Delhi District Court
State vs . Sachin Kumar Srivastava on 10 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MM08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
CNR No. DLCT020018642011
State Vs. Sachin Kumar Srivastava
FIR No. 167/2011
PS : Kotwali
U/s 505(1)(b)/507 IPC
Date of Institution : 12.10.2011
Date of reserving of order : 07.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 10.08.2018
J U D G M E N T
1. Serial No. of the case : 303231/16
2. Name of the Complainant : SI Rajesh Kumar
3. Date of incident : 27.07.2011
4. Name of accused person :
Sachin Kumar Srivastva S/o Sh. Bipin
Bihari Lal, R/o S4/105, Street No.6,
Mahavir Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New
Delhi.
5. Offence for which chargesheet
has been filed : S. 505(1)(b)/507 IPC
6. Offence for which charge
has been framed : S. 505(1)(b)/507 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Acquitted
Present: Sh. Santosh Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Anand Srivastava, Ld. LAC for the
accused.
FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 1 of 12
PS: Kotwali
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Mr. Sachin Srivastava, the accused herein, has been chargesheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) and 507, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as ' IPC').
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.07.2011 one DD No.29A was recorded at about 5:05 p.m., regarding a person who had stated to another person about planting a bomb at Chandni Chowk in lieu of rupees one lacs. The caller had disclosed his name as Alok S/o Krishan Lal. On the basis of information, NCR was registered. After taking permission from Ld. MM, investigation was initiated. It came in the investigation that the said call was made by the accused. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 505(1)(b) and 507 IPC.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 2 of 12 PS: Kotwali hearing the parties, charge for the offences punishable under Section 505(1)(b)/507 IPC was framed against the accused. It was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Brij Bhushan is a public witness. He has deposed that in July 2011 his nephew Mani Ranjan had got issued one SIM card on his Voter Icard. The photocopy of Icard is Mark A.
6. PW2 Alok Kumar Choudhary is the complainant. He has deposed that on 24.07.2011, he had received a call on his mobile number 9716781472 from mobile number 9540629358. He had received continuous calls from that number for two days. The caller had misbehaved with him and threatened him and abused him without disclosing his identity. He made a complaint in this regard at PS : Janakpuri. The receiving copy of the said complaint is Ex. PW2/A. On 27.07.2011 at about 34 p.m, a call was received from the said number and the caller had asked him to plant a bomb in Chandni Chowk area and that he would pay rupees one lacs for the same. Thereafter, he had called the PCR. On 28.07.2011, he had identified the accused in the police station Kotwali as he FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 3 of 12 PS: Kotwali was also a tenant in the same building where he was residing. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP on the aspect of mobile phone number. However, he denied the suggestion that he was called on his mobile number 9210879940.
7. PW3 Mani Ranjan Kumar is a public witness known to the accused. He has deposed that in May and June, 2011, he had visited the house of his uncle at RZ68, Indira Park, Uttam Nagar Delhi and stayed with his uncle Brij Bhushan, Pankaj, accused Sachin Kumar Srivastva etc. The accused had made a call from the SIM which he had purchased by using Icard of his uncle. The accused had told him that he had made a call to his friend Alok Choudhary. The personal search memo of accused which is Ex. PW3/A was prepared in his presence.
8. PW4 Pankaj Kumar is a public person. He has deposed that in the month of May June 2011, he was stayed at the house of his uncle in Delhi. On 18.07.2011 at the instance of his uncle Braj Bhushan, he had gone to his shop for getting his mobile phone recharged.
9. PW5 ASI Kripal Singh is the DO who had registered the FIR, copy of which is Ex. PW5/A (OSR). He had made the endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW5/B. He had handed over the rukka and copy of FIR FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 4 of 12 PS: Kotwali to HC Jaibir to be given to SI Rajesh for further investigation.
10. PW6 ASI Jaivir Singh is the Police official who had joined the investigation with the IO. He has deposed that on 30.07.2011 the DO had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. IO had reached at WZ28, Nangli Jalib, Near B1, Janakpuri, Delhi, where the IO had recorded the statement of the complainant. The accused was found at Uttam Nagar, Indira Park and notice was given to him to join the investigation. Mani Ranjan had handed over one mobile phone make Nokia N72 to the IO, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A in his presence. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW6/B. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/A. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded which is Ex. PW6/C.
11. PW7 Pawan Singh is the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. He has brought the record of mobile phone number 9540629358 w.e.f., 25.07.2011 to 30.07.2011. The certified copy of the record are Ex. PW7/A (running into six pages).
12. PW8 Inspector Rajesh Kumar is the IO. He has deposed that on 27.07.2011, one DD No.29A, which is Ex.A1 was recorded at about 5:05 p.m., regarding a FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 5 of 12 PS: Kotwali person who had stated to another person about planting a bomb at Chandni Chowk in lieu of rupees one lacs. The caller had disclosed his name as Alok Kumar Choudhary S/o Krishan Lal. He had informed that he had received the said call from mobile phone number 9540629358. He had obtained the CAF of the said mobile phone number, which was found issued in the name of Brij Bhushan at Uttam Nagar. Brij Bhushand had informed him that he had given his Icard to his nephew Mani Ranjan Kumar Singh, who had taken the said mobile phone connection. After necessary permission, rukka Ex. PW8/A was prepared. FIR was registered. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Jaivir had reached at Uttam Nagar where Mani Ranjan Kumar had informed that accused Sachin Kumar had also used his abovesaid mobile phone and that he had made the calls. He had recorded the statement of Pankaj Kumar. The accused was also present there. After initial investigation he had directed the accused to appear before the Court of Ld. MM. After taking permission from the Court, the accused was interrogated. He had recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, which is Ex.PW6/C. He had arrested the accused and conducted his personal search. He had obtained the CDR. The document of permission for registration of FIR are Ex. PW8/B. He prepared the FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 6 of 12 PS: Kotwali challan and filed in the Court.
13. All the witnesses were crossexamined. During the Course of evidence the accused has admitted that the DD no. 29A as Ex.A1. The certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act qua the FIR is Ex.A2.
14. The prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. Substance of incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied all the incriminating evidence. He would state that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He would state that he had made a call to Alok as he was his friend. However, he had not told him about any bomb or about any money. Earlier they both were residing on a place for last two years. Only few months ago, he had changed his address from the said place. He had called him on that day as he wanted to meet him because on that day he had planned to go in the area of Nangli Jalib. After sometime he himself had made a call to him and he was angry for some reason not known to him. After some time he came to know about the present FIR.
15. The accused did not lead defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 7 of 12PS: Kotwali
16. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution witnesses have deposed regarding the apprehension of the accused. The material on record is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accued had made the said call. Hence, the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and therefore and therefore, accused may be convicted.
17. Ld. counsel for accused would argue that the accused is innocent. He had not made any such call. He was falsely implicated in the present matter. He is an educated person. The complainant made a false complaint against him for the reason best known to him. He was friend of the accused. The accused still does not know as to why he had made a false complaint against him. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It has been prayed that the benefits of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
18. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 8 of 12PS: Kotwali
19. In a criminal case the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to prove his defence. It is also settled proposition of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
20. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 505 (1)
(b) IPC and Section 507 IPC.
21. Section 196 Cr.P.C., provides that no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable, interalia, under Section 505 (1) IPC, or a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or any such abetment as described in Section 108 A IPC, except the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government. Thus, without such a sanction being obtained by the prosecution, no cognizance can be taken by the Court. If any cognizance has been taken in the absence of any such sanction, then the cognizance is bad. In the present case as the record would reveal, no previous sanction is shown to be obtained by the prosecution from the State Government or the Central Government. Therefore, the cognizance of the offence under Section 505 (1) (b) IPC is bad under the law and the accused is entitled for acquittal.
FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 9 of 12PS: Kotwali
22. Be that as it may, even on merit of the case, the accused can not be held liable for an offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC.
23. Section 505(1)(b) IPC provides punishment for making, publishing or circulating any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility. Thus, to prove the charge of an offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had made any made, published, or circulating any rumour statement or report with intention to cause or having knowledge that it was likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public and that by such statement rumour or report any person might be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility. Mere causing of fear or alarm to the public or to a section of the public does not constitute an offence under this Section. It is also necessary to be proved that the fear or alarm should be caused in such circumstances as to render it likely that the fear or alarm to commit an offence against the state or against the public tranquility.
FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 10 of 12PS: Kotwali
24. In the present case, however, as the record would reveal, the complainant has stated that he had received a call from unknown number who had asked him to plant a bomb and in lieu of the same he would be given rupees one lacs. In the entire evidence, there is nothing on record to show that the accused had made that statement with an intention to cause fear or alarm to the public or any section of the public. It is also not on record that the complainant had come under any such fear. The said communication, even if believe to be true, was made with the complainant only. The nature of communcation was not such which was likely to cause fear or alarm to the public and whereby the complainant might have been induced to commit an offence against the State or public tranquility as provided under the law.
25. Further, the accused has also been charged for an offence punishable under Section 507 IPC. The section provides punishment for committing the offence of Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the the threat comes. In the present case, as the record would reveal, there is no material to show that the accused had criminally intimidated the complainant in any manner or that he had threatened the FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 11 of 12 PS: Kotwali complainant. As per the complainant, he was asked to plant a bomb in lieu of rupees one lacs. Promise of giving money is not cover under criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 IPC. Therefore, I hold that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 507 IPC are also not proved against the accused by the prosecution.
26. In view of the discussions herein above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of any of the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The accused is given benefit of reasonable doubts. He is therefore acquitted.
27. The accused has already furnished bond under Section 437A, with one surety along with photographs and copies of address proof.
Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar) this 10th Day of August 2018 MM08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 167/2011 State Vs Sachin Kr. Srivastava Page 12 of 12PS: Kotwali