directions of court
4. The name & address of accused : Illyas Ahmed, S/o. Ramjan Khan
R/o. V24, Gali no. 27, Vijay Park,
Maujpur, Delhi.
5. Date of institution of FIR : 12.06.2003
6. Date of receipt of this case in
this court : 16.08.2003
7. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of reserving the case for order : 08.12.2015
9. Date of Decision : 08.12.2015
10.Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
1. Prosecution case in brief is that in between 29.11.2000 and 07.02.2001, accused Illyas Ahmed being a public servant having charge FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 2 of investigation/collection of evidence in FIR no. 89/2000 U/s 379/411 IPC PS. Timar Pur conducted investigation/collected evidence in manner knowing to be incorrect with intent to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause injury to one person namely Suresh S/o. Balwant Singh and to save one Mohan Bhai Atam Ram Prajapati from legal punishment. After filing of challan, accused was charged for offence u/s 218 IPC vide order dated 23.09.2011 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
2. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses.
3. PW1 Sh. K. V. Baria deposed that on 05.09.2000, he was posted at RTO Gandhi Nagar as sub accountant and on that day, documents of the vehicle bearing no. UP 2D 5549 was submitted to head clerk, thereafter clerk and head clerk had approved the same. PW1 further deposed that RTO had ordered for order of recovery of BMV Act (tax) for Rs. 26,295/ and he assess the same. PW1 further deposed that the receipt EXPW1/A of the same was issued by RTO, Gandhi Nagar. PW1 further deposed that the photocopy of form no. 23 and 28 of vehicle no. UP 2D 5549 are mark A1 and A2.
4. PW2 Sh. Meghan Marjani got proved the merger of cooperative Bank of Ahmadabad into the Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd. Pune, on the order of Cooperative Society New Delhi vide No. L11015/23/74L&M and RBI vide UBD.CO.BPD9838/09.16.901/200506 Ex.PW2/A. PW2 further deposed that the merger took place on 11.05.2006. PW2 further deposed that he has also brought the bank statement of Jay Saree Krishna Bricks from 01.07.2000 to 30.06.2000 EXPW2/B. PW2 further deposed that he do no have any personal knowledge about the present FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 3 case.
5. PW3 Suresh @ Surender deposed that in the year 2000 he was having business of auto parts and in the year 2000 officials of ATS, Delhi arrested him and brought him to Delhi from Gujarat. PW3 further deposed that he was produced before the court and accused HC Iliyas formerly arrested him with the permission of the Court. PW3 further deposed that HC Iliyas not interrogated him. PW3 further deposed that he was later on sent in Judicial Custody. PW3 further deposed that the court had directed for further investigation of the case and during the investigation of the case by another police staff he was found to be innocent and he was released by the Hon'ble Court. PW3 further deposed that initially he was apprehended ATS Delhi Police on the ground that they were under suspicion that one stolen vehicle was registered in his name as second hand vehicle. PW3 further deposed that he was innocent and due to this reason he was released.
6. PW4 R. K. Rathi deposed that on 17.06.2001, he was posted as SHO, PS , Timarpur and on that day, on the order of court in case FIR no. 89/2000, PS Timarpur, the present FIR no. 295/01 was registered. PW4 further deposed that he made an endorsement on copy of order Ex.PW3/A. PW4 further deposed that the IO recorded his statement on 28.06.2001. PW4 further deposed that he do not know anything else about the present case.
7. PW5 Mohan Bhai Atmaram Prajapati deposed that 16 years ago, he had purchased one Tata Sumo car from Ashok Bhai Jayanti Bhai Patel. PW5 further deposed that he can not say from whom Ashok Bhai has purchased the car. PW5 further deposed that he purchased that car for an FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 4 amount Rs. 3,95,000/ in cash after withdrawing the same from bank. PW5 further deposed that in 2000, one police official SI Vijay pal came to him and informed him that the vehicle was a stolen vehicle and took the Tata Sumo Car and all the original documents of the vehicle. PW5 further deposed that he do not know anyone by the name Suresh. PW5 further deposed that he do not know anything about the present case.
8. PW6 Ins. Rajender Kumar deposed that on 29.07.2001, he was posted as SI in DIU/North and on that day he reached at Ahemdabad along with Ins. Rajpal Singh for the investigation of this case. PW6 further deposed that during investigation they reached at residence of Mohan Bhai Atmaram Prajapati. PW6 further deposed that Ins. Rajpal Singh examined him, during examination Mohan Bhai Atmaram Prajapati had produced certain document to Ins. Rajpal Singh namely Bank A/c statement of his account, fitness certificate of the vehicle TATA sumo, registration number was mentioned in the seizure memo, insurance, tax paid receipt issued by RTO Gandhi Nagar, purchase agreement and same are mark X1, already EX. PW1/A, mark X2, mark X3 and all these documents seized by the Ins. Rajpal Singh and seizure memo EXPW6/A was prepared. PW6 further deposed that after that he accompanied to Ins. Rajpal Sigh in the investigation proceedings. PW6 further deposed that on 06.08.2001, he returned back to Delhi.
9. PW7 Charu Chand, Sr. Assistant, RTO Office, Haldwani deposed that as per record available in his office with respect to the vehicle number UP 02D 5549, a letter dated 10.10.2001 EXPW7/A was addressed to RTO, Haldwani sent by Raghuvir Singh, ACP/DIU North Disst. regarding verification of document RC of the abovesaid vehicle.
FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 5 PW7 further deposed that in his reply EXPW7/B by assistant RTO, Haldwani dated 17.10.2001, Form 23 and Form 28 with respect to which verification was asked qua the above dated letter was not issued by the RTO Office Haldwani.
10. PW8 Rakesh Kumar got proved the judicial file of FIR no.
89/2000 of PS. Timar Pur titled as State Vs. Mohan Bhai Atma Ram.
11. PW9 ASI Dharamvir Singh deposed that on 12.06.01, he was posted at PS Timar Pur as HC and was working as Duty Officer from 8:00 AM to 4PM and on that day, at about 2:30 PM, he received a rukka from SHO concerned with directions for registration of FIR. PW9 further deposed that he registered FIR No. 295/01 u/s 218/34 IPC Ex.PW9/A . PW9 further deposed that the copy of FIR and original rukka were given to SI Manok Kumar for necessary action.
12. PW10 Jaswant Patel had not supported the case of prosecution.
13. PW11 Raj Pal Singh deposed that on 12.06.2013, he was posted in DIU North as an Inspector and on that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. PW11 further deposed that during the investigation of the case, he obtained the document pertaining to the case from the case file of FIR no. 89 year of which he was not remembering from PS. Timar Pur. PW11 further deposed that in the end of June of that year ie. 2001, he went to Gujrat for investigation of the case. Witness again said that he had received the file of the case on 12.06.2001. PW11 further deposed that at Ahmadabad, he met with Mohan Bhai Parjapati from whose possession Tata Sumo was recovered. PW11 further deposed that he had obtain concerned papers of Tata Sumo from Mohan Bhai Prajapati and also statements of his bank account and FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 6 prepared seizure memo EXPW6/A. PW11 further deposed that he visited RTO Gandhi Nagar for inquiry about the aforesaid Tata Sumo. PW11 further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses at RTO office. PW11 further deposed that he also recorded statement of one accused Suresh who was arrested in another case FIR no. 89. PW11 further deposed that he also tried to obtain information from RTO Haldwani regarding the registration of Tata Sumo but Sumo was not registered in Haldwani. PW11 further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses. PW11 further deposed that he also arrested accused Illyas Ahmad and prepared memo EXPW11/A. PW11 further deposed that after necessary investigation of this case, he prepared the challan.
14. After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused was recorded under section 281/313 Cr.P.C in which all the incriminating evidence was explained to the accused to which accused denied but opted not to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, final arguments heard.
15. Final arguments submitted.
16. It is argued on behalf of the state by Ld. APP for the state that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts, hence accused is liable to be convicted. It is further argued that sanction to prosecute the accused is not required u/s 197 Cr.P.C as section 197 Cr.P.C is not applicable in cases where there is misuse or abuse of power vested in public servant. Ld. APP for state has relied upon the judgment titled as Chaudhary Parveen Sultana Vs. State of West Bangal,2009, Crlj,1318. It is further argued that accused Illyas Ahmed had falsely implicated Suresh in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur and tried to save Mohan Bhai FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 7 Atmaram Prajapati the real accused qua the offence in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur. It is further argued that accused had recorded false statement of Suresh as well as SI Vijaypal and Ct. Karamvir. It is further argued that witness Suresh and witenss Mohan Bhai Prajapati supported the case of prosecution. It is further argued that prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence, accused is liable to be convicted.
17. It is argued by the accused through Ld. Defece counsel that the case was registered on the basis of order of the court dated 23.04.2001 in FIR No. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur while taking the cognizance in that case. It is further argued that on 29.11.2000 DD no. 17 A was lodged in PS. Timar Pur regarding apprehension of Suresh in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur and accused Illyas Ahmed being IO of the case FIR NO. 89/00 PS. Timar Pur proceeded for investigation of the case. It is further argued that accused Illyas Ahmed being IO of the case in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur moved an application for issuance of production warrant qua Suresh as Suresh was already in judicial custody in FIR No. 389/2000 PS. Preet Vihar in which he disclosed his involvement in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur. It is further argued that in his statement before the court PW5 Mohan Bhai Atmaram Prajapati had stated that he was not knowing Suresh. It is further argued that there is no document filed on record by the IO regarding inquiry done at Ahmadabad. PW11/IO had not filed any record which may reflect that he had ever visited Ahmadabad nor he had filed any statement of alleged Ashok Kumar nor Ashok Kumar was examined as prosecution witness. It is further argued that there is allegation against the accused that he fabricated the statement of SI Vijay FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 8 Pal and Ct. Karamvir, however, during investigation in the present case, IO had not recorded statement of SI Vijaypal or Ct. Karamvir regarding their alleged statement given to the accused Illyas Ahmed in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur and alleged fabrication of that statement. It is further argued that the present case is also barred for want of sanction as required u/s 197 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that in his statement given in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur, SI Vijaypal had stated that he had not recovered any vehicle from Suresh then he was supposed to explain why he had apprehended Suresh and why the information was given to accused Illyas Ahmed regarding apprehension of Suresh as accused qua FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur. It is further argued that prosecution has failed to produce any evidence which may reflect that accused Illyas Ahmed had fabricated the statement of SI Vijay Pal or Ct. Karamvir or recorded false disclosure statement of Suresh qua FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur. It is further argued that prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is liable to be acquitted.
18. Heard. Perused the record.
19. As per the case of prosecution is that in between 29.11.2000 and 07.02.2001, accused Illyas Ahmed being a public servant having charge of investigation/collection of evidence in FIR no. 89/2000 U/s 379/411 IPC PS. Timar Pur conducted investigation/collected evidence in manner knowing to be incorrect with intent to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause injury to one person namely Suresh S/o. Balwant Singh and to save one Mohan Bhai Atam Ram Prajapati from legal punishment.
20. In order to prove allegation against the accused Illyas Ahmed qua the offence punishable u/s 218 IPC, prosecution had relied upon FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 9 statement of PW3 Suresh @ Surender S/o. Balwant Singh. PW3 in his statement deposed that in the year 2000 he was having business of auto parts and in the year 2000 officials of ATS, Delhi arrested him and brought him to Delhi from Gujarat. PW3 further deposed that he was produced before the court and accused HC Iliyas formerly arrested him with the permission of the Court. PW3 further deposed that HC Illyas had not interrogated him. PW3 further deposed that he was later on sent in Judicial Custody. PW3 further deposed that court had directed for further investigation of the case and during the investigation of the case by another police staff he was found to be innocent and he was released by the Hon'ble Court. PW3 further deposed that initially he was apprehended ATS Delhi Police on the ground that they were under suspicion that one stolen vehicle was registered in his name as second hand vehicle. PW3 further deposed that he was innocent and due to this reason he was released. Prosecution has also relied upon document mark PW3/X ie disclosure statement of Suresh in FIR no. 389/2000 PS. Preet Vihar and on perusal of the same, it reveals that same was witnessed by Ct. Karamvir. It is further allegation against the accused that accused Illyas Ahmed had fabricated statement of SI Vijaypal and Ct. Karamvir in order to falsely implicate Suresh in FIR no. 89/2000 PS Timar Pur. It is not proved on record by prosecution that what was the actual statement given by SI Vijaypal and Ct. Karamvir qua Suresh in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur and what portion and part of that statement was fabricated by accused Illyas Ahmed. Despite opportunity, prosecution has not examined Ct. Karamvir and SI Vijay pal as prosecution witness neither this aspect was investigated by IO/ PW11 Rajpal Singh. This fact can also not be FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 10 ignored that at the time of alleged incident of fabrication of statement of SI Vijaypal and Ct. Karamvir, SI Vijaypal was senior being Sub Inspector from accused Illyas Ahmed being Head Constable and the fact that after recording the disclosure statement of Suresh in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur, Suresh was again produced before the court but he never complaint regarding his false implication by accused HC Illyas Ahmed to the court on the date of his interrogation. It is also admitted fact that accused Illyas Ahmed proceeded with investigation of FIR No. 89/2000 after receipt of information regarding apprehension of Suresh vide DD no. 17 A PS. Timar pur dated 29.11.2000 and Suresh was apprehended by ATS Delhi Police and was brought to the Delhi by police staff of ATS, Delhi. IO/PW11 had not investigated and prosecution story remain silent on the aspect that under what circumstances Suresh was apprehended by ATS and for what reason information was given vide DD no. 17 A PS. Timar Pur qua apprehension of Suresh. Accused Illyas Ahmed proceeded with the investigation of the case after receipt of DD no. 17 A dated 29.11.2000 PS. Timar Pur as he was under the duty to proceed with the investigation of case FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur and he moved application for issuance of production warrant for Suresh on the basis of initial investigation/information furnished to him vide DD no. 17 A. In view of above discussion and in view of the fact that IO/PW11 failed to investigate the aspect that what was the actual statement given by SI Vijaypal and Ct. Karamvir in FIR no. 89/2000 PS. Timar Pur and what portion of it was fabricated by accused Illyas Ahmed and in view of the fact that both these persons namely SI Vijay Pal and Ct. Karamvir were not examined as prosecution witness despite opportunity in the present FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed 11 case, the case of prosecution against the accused Illyas Ahmed qua offence punishable u/s 218 IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is settled principle of law that benefit of doubt is always given to the accused, hence, accused Illyas Ahmed S/o. Ramjan Khan stands acquitted from the present case. Bail bond and surety bond already furnished u/s 437A Cr.P.C shall remain in force for 6 months from today.
21. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY)
on 08.12.2015 MM02 (Central)Tis Hazari Court
DELHI
FIR No. 295/01, PS Timarpur, State v/s Illyas Ahmed