Delhi District Court
State vs . Amarjeet Yadav on 10 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav
FIR No. 584/2016
PS : Uttam Nagar
U/s 385 IPC
Date of Institution : 03.09.2016
Date of Judgment : 10.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 432116/2016 2. Name of the Complainant : ASI Surender Kumar No.2326/T, Traffic Circle Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 3. Date of commission of offence : 06.07.2016 4. Name of accused person : Amarjeet Yadav S/o Sh. Rambilash Yadav R/o H.No.S12A, Vishwas Park, Bindapur, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 5. Offence charged : U/s 385 IPC 6. Plea of accused : Not guilty 7. Final Order : Acquitted BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER: State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 1 of 12
1. The accused has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 385, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 06.07.2016 at about 05:30 pm, near Macchi Market, Red Light, Uttam Nagar, accused Amarjeet Yadav had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/from ASI Surender on the pretext that he had a video of traffic police taking bribe and in case the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/is paid to him, he will delete the video, otherwise, he will give the said video to the media. ASI Surender negotiated with the accused, whereafter, accused had agreed to delete the video on receipt of Rs. 50,000/ only. ASI Surender called him to the same place next day and on 07.07.2016, apprehended him alongwith the recording device and alleged video and handed over the accused alongwith recovered device to local police. On the complaint of ASI Surender, the FIR was registered.
3. Thereafter, the present chargesheet was filed for offence punishable under Sections 384 IPC. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused was summoned to face trial. Copy of the chargesheet alongwith all annexures was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. After giving opportunity to state as well as accused for making submissions on charge, a notice for offence u/s 385 IPC was served upon the accused on 22.09.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution has examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 2 of 12
6. Inspector Dalbir Singh has been examined as PW1. He has proved duty roaster for deployment of police personnel on 06.07.2016 & 07.07.2016 as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that as per duty roaster, ASI Surender, HC Kumar Rajesh & Ct. Sandeep were deputed at Machhi Market point and Arya Samaj Road, however, Ct. Sandeep due to red light at Arya Samaj road being shut was on duty at Machhi Market in front of metro pillar no. 652.
7. DO ASI Prahlad Singh, who had registered the FIR on the complaint of the complainant on 07.07.2016, has been examined as PW2. He has proved the copy of FIR no.584/16 as Ex. PW2/A, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW2/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW2/C.
8. Ct. Sandeep has been examined as PW3. He deposed that on 06.07.2016, he was posted at Fish market, at Tilak Nagar Circle, Najafgarh road, Uttam Nagar. He alongwith ASI Surender, HC Kumar Rajesh were posted there and at about 05:30 pm, accused Amarjeet Yadav came to him and told him that he had video footage and photos of traffic policemen taking bribe. Thereafter, he informed about the same to the ZO/ASI Surender. Thereafter, ASI Surender spoke to the accused and accused demanded Rs.5 lacs or else he would leak the video in the media. Thereafter, ASI came to know that accused is a blackmailer and he used to blackmail the police officers by recording of these kind of videos. Thereafter, ASI Surender entered into a settlement with the accused and offered him Rs.50,000/ for deletion of the video footage from his camera, on the next day. ZO State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 3 of 12 communicated about the incident to the senior police officers and Senior Officers asked the ZO/ASI Surender to apprehend the accused whenever he comes to accept the bribe and to handover accused to SHO. On 07.07.2016, at about 06:00 pm, accused came to meet them and they apprehended the accused and handed over him to SHO PS Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that Camera and memory card were recovered from his possession in which there were footage of police officers taking money for challan purposes.
9. Ct. Sonu has been examined as PW4 who proved DD No.10 dated 06.07.2016 and DD No.32 dated 06.07.2016 as Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B respectively and DD No.10 dated 07.07.2016 as Ex. PW4/C and DD No. 29 dated 07.07.2016 as Ex. PW4/D.
10. ASI Mukesh Kumar has been examined as PW5 who proved relevant entry of deposition of case property in the malkhana vide entry at serial no. 446 as Ex. PW5/A.
11. ASI Kumar Rajesh who was on duty alongwith complainant on both days, has been examined as PW6. He deposed on the same lines as PW2.
12. Sh. Vivek Kumar, JF/ACE, FSL Rohini has been examined as PW7. He has proved FSL report dated 28.06.2017 as Ex. PW7/A, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW7/B, video recorder as Ex.P1, memory card as Ex.P2.
13. HC Deepak who joined the investigation with IO SI Umesh Yadav on 07.07.2016 has been examined as PW8. He has proved disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW8/A, seizure memo of State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 4 of 12 articles as Ex. PW8/B, arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW8/C, personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW8/D, remote control as Ex. P3 and hidden camera as Ex. P4.
14. Complainant ASI Surender Kumar has been examined as PW9 who has deposed that on 06.07.2016, he was posted at Tilak Nagar Circle as ZO. On that day, he was on duty at Machi Market, Uttam Nagar bus terminal, Uttam Nagar alongwith HC Kumar Rajesh and Ct. Sandeep. At about 05:30 pm, accused was brought to him by Ct. Sandeep and he was informed that accused was having a video recording of his staff accepting bribe and he will delete the video on receipt of Rs.5 lacs from PW9. PW9 negotiated with the accused and settled the amount at Rs.50,000/. He called the accused on 07.07.2016 to receive the aforesaid money and in the meantime, had informed his senior officers, who directed PW9 to hand over the accused to local police, if he comes again. When the accused came to the spot on 07.07.2016, he was apprehended by the complainant, Ct. Sandeep and HC Kumar Rajesh. They had also recovered one recording device, remote control and memory card and took the accused alongwith the case property to PS Uttam Nagar where he gave his complaint. He has proved his complaint as Ex. PW9/A.
15. SI Umesh Yadav, IO of case pertaining to FIR No. 584/2016 PS Uttam Nagar, has been examined as PW10. He has proved site plan as Ex. PW10/A.
16. HC Yadram has been examined as PW11 who on the instructions of IO on 22.08.2016, had deposited the case property vide State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 5 of 12 RC No.112/21/16 to FSL Rohini. He has proved the acknowledgment of FSL case acceptance as MarkA and RC as MarkB.
17. PW1, PW2 and PW11 were not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity. Remaining witnesses were duly crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused. All the material prosecution witnesses were examined and thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 09.04.2019.
18. Thereafter, Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 24.04.2019 after putting entire incriminating evidence to him. He submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as the police officials used to take illegal gratification from Gramin Sewa drivers and he used to make video of the same. Accused chose to lead defence evidence but despite opportunity he failed to lead any evidence in his defence and DE was closed on 10.07.2019.
19. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of state as well as the accused on 18.12.2019.
20. It is submitted by Ld.APP for State that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, through the uncontroverted testimonies of PW3, PW6 and PW9 and hence, is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 385 IPC, in as much as, he was found attempting to commit extortion.
21. On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for accused that case of prosecution is fraught with contradictions. He submits that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case since he has State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 6 of 12 failed to make payment of illegal gratification to complainant and other traffic police officials.
22. He submits that a bare perusal of deployment details of the complainant and his associates shows that complainant was deputed at point Fish Market whereas his associate Kumar Rajesh was deputed at Metro Pillar No.652 and Ct. Sandeep was deputed at Red Light, Arya Samaj Road on 06.07.2016 and 07.07.2016 respectively. However, according to him, as per site plan, alleged incident had not taken place at Fish Market, in as much as, no Fish Market has been shown at point A in the site plan where, according to IO, accused was apprehended while he was trying to extort money from the complainant against video recording.
23. He submits that no video allegedly recorded by the accused of the traffic police officials has been annexed alongwith chargesheet. He submits that a bare perusal of testimony of PW3 shows that Camera and Memory Card were recovered by the traffic police officials and not by the IO of the case. He submits that though allegedly the accused had approached the complainant and his associates for the alleged extortion on 06.07.2016, however, the complainant has not lodged any police complaint in writing nor had he made any DD entry in this regard. He submits that the alleged trap was laid down by the complainant himself without involving the local police nor any senior officer of the complainant had been made a party in the alleged trap.
24. He submits that prosecution has also failed to examine any State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 7 of 12 independent witness. All the three eye witnesses i.e. PW3, PW6 and PW9, according to him, were interested witnesses. Moreover, PW3 and PW6 were working under PW9 and hence, have deposed falsely at his instance.
25. He submits that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. According to him, though PW8, who was allegedly accompanying the IO, had deposed having recovered the Memory Card and recording device from the accused, however, as per the testimonies of PW3, PW6 and PW9, the same were recovered by complainant and not by the IO. Besides, according to him, though, PW9 during his cross examination dated 24.03.2018 has deposed that he had not seen the alleged video recording, however, during his subsequent cross examination dated 09.04.2019, he had seen the video before depositing the same with IO and thereafter had seen the same again in PS Uttam Nagar.
26. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, it is apparent that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case by complainant in order to save himself from prosecution for involving in corrupt practices. He has thus prayed for acquittal of the accused from charge u/s 385 IPC.
27. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also carefully perused the material available on record.
28. As has already been observed hereinabove, the accused has been chargesheeted in the present case on the basis of complaint made by ASI Surender who was allegedly on traffic duty at Fish Market State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 8 of 12 besides Uttam Nagar Terminal on 06.07.2016 and 07.07.2016. It has been alleged by complainant that on 06.07.2016 while he was on duty alongwith HC Kumar Rajesh and Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Sandeep informed him that accused had a video of traffic staff. Upon inquiry, accused disclosed that he had a video of complainant and his staff accepting bribe and in case, the complainant makes payment of Rs.5 lacs to the accused, he will delete the video otherwise the video shall be handed over by him to media. Thereafter, the complainant found that the accused was a fraud and blackmailer and he settled the matter with the accused for a sum of Rs.50,000/ in terms of which accused was asked to come again on 07.07.2016 at about 6 PM when the complainant would make him payment of Rs.50,000/ against the aforesaid video.
29. In the meantime, according to him, the complainant had informed his senior officers who advised him to hand over the accused to local police in case the accused comes again. On 07.07.2016, according to complainant, accused came at about 6 PM and started talking to him whereafter at the instance of complainant, HC Kumar Rajesh and Ct. Sandeep apprehended him and recovered recording device from the pocket of the accused. The accused was thereafter produced by complainant at PSUttam Nagar alongwith recovered devices. Subsequently, FIR was registered the devices recovered by complainant from the possession of the accused were seized by IO and sent to FSL. The video from the memory card were thereafter transferred by FSL to a DVD which has been filed by the IO during trial on 19.08.2017, copy of which was supplied to the accused. State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 9 of 12
30. Admittedly, neither IO nor the complainant had joined any independent public witness in the alleged trap laid down by the complainant to apprehend the accused. The accused was not caught red handed, in as much as, admittedly there was no payment by complainant to the accused of any amount of Rs.50,000/.
31. The prosecution has failed to explain the delay of more than 24 hours in reporting of the matter by complainant, who is also a police officer, to the local police or even to his superior in writing. It is significant to note that the complainant had not apprehended the accused at the time of his alleged demand of Rs.50,000/ on 06.07.2016 nor had he made any PCR call for getting the accused apprehended on the spot.
32. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that complainant had not apprehended the accused on 06.07.2016 as he wanted to catch him red handed alongwith alleged video while taking money from the complainant, admittedly, the complainant had not arranged for alleged amount of Rs.50,000/ to be paid by him to the accused as trap money. Complainant has also not involved his senior officer while laying down the alleged trap nor has he involved local police in the alleged trap.
33. It has been contended by accused that there was no demand by him of Rs.5 lac from the complainant as on 06.07.2016, in as much as, he had not visited the fish market on the aforesaid date and time and it was on 07.07.2016 when the accused was plying his Gramin Sewa when the complainant and his associates had stopped him in between State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 10 of 12 and started demanding bribe from him. He submits that he had started making video of the alleged demand and after the complainant came to know about the same, he had implicated him in the present false case. The delay of more than 24 hours by the complainant in reporting the matter to the local police or to its senior officer remained unexplained during cross examination of complainant as well as his colleagues who have been examined as PW3 and PW6 respectively. The said unexplained delay, in my considered opinion, renders the defence sought to be raised by accused reasonably probably that he has been falsely implicated in the present case when he had failed to meet the demand of the complainant of illegal gratification and was found making video of the said incident.
34. It has been admitted by PW3 and PW6 that at the time of his apprehension, accused was making video of the traffic staff. Had there been any truth in the case sought to be set up by prosecution regarding the visiting of the accused on 07.07.2016 to collect extortion amount of Rs.50,000/ against the video allegedly recorded by accused, there was no occasion for the accused to record video of the complainant and his colleagues on 07.07.2016, in as much as, the video would have recorded the acceptance of the extortion amount by accused from the complainant.
35. Even otherwise, in my considered opinion, a bare perusal of the testimony of complainant i.e. PW9 shows that he is not a reliable witness, in as much as, though during his cross examination dated 24.03.2018, he had deposed having not seen the alleged video State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 11 of 12 recording, however, during his subsequent cross examination dated 09.04.2019, he has admitted having seen the video recording twice, firstly before handing over the same to the IO in the PS and again in the PSUttam Nagar. The recovery of the alleged recording device by the complainant without joining any independent witness, in my considered opinion, renders the whole story of prosecution doubtful, more so, when complainant had failed to involve either his senior officer or the police officials of PS Uttam Nagar in apprehension of the accused by laying the trap.
36. So far as PW3 and PW6 are concerned, even they are interested witnesses being subordinate to PW9.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The accused is thus entitled to be acquitted of the charge under Section 385 IPC and is hereby acquitted of the aforesaid charge.
38. Accused has already furnished personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs.10,000/ in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. on 06.02.2020. The same have already been accepted and shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
39. Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced in the open court on this 10th February 2020 This judgment consists of 12 signed pages.
(ARUN KUMAR GARG) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi State Vs. Amarjeet Yadav FIR No. 584/2016 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 10.02.2020 Page No. 12 of 12