Delhi District Court
Digitally Signed vs State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (Hc) on 11 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-5, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 1118 of 2016
CNR NO. DLSE01-000001-2012
State
Vs.
1. Naveen Goel
S/o late Sh. Subhash Goel,
R/o H.No. 42, Kailash Hill,
East of Kailash, New Delhi.
FIR No. 313/2012
PS: Amar Colony
U/s: 186/333/353/34 IPC
Instituted on : 26.11.2012
Committed on : 04.05.2013
Reserved on : Not reserved
Decided on : 11.03.2022
JUDGMENT
1. On 29.08.2012, a telephonic information was received at Police Station Amar Colony from PCR regarding accident near House No. 42, Kailash Hills, near Water Tank, E.O.K, New Delhi. The information was recorded vide DD No. 17A and assigned to ASI Bua Lal. On that day, ASI Bua Lal alongwith Ct. Rajinder reached at the spot where tanker No. HR38J-0472 and car No. DL3CAJ-5724 (C200) were found in accidental condition and two PCR vans call sign as K-35 and K-37 were also present at the spot with staff. I/C van Kite-35 SI S. Natrajan and W/Ct. Nirmala Devi told the concerned police officials that accused Naveen Goel had SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.1 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:53:27 +0530 quarreled with them and caused injuries to W/Ct. Nirmala Devi by pushing her and she was sent through W/Ct. Meenakshi to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. After medical examination, both lady constables returned to spot and W/Ct. Meenakshi handed over the MLC to IO and statement of W/Ct. Nirmala was got recorded which is being reproduced for the sake of convenience:-
"Bayan kiya ki mein pata uprokt par posted hoon. Aaj dinank 29.08.2012 ko meri duty bataur Gunman K-35 par 9.00 am to 5.00 pm tak thi. Aur K-35 PCR ki gaadi ke I/C van SI S. Natrajan NO. D-2644 thi mere saath duty part the. Samay kareeb 10.55 am par control room mein humein accident call di thi. Uss ke badd hum gadi ko lekar h.no.42, kalaish hill, nikat pani ki tanki pahuche. Yaha par tanker no. H.R. 38J-0472 aur CM No.-DL03 CA7-572 UC-200 ka accident that. Main aur Shivpal Verma ke pass pahuche. Aur halaat paripakt kiye. Jo Shivpal Verma, madam Sudesh Goel apni car mein bahar khadi thi. Maine madam se pucha kya baat ho gayi. Madam ne btaya ki pani ke tanker ne meri car ko damage kar diya. Tab hum ne madam ko kaha local police ko message dete hain. Humare I/C van ne local police ko message de diya aur isi dauran madam ne apne ladke ko phone se mauke par bula liya. Ladke ne aate hi tanker drive ko marna peetna shuru kar diya aur I/C van ne tanker chalak ko bachane liye kafi madad li. Madam ke ladke ne tanker driver ko chhod kar I/C van ke sath dhakka mukki aur gaali galauj karne laha. Main I/c van ko chhudane lagi toh madam ke ladke ne meri chhati par jor se dhakka mara, jis se main gir gayi. Aur kehne laga ki tere jaise police wale bahut aate hain. Vardi me jyada chaudi mat ho aur mere sath gaali galauj kiya. Toh maine tamam apne saare halaat set par control room ko diye. Toh sari baat afsaran vala ke notice mein layi. Jo afsaran vala ke notice mein lane ke baad control room ne humari madad ke liye K-37 PCR ki gadi bhiwayi. Itne mein aap mauka par aa gaye. Baad dariyaft par uss ladke ka naam Naveen Goel S/o Sh. Subhash Goel R/o H.No.42 Kailash Hill, east of Kailash, New Delhi, malum hua ne humare sath daurane duty sarkari kaam mein badha daal kar mujhe chot pahuchayi hai. Ke khilaf karyawahi bhi ki jaye, apne bayan likha, padh liya, samaj liya thik hai."
2. The FIR in the instant case was registered for offences u/s SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.2 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:53:41 +0530 186/353/332 IPC. During investigation, IO prepared site plan Ex. PW- 11/B at the instance of victim W/Ct. Nirmala Devi and recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, accused Naveen Goel was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-2/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-2/C. MLC was deposited in Trauma Centre, AIIMS for obtaining opinion/result and nature of injury was opined as grievous, hence section 333 IPC was added during course of investigation.
CHARGE
3. On completion of necessary formalities, matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. To a charge under section 186/333/353 IPC, framed on 09.09.2013, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC:
5. Examined under section 313 of CrPC, the accused either pleaded ignorance about the incriminating evidence or denied the same as incorrect. He claimed to be falsely implicated. His version in his statement is as follows:-
"I was in my office on the date of incident and I got a call from mother regarding an accident. I went to the spot which was Kailash Hill. My mother informed me that the tanker driver has hit the car from back. Nearly 10 police personnel were present there, out of which, Ms. Nirmala Devi told my mother that there is no point of getting FIR registered regarding the accident by telling that fault is of her driver. On hearing this, I told Nirmala Devi that her job is to take us to SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.3 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:53:58 +0530 the PS and file complaint and not to prejudge the issue by becoming a Judge at the spot.
On this, she got annoyed and started abusing me. When I objected, she said that 'mai tere ko dekh lungi'. From there, we were taken to the PS with the tanker driver on the pretext that our complaint will be filed. However, after 4.30 pm, I was informed that Nirmala Devi has falsely implicated me and an FIR has been registered against me. MLC of Nirmala Devi is false and doctored. I am completely innocent."
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE:
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the state argued that prosecution has successfully proved its case. It is further argued that in view of testimonies of PW2 Ct. Nirmala Devi having been corroborated by other material witnesses, there remains no doubt about guilt of accused and he deserves to be convicted in the instant case.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. DEFENCE COUNSEL:
7. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that accused has been able to prove its defence in the instant case and the case of prosecution has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the instant case by the police officials who got annoyed in view of the fact that applicant/accused had tried to reason them out at the accident site. He argued that depositions of PWs were inconsistent and that their testimony could not be relied upon as they were interested witnesses.
8. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. For SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.4 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:54:06 +0530 appreciating the rival contentions, it would be apt to analyse the evidence brought on record in detail to adjudicate, if the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts or whether accused deserves to be acquitted in the present case?
EVIDENCE ON RECORD:
9. PW1 HC Jagdish Prasad deposed that on 29.08.2012, he was working as Duty Roster Clerk at PCR, South East Zone; that he has proved the duty roster of the said date as Ex. PW1/A (OSR), wherein SI S. Natrajan and W/Ct. Nirmala were reported to be posted at PCR K-35 from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm.
10. PW2 W/HC Nirmala deposed that 29.08.2012, she was posted in PCR, South East; that on that day, she was on duty on PCR van kite 35 from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm as a gunman, SI S. Natrajan was Incharge and there was one driver on their PCR; that at about 10.55 am, a message was received on wireless set from control room regarding one accident at near H.No. 42, Kailash Hill, between a tanker and one car; that they reached there and saw one tanker No. HR38 0472 and car No. DL3C AJ 5724 in accident condition; that one Mrs. Goel was standing outside her car; that Incharge made inquiry from her and she stated that her car was damaged by tanker's driver; that Incharge PCR van informed about the position to the Head Quarter; that she requested the lady to wait for arrival of the local police.
10A. She further deposed that in the meantime, Mrs. Goel called her son at the spot, whose name was Naveen Goel; that accused started SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.5 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:54:17 +0530 beating the tanker driver; that SI S. Natrajan intervened to save the tanker driver; that she also intervened to make accused understand not to beat the driver of tanker; that accused Naveen Goel gave her a push, due to which, she fell down; that she passed information on the wireless set and apprised her senior officers; that another PCR van K-37 reached at the spot to help them and local police also arrived at the spot; that she met SI Bua Lal and told him all the facts and circumstances of the case; that she told him that she had sustained injuries and she was sent for medical examination in the company of Lady Ct. Meenakshi; that after medical examination in Trauma Centre, she again came back to PS. Her statement was recorded by the IO, which is Ex. PW2/A. 10B. She further deposed that thereafter, she came to the spot with IO and other police officials; that accused Naveen Goel was arrested at her instance by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/C; that accused had also abused her saying that, 'vardi me chaudi mat ho, aise police wale bahut aate hain'; that due to fall on the push given by accused, she sustained fracture in her ribs.
10C. On being cross examined by Ld. defence counsel, she admitted it to be correct that more than 50 public persons were present at the time of incident. She denied the suggestion that the driver of tanker was misbehaving with mother of the accused or that argument took place between her and mother of accused. She further denied the suggestion that on being annoyed, she falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.6 of 15
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11
15:54:24 +0530
10D. She further deposed that she cannot tell if on MLC No.
326901 of Trauma Centre vide DR 19088, her chest X-ray was conducted by Dr. Nupur and it was opined that by Dr. Isha Gupta that 'no fracture seen and no history of assault'. She denied the suggestion of defence that she and IO had forged the signatures of Dr. Madhu Kumar on MLC Ex. PW-2/DA or that she had falsely stated about the fracture and the weapon being used as 'blunt'. She admitted the X-ray report Ex. PW-2/DB belonging to her. She denied the suggestion of defence that she did not receive any injury or fracture.
11. PW3 W/ASI Fukeria is a formal witness. She, being the duty officer, had registered the FIR Ex. PW-3/A. She had also recorded DD No. 17A, which was marked to ASI Bua Lal for necessary action.
12. PW9 HC Mahender Singh deposed that on 29.08.2012, he alongwith Ct. Surender was posted on PCR van Kite-37; that at about 11.05 am, on receipt of a call regarding some quarrel with PCR officials of Kite-35, they reached at the spot and found said PCR van there; that SI S. Natrajan and Lady Const. Nirmala were present there, who informed that one Naveen Goel had obstructed them in discharge of their official work and had fought with them; Lady Ct. Nirmala told them that she was pushed by Naveen Goel at the spot; that since the situation was under control and local police had arrived, they returned to police station. He correctly identified the accused in the witness box.
13. PW5 Lady Ct. Meeakshi deposed that she was posted at police station Amar colony; that on receipt of a call, she along with ASI SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.7 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:54:32 +0530 Bua lal had gone to the spot, where Lady constable Nirmala and PCR officials met them; that on the direction of ASI Bua Lal, she took Nirmala for her medical examination to Trauma Centre and obtained MLC of Nirmala; that thereafter she alongwith Ct. Nirmala returned to the spot and handed over the MLC to IO. During cross examination, she deposed that the medical examination of Ct. Nirmala got completed by 4.50-5.00 pm; that she had collected the MLC from hospital and had given the same to IO
14. PW6 Retired SI S. Natrajan is the other material witness who deposed on line of PW3.
15. PW7 Const. Rajender is a witness to the investigation and he deposed that on 29.08.2012, he was posted at PS Amar Colony; that on receipt of DD No.17 regarding accident he along with ASI Bua Lal reached at the spot, where they found two PCR vans Kite-35 and Kite-37 with their officials; that SI Natrajan of Kite-35 informed the IO that an accident took place between a Mercedes Car and a water tanker; that when SI S. Natrajan tried to intervene in the matter, he was obstructed and restrained and lady Ct. Nirmala was pushed by the said boy who was son of the lady namely Ms. Sudesh Goel; that the name of accused was Naveen Goel; that since lady Ct. Nirmala was injured, she was sent to AIIMS through Lady Ct. Meenakshi; that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/C; that the number of Mercedes Car was 5724 and of Water Tanker was HR- 38J-0548. He correctly identified the accused in the witness box.
16. PW8 is a formal witness who proved the log book of PCR SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.8 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:54:47 +0530 van Kite-35 for the period 01.04.2012 to 09.05.2013; that as per register (OSR), entry dated 29.08.2012 was recorded by SI S. Natrajan for attending the call at 42 Hills, Kailash Colony. The copy of page No. 190 containing the entry is Ex. PW-8/A and the relevant entry is at point X to X1.
17. PW10 Dr. Govinda Reddy Karri proved the signatures of Dr. Isha Gupta on MLC No.326901. He has also proved the signatures of Dr. Isha Gupta on the radiology report of injured Nirmala vide memo already Ex.PW2/DB; that as per report Ex.PW2/DB, there was no fracture in the report. He further deposed that he has seen X-ray film and no fracture is seen in the said film.
18. PW11 Retd. ASI Babu Lal is the investigating officer who deposed about the investigation carried out by him. He inter alia deposed about recording the statement Ex. PW-2/A of complainant, making of endorsement Ex. PW-11/A on the said statement and about preparation of site plan Ex.PW-11/B. He further deposed about arresting the accused and conducting his personal search. He further deposed that he took an opinion from concerned doctor who opined that the injuries sustained by Ct. Nirmala are grievous in nature. He also deposed about obtaining a complaint under section 195 CrPC (Ex. PW-11/C) of concerned ACP.
18A. During his cross examination, he deposed that the driver of the water tanker was not sent for medical examination as he was not having any visible injury. On being questioned, whether the injuries of complainant were visible, he deposed that the complainant had told him SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.9 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:54:56 +0530 that she had sustained some injury in her hand. He denied the suggestion that the MLC of complainant was forged by him in connivance of complainant. He admitted the suggestion that in the document Ex. PW- 2/DB, no fracture is seen.
19. Accused examined himself as the only defence witness and deposed that on 29.08.2012, he received a call from his mother at about 10.30 am while he was in his office in Cannaught Place; that his mother told him that her car has met with an accident and he immediately rushed to the spot; that the accident had taken place in the residential colony of the Kailash Hills; that he reached at about 11.00 am, his mother, police officials and number of public persons were present at the spot; that his mother was asking the police officer namely Nirmala Devi to register an FIR but she was insisting to his mother to close the matter and not to proceed with the registration of the FIR; that lastly, he asked Nirmala Devi that it is her job to register the FIR and to take action as per law; that Nirmala Devi took it to her ego and threatened him "Main tere ko dekh lungi" and even misbehaved with him.
19A. He further deposed that his mother and the driver of water tanker were asked to come to the police station; that they immediately went to the police station as they were told that an FIR will be registered against the driver in the police station; that he was asked to wait in the police station along with his mother as police were doing some work; that at about 4.30 pm, he was told that he is arrested in the present FIR registered at instance of Nirmala Devi' that he was shocked as he was told SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.10 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:55:04 +0530 that Nirmala Devi has alleged that he had assaulted her with some weapon and ribs are fracture; that he was quite sure that all the medical reports are manipulated; that he was released on bail and after receipt of the medical documents went to the AIIMS trauma centre and got confirmation that there is no injury as per the X ray report which is Ex.PW2/DB; that even he was told that most likely signatures of one of the doctor at point A and B on Ex.PW2/DA are even forged; that statement of none of the public person were recorded by the IO just only to implicate him. The witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, wherein he denied all the suggestions given by latter.
20. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record.
21. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
22. After hearing both the parties and on the basis of material available on record, I am of the considered view that accused deserves benefit of doubt in the instant case for the following reasons:-
(a) In the instant case, apart from complainant W/Ct. Nirmala Devi and other police officials, with whom the accused had an altercation, no independent SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.11 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:55:13 +0530 witness was examined by prosecution. As per the prosecution version, the genesis of present altercation was the accident which had occurred between mother of accused and one tanker driver namely Shahbez.
However, despite opportunity, prosecution failed to examine said witness so as to lend credence to its theory.
(b) Further, the driver of the mother of accused was admittedly present at the spot, however for the reasons best known to the investigating agency, he was neither cited nor examined as a witness. Furthermore, the other independent witnesses were also present at the spot, however no efforts were made by investigating agency to join any of such witnesses. Non-joining of any of independent witnesses, despite their availability, creates a doubt in the story of prosecution. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana 199 (1) C.L.R. 69 and Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crime 55.
(c) Furthermore, the medical record of the complainant/ PW2 W/Ct. Nirmala Devi appears to be highly suspicious in the instant case. As per record, her MLC Ex. PW2/DA reports her injuries to be 'grievous'. The said MLC is a typed one, however SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.12 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:55:23 +0530 there is an endorsement at the bottom of said MLC (purportedly made by Dr. V. Madhu i.e. the concerned doctor who had prepared the said MLC), which reads as 'grievous in view of third rib fracture' with her signatures at the bottom. No plausible explanation is forthcoming on the part of prosecution as to under what circumstances, the said endorsement was made when admittedly in the X-ray report Ex. PW2/DB, no fracture was seen. Further, even in the X-ray film of the complainant, no fracture was seen as confirmed by PW10 who was a medical expert. I may add at this juncture that the signatures under said endorsement at point B (of Dr. V. Madhu) also does not appear to be matching with the signatures (in the black ink) just appearing above said signatures in the said MLC. Seen in the light of aforesaid circumstance, the contention of defence that the MLC has been doctored by the police, appears to be quite forceful.
(d) Next, during cross examination of PW11, it has come on record that the investigating officer did not send the driver of the tanker (who was allegedly being beaten by accused) for medical examination. As per PW11, same was not required as he did not sustain any visible injuries. On being questioned by defence, whether the injuries of complainant were visible, the witness chose to give an evasive reply by deposing SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.13 of 15 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11 15:55:30 +0530 that complainant told him that she had sustained some injury in her hand. It appears that the investigating agency did not act fairly while investigating the instant matter on this count, thereby raising serious doubt about their bonafide.
(e) Further, the accused in the instant case has been quite consistent in his defence. It is evident from record that all stage of trial (i.e. during cross examination of prosecution witnesses, in his statement u/s 313 CrPC and in his defence evidence), he took a consistent defence about being falsely implicated, having argued with police team at the accident site and at no stage, inconsistency could be noted in the defence of accused.
23. Seen from the prism of aforesaid circumstances, the defence of accused as put forth by him, appears to be probable. It is a settled law that whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of the accused is 'preponderance of probabilities'. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In the instant case, the defence as put forth by accused stands established on the 'preponderance of probability' and resultantly the prosecution version in the instant case suffers a dent.
SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.14 of 15
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11
15:55:39 +0530
24. In Sarwan Sigh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, Apex court observed (Para12):-
"Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an accused can be convicted."
25. The prosecution evidence brought in the instant case is not of such an impeachable quality so as to result in conviction of accused and therefore I have no hesitation in holding that accused deserves benefit of doubt in the instant case.
26. Accordingly, accused Naveen Goel stands acquitted of offences under section 186/333/353 IPC in the instant case. He is directed to furnish bail bonds in terms of section 437A CrPC.
27. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.03.11
15:55:47 +0530
Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL)
Court on 11th March, 2022 Additional Sessions Judge-05,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No. 1118/2016 State v. Naveen Goel Page No.15 of 15