Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. on 23 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH , ASJ-02, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R0001151989
Session Case No. 10 of 2016
State Versus Sunil Kumar & Ors.
1.Sunil Kumar Son of Tilak Raj Resident of House No.3/218, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No. : 420 of 1987 U/s: 147/148/149/353/332/307 IPC PS: Delhi Cantonment CONVICTION ON A PLEA OF GUILT 23.03.2016
1. Sunil Kumar is facing trial before this Court for offences alleged to have been committed by him and punishable under Sections 147, 186, 148, 332, 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
2. It may be noted that initially the accused Sunil Kumar was facing trial for the above mentioned offences along with other co- accused persons namely Tilak Raj, Mahinder Singh, Bhim Kumar Rao, Ram Bahadur, Surinder, Lalit, A.K. Nandi, Kailash Chand, Jai Chowdhury, Tribhuvan, Ram Parkash, Vir Pal, Ganga Ram, Puran, Baliram Prasad, Ram Chand Sharma, Hem Singh, Suresh and Uma Shankar Prasad.
3. Sunil Kumar absconded from the trial with effect from 30.07.2001 and was declared a proclaimed offender by order dated 17.09.2001. The trial against co-accused persons proceeded and they were convicted vide order dated 06.09.2003 by the Ld. Predecessor State vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 420 of 1987, PS : Delhi Cantonment 1/7 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 332, 333, 353, 325 of the IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act and sentenced by order dated 16.09.2003.
4. Sunil Kumar was apprehended on 21.12.2015 and was produced before concerned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) vide Kalandra under Section 41.1 (c) of the Cr.P.C. The matter was committed to this Court for his remaining trial.
5. Before Sunil Kumar had absconded, eleven witnesses stood examined. Summons were issued to the remaining witnesses but they could not be traced. On 22.3.2016, Sunil Kumar stated that he desired to plead guilty. He was explained the probable consequences of his proposed course of action but he still desired to proceed. His statement was thus recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he admitted all the incriminating evidences put to him.
6. Briefly the case of the prosecution as per the police report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is that in the year 1987, PW2 Sh. S.J. Lamba was working as Assistant Settlement Officer in Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and was looking after the rents work of Papankalan Scheme (known as Dwarka Project). He alongwith his subordinate revenue staff was posted as Palam and Sh J.P. Singh was the In-charge and Director of that project. J.P. Singh had planned a unauthorised construction removal programme in consultation with police of Delhi Cantonment for 27.06.1987. As per said programme, the unauthorized construction raised upon DDA acquired lands was to be removed under the supervision of J.P. Singh and other officers of DDA with the assistance of police officials. In pursuance of the said removal programme, Sh. S.J. Lamba (PW2) along with demolition staff under the supervision of Sh. J.P. Singh and SHO and ACP Delhi Cantonment reached village Mirza Pur. They had taken one company force, gas, State vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 420 of 1987, PS : Delhi Cantonment 2/7 cylinder, bulldozer and lady police police. At about 2:30pm, they started the demolition work. Near Madhu Vihar Colony, about 4000-5000 people had gathered and about 2000-3000 people had assemble at the site place of the proposed demolition. The crowd was armed with lathis, farsas etc. and started raising slogans against the officials and pelted stones upon them. ACP T.S. Bhalla called upon the assembled crowd not to indulge in unlawful behaviour issued warning to them to move away but they did not comply. ACP T.S. Bhalla gave directions to fire tear gas shells but the same had no effect on the crowd. ACP T.S. Bhalla then directed his staff to lathi-charge the crowd but they still did not disperse and kept on pelting stones which caused injuries to police officials. In the melee about 7000-8000 people gathered and were pelting stones. They also attacked motorcycle riders with lathies and farsas due to which police Constables fell down and their motorcycle was set on fire.
7. It is further stated in the police report that repeated warnings were given to the crowd by ACP T.S. Bhalla but they did not disperse. Two shots were fired in the air but again to no effect. Tear gas was used again and the ACP T.S. Bhalla also fired two fire shots from his service revolver in the air. However, the crowd set the bulldozer and motorcycles on fire using kerosene oil. As the situation had become uncontrollable, ACP T.S. Bhalla summoned the CRPF personnel and directed them to control the crowd but they were unable to do so. One person then got injured and the circumstances were such that in case firing was not resorted to, the lives of DDA and police officials would be at risk.
8. It is further stated in the police report that senior officials came to the spot with additional forces and demolition work restarted. The police arrested twenty persons who had caused injuries to them and the DDA officials during the incident. One injured public person was State vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 420 of 1987, PS : Delhi Cantonment 3/7 sent to hospital. No other casualty was found. The place of the incident was photographed and lathies, farsas and khukri taken into possession with three bags containing bricks, bats and stones. On the basis of the statement of PW2 S.J. Lamba, PW13 SHO Ranbir Singh prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct Sumer Singh for registration of FIR which was registered by PW6 Duty Officer Kali Chand.
9. Upon conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. By order dated 18.11.1991, charges as above were framed against all the twenty accused persons including the present accused Sunil Kumar to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. As recorded above, Sunil Kumar absconded from the trial with effect from 30.07.2001 and was declared a proclaimed offender by order dated 17.09.2001. The trial against co-accused persons proceeded in which the prosecution had examined fourteen witnesses i.e. Dr. Sudha Nigam from Safdarjung Hospital as PW1, Sh. S.J. Lamba, Assistant Settlement Officer DDA as PW2, Sh. Satbir Singh, Patwari, DDA as PW3, Ct Satish Kumar as PW4, HC Rajbir as PW5, Retired Insp. Kali Chand, Duty Officer as PW6, ASI Lakshmi Chand as PW7, SI Mahabir Singh as PW8, SI Ram Kumar as PW9, Sh. Sharvan Kumar, Record Clerk, Safdarjung Hospital as PW10, SI Kundan Lal as PW11, Retd. SI Ajaib Singh as PW12, ACP Sh. Ranbir Singh as PW13 and ACP Sh.T.S. Bhalla as PW14.
11. Out of the above mentioned witnesses, the testimonies of PW12 Retd. SI Ajaib Singh, PW13 ACP Sh.Ranbir Singh and PW14 ACP Sh. T.S. Bhalla had been recorded during the time Sunil Kumar had absconded. These three witnesses had been summoned but could not be traced. However, Sunil Kumar pleaded his guilt on 22.03.2016 and his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded after affording the accused Sunil Kumar an opportunity to think over the State vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 420 of 1987, PS : Delhi Cantonment 4/7 consequences of his decision. In the said statement, Sunil Kumar admitted all the incriminating evidences on the record collected with the police report.
12. Sunil Kumar was charged for the offences under sections 147, 186, 148, 332, 333 and 353 of the IPC, under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
13. The other co-accused were convicted by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court by judgment dated 06.09.2003 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 332, 333, 353, 325 of the IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act.
14. It was held by the Ld. Predecessor that the charge for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was not established. The findings in respect of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court are as under:-
"Another charge is under Section 307 IPC against all the accused persons. To make out a case under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that the injuries capable of causing death should have been inflicted, though, the injury actually caused gives considerable assistance in coming to a finding regarding the intention of the accused persons which can also be deduced from other circumstances. The Court has to see irrespective of the result as to what was the intention or knowledge under the circumstances when the offence is committed. In the present case, the injuries have been sustained by injured Mithan Lal, Ct. Satish Chand and HC Ram Kumar alongwith other injures persons but the nature of injuries sustained by them was opined as grievous by blunt object. But none of the injuries are on the vital part of the body to show that the intention was to kill them or to cause their death. Hence, I find, case under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the accused persons. But looking into the nature of the injuries of the injured persons, I find, the circumstances are State vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 420 of 1987, PS : Delhi Cantonment 5/7 covered under Section 325 IPC and I hold all the accused persons guilty under Section 325 IPC."
15. I have gone through the material evidence on the ground, I do not find any ground to arrive any different finding as already arrived by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court regarding the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. As per evidence on record, the offence which is attracted in the present case is under Section 325 of the IPC.
16. Having considered the material on record coupled with plea of guilt of Sunil Kumar, there is sufficient evidence on record to convict Sunil Kumar for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 333, 332, 353, 325 of the IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act. He thus stands convicted for the said offences.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
17. Submissions on the point of sentence were also addressed. Counsel for the accused had submitted that the co-accused of this case had been released on probation of good conduct. He further submitted that the accused upon being re-apprehended on 21.12.2015 remains in custody till date. Previously also Sunil Kumar had been custody for about ten days.
18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of opinion that since the accused had absconded during the trial, benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act will not be available to him. Sunil Kumar has been in custody for a little over three months in this case. The matter pertains to the year 1987. He had faced trial for almost fourteen years before he absconded. The judicial record reveals that he was originally arrested on 27.06.1987 and granted bail and his bail bonds were accepted on 04.07.1987. He was re-apprehended on State vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 420 of 1987, PS : Delhi Cantonment 6/7 21.12.2015 and remains in custody till date.
19. I, accordingly sentence the accused for a term of imprisonment already undergone by him. He be released from custody immediately if not required in any other matter.
Announced in the open Court (REETESH SINGH)
on 23rd March, 2016 ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/NDD
23.03.2016
State vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 420 of 1987, PS : Delhi Cantonment 7/7