Delhi District Court
State vs Naseem on 7 January, 2025
DLSE010030912023
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN,
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03 (SOUTH EAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
SESSIONS CASE No. 140/2024
FIR No. 996/2014
PS K.M. Pur
STATE
Versus
NASEEM
S/o Ashgar
R/o Vill- Seelkho, Tehsil Tauru Dist.
Gurgaon, Haryana.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 23.01.2019
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 07.12.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.01.2025
Decision : Acquitted.
FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 1/9
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts & Investigation
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that in the intervening night of 12.11.2014 and 13.11.2014, Insp. Virender Joshi, ASI Attar Singh, Ct. Hawa Singh and some other police officials were deployed on Ring Road, opposite Gate No.2 of AIIMS Hospital for vehicle checking. At around 01:45 hrs., the police team noticed a truck bearing registration No. HR-74A-1470 coming from the direction of Moolchand. The said truck was signaled to halt. Driver of the said truck halted his vehicle around 15 steps away, after crossing the barricades erected by the police. Ct. Hawa Singh went to the driver of said truck, who was still seated in the truck, and asked him to hand over the papers / documents of the truck. Driver of the said truck then took out the documents / papers of the truck for handing over the same to Ct. Hawa Singh but since the Driver was seated at a height, Ct. Hawa Singh climbed the footrest of the said truck to get the papers / documents. While Ct. Hawa Singh was standing on the footrest of the said truck, the Driver suddenly put his vehicle in motion and then accelerated at a high speed, which put the life of Ct. Hawa Singh at a risk. The other police officials noticed the said fact and chased the said truck in a PCR van. Police team was able to intercept and stop the said truck. Driver of the said truck, namely Naseem S/o Asgar, was apprehended. Police Control Room was informed about the said fact. Thereafter, HC Ved Prakash arrived at the spot from PS Kotla Mubarakpur. Ct. Hawa Singh made a statement seeking legal action FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 2/9 against said Naseem. On the basis of said statement, FIR no. 996/2014 PS Kotla Mubarakpur was registered and investigation was taken up. After due investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed against the accused Naseem u/s 186/353/367 IPC.
2. On 04.07.2019, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate framed a charge u/s 183/353/367 IPC against the accused. However, later on, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate realized that Section 365 IPC is triable by Court of Sessions. Consequently, she committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
3. Ld. Predecessor of this Court began the trial of accused on the basis of charges framed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 04.07.2019. However, at the prayer of Ld. Addl. PP for State, this Court framed fresh charges u/s 183/353/367 IPC against the accused on 21.07.2023 and began the recording of evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses during trial:-
Sl. Name of witness Purpose
no.
a). PW2 SI Attar Singh Eye witness / police
official.
b). PW3 HC Hawa Singh Victim / informant
c). PW4 SI Karmvir 3rd IO
Sangwan
FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 3/9
d). PW5 ASI Ved Prakash 1st IO
e). PW6 Ct. Lomesh Police official (formal
witness)
f). PW7 HC Vijender Police official (formal
witness)
g). PW8 Sh. Suresh Kumar, Police official (Sanction u/s
Retired ACP.
195 Cr.P.C.)
h). PW9 Insp. Sanjay Kumar 2nd IO
Meena
5. Prosecution evidence was closed on 09.10.2024.
Statement Of Accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C & Defence Evidence
6. Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused was put to him. Accused claimed that it is a false case and that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of complainant and IO. He preferred not to led any defence evidence.
Arguments
7. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and prayed for convicting the accused.
8. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 4/9 prosecution case is liable to be discarded for multiple reasons. It is argued:-
a) that the prosecution has failed to explain as to why DD No. 9B dated 13.11.2014 records an information to the effect that a dumper (truck) driver has indulged in an altercation with a Traffic Constable ;
b) that the prosecution admits that the accused was not prosecuted for any violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act (for lack of any relevant driving licence / permit / insurance policy etc. etc.) and as such, it fails to explain as to why the accused would try to escape from the spot;
c) that the prosecution has failed to explain as to who brought the truck back to the spot of incident from the spot where it was intercepted and stopped by the police after a brief chase;
c) that the police has not joined any public person as a witness, which betrays the inherent falsity in the case of the prosecution;
d) that the police was asking for illegal gratification from the accused at the relevant time and when the accused failed to pay the bribe, police officials falsely implicated him in the present case. It is the said reason which prevented the police from placing on record any CCTV footage of the incident;
e) that the case of prosecution is faulty and bears multiple inconsistencies, which factors must be read in favour of the FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 5/9 accused and the accused may be granted benefit of doubt.
9. In rebuttal, Ld. Addl. PP submits that the role of the accused in the commission of the crime has been clearly spelt out by the victims/ eye witnesses during trial. He further submits that the Ld. Defence Counsel is merely indulging in hair-splitting of the facts, but the same is not sufficient to discard the substantial evidence led on record against the accused.
Discussion
10. I have heard the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the case file.
11. As per prosecution's case, at the relevant date, time and place a police team was deployed for checking of vehicles. Police team had erected a barricade at the spot. The accused, while driving a truck, arrived there. He was signalled to stop. Accused stopped his truck a few steps ahead of the barricade. Ct. Hawa Singh went to the accused and asked for his papers / documents. Accused took out his papers / documents in order to hand over the same to Ct. Hawa Singh, but since he (accused) was seated at a height, therefore, Ct. Hawa Singh boarded the footrest of the truck in order to grab the said papers / documents. However, accused suddenly put his truck into motion and then sped away from the spot at a high speed while Ct. Hawa Singh was stranded on the footrest (of the truck). The other members of the police team swung into action and gave a chase. The truck was intercepted soon and accused was apprehended. Information regarding FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 6/9 this incident was conveyed to Control Room, whereafter local police arrived at the spot. Statement of Ct. Hawa Singh was recorded and then further action was initiated against the accused.
Occurrence of Incident and Role of Accused.
12. In order to prove to its above allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-2 SI Attar Singh and PW-3 HC Hawa Singh. During the course of trial, both the said witnesses deposed in line with the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the accused. Both the said witnesses were duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused. Their cross-examination does not reflect any infirmity. In fact, both seem to have withstood the test of cross-examination.
13. It must be noted here that the statement of Ct. Hawa Singh (Ex.PW3/A) reflects that after the apprehension of the accused, the concerned Traffic Inspector (Insp. Virender Joshi) informed the Control Room about the occurrence of the above incident through a wireless set. The said information was recorded in the PS concerned vide DD No. 9B dated 13.11.2014, which is Ex.PW2/DA / Ex.PW5/A. However, as per said DD, the information conveyed to the PS concerned was 'that a dumper (truck) driver has had an altercation with a Traffic Constable and who has been apprehended at the spot'.
14. Admittedly, Traffic Insp. Virender Joshi was available at the spot alongwith the entire police team when the story propounded by the prosecution unfolded. Admittedly, Traffic Insp. Virender Joshi gave a chase to the accused when he (accused) had sped away from the spot while Ct. Hawa Singh was stranded on the footrest of the FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 7/9 truck. Admittedly, Traffic Insp. Virender Joshi intercepted the said truck, rescued Ct. Hawa Singh and apprehended the accused. In such circumstances, this Court fails to understand as to why Traffic Insp. Virender Joshi transmitted a message through wireless set, which is completely devoid of the 'occurrences' as were narrated subsequently by Ct. Hawa Singh in his statement Ex.PW-3/A. Strangely, the message is devoid of even the factum of alleged 'kidnapping' of Ct. Hawa Singh. Being a responsible and experienced police officer, this Court could not expect of Traffic Insp. Virender Joshi that he would convey incorrect or incomplete information to the Control Room through wireless set. In such circumstances, a question mark arises on the genuineness and correctness of the story put forth by the police vide the present charge-sheet. Admittedly, Insp. Virender Joshi expired during the course of trial, which fact prevented any explanation to come on record in this regard. In the absence of any explanation in this regard, this Court is constrained to hold that there is an inherent defect and infirmity in the case put forth by the prosecution against the accused. Reason being the fact that DD No. 9B dated 13.11.2014 Ex.PW2/DA / Ex.PW5/A is a document placed on record by prosecution and as such, prosecution should have explained the grave inconsistency in the documents vis-a-vis the actual occurrences.
15. That apart, this Court could not lose sight of the fact that the accused was not found to be in violation of any of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act at the relevant time (admittedly, the accused was not prosecuted for lack of driving licence / permit / insurance policy etc. etc.). This fact does raise a suspicion, as was argued by the Ld. FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 8/9 Defence Counsel, as to why the accused would try to flee from the spot, while a Traffic Police official was stranded on the footrest of his truck, if all his documents / papers were in order at the relevant time. No doubt the said suspicion is lying in the realm of speculation, as the relevant facts have not been proved on record by the accused; but still the same creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of this Court particularly in view of the inconsistency between the oral testimony of PW-2 SI Attar Singh and PW-3 HC Hawa Singh on the one hand and the contents of DD No. 9B dated 13.11.2014 Ex.PW2/DA / Ex.PW5/A on the other.
16. In the considered opinion of this Court, a reasonable doubt has arisen as to the actual facts and circumstances available at the spot at the relevant date, time and place. In such circumstances, this Court could not act upon the oral testimony of PW-2 SI Attar Singh and PW-3 HC Hawa Singh. Admittedly, rest of the persons examined by the prosecution have not witnessed the occurrence of the incident and therefore, their evidence is insufficient to hold the accused guilty of the allegations he is facing. As such, this Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its allegations against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently, accused Naseem is acquitted of all charges punishable u/s 183/353/367 IPC.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2025.01.07 16:03:00 Dictated and Announced +0530 in open Court on 07.01.2025. (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South- East), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No: 996/2014 State vs. Naseem 9/9