Delhi District Court
State vs . Deetar Singh Teja And Ors. on 26 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON
METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 631/95
U/s. 186/323/341/353/34 IPC
PS: Kalkaji
State vs. Deetar Singh Teja and ors.
Date of Institution of case:- 07.09.1998
Date of Judgment reserved:-26.04.2013
Date on which Judgment pronounced:-26.04.2013
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case : 02403R0139642002
Date of commission of offence : 21.11.95
Name of complainant : Sh. Suraj Pal Singh,
Asst. Labour Commissioner
Labour Office, Giri Nagar,
Kalkaji, New Delhi
Name and address of accused : (1) Deetar Singh
S/o Vikram Singh
R/o. H. No. 18C, DDA Flats,
Phase I, Masjid Mod, N. Delhi
(2) Prakash Rao
S/o Kasturi Rao
R/o 8/251, DD Flats, Kalkaji,
N. Delhi
(3) Mohan Nair
S/o Late Sh. Shiv Ram
R/o D-27, Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi
(4) Shivji Shah
S/o Shahdev Shah
R/o 11-C/661, Rajiv Gandhi Camp
near Scope Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi
Offence complained of : 186/323/353/341/34 IPC
FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.1 /16
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of order : 26.04.2013
Final order : - All the accused persons are
convicted for the offences under
sections 186/353/34 IPC.
- All the accused persons are
acquitted for the offences under
sections 323/341/34 IPC
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
A complaint was made by one Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, Asst. Commissioner, Labour on the ground that on 21.11.1995 at about 10.45 pm, he was present at his office and 100-125 employees of New Delhi General Majdoor Union, R/o B-89 Gulmohar Park, New Delhi had come along with their representative Mohan Nair, Deetar Singh Teja, Prakash Rao and Shivji Shah had entered his office forcibly and started shouting and abusing complainant. It is also stated in the complaint that thereafter, accused Mohan Nair broken the table glass of his table from his fist and when he tried to make call to the police by telephone, accused Deetar Singh Teja disconnected the wire of the telephone while accused Prakash Rao picked up all the files and other documents of his table and scattered the same on the floor. It is also stated in his complaint that accused Shivji Shah broken the window of his office room and one another labour leader namely Sanjeev Kumar tried to intervene but he was also threatened and assaulted by all the accused persons and when he tried to go out of his office, he was stopped by all the accused persons and was also restrained to perform his duty and on the basis of the said allegations, the FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.2 /16 present FIR bearing no. 631/95 was registered at Police Station Kalkaji.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) Notice Under Section 186/323/341/353/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called IPC) was given to them on 07.06.99, on the allegations that on 21.11.95 at about 10.45 am at Labour Office, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, a public servant in discharge of his public function; that they also assaulted him in execution of his duty; that they also wrongfully restrained one Sanjeev Kumar and caused simple injuries to him. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given opportunity to prove the accusation against the accused persons and accordingly, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses.
4. PW 1 is Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, Asst. Labour Commissioner i.e. complainant, whose testimony would be discussed at length at appropriate stage.
5. PW 2 is HC Bhoop Singh, DD Writer. He has proved the DD no. 10 as Ex. PW 2/A .
6. PW 3 is Ct. Shyam, who accompanied HC Raj Singh to the spot.
FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.3 /16
7. PW 4 is ASI Raj Singh, who has deposed that on 21.11.95 on receipt of DD no. 10, he along with Ct. Shyambir reached at the office of Labour Commissioner, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji and reached at about 10.30 am and found that glass of table was broken, files were lying scattered, the telephone wire was removed and window glass was also broken. He has further deposed that on being inquired, Sh. Singh got his statement recorded. He has also deposed that SHO PS Kalkaji also came to the spot and as per instruction of SHO, further investigation was handed over to SI Dharampal Singh and he endorsed the rukka Ex. PW 4/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Shyambir. He has also deposed that D. P. Singh prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant and he had also taken the photographs himself from a camera. He has also deposed that D P Singh also arrested all the accused persons and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW 1/B 1 to B 4. It is a matter of record that PW 3 and PW 4 were not cross examined initially and on an application under section 311 CrPC, moved by all accused persons, both the witnesses were recalled for their cross examination and thereafter, both witnesses were cross examined at length by accused persons.
8. PW 5 is Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, who has proved the MLC of injured Sanjeev as Ex. PW 5/A prepared by Dr. Sunil Kumar. As per MLC the nature of injuries are simple.
9. PW 6 is Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. As per prosecution story, he is the injured in the present case, whose testimony would be discussed at length at appropriate stage.
FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.4 /16
10. PW 7 is Inspector Dharampal Singh, who is the investigation officer of the present case. He has deposed that on 21.11.95, on receipt of information regarding a quarrel in the office of Asst. Labour Commissioner, Govindpuri, he reached there. He has further deposed that Asst. Labour Commissioner Sh. Suraj Pal Singh was present along with 5-6 persons and HC Raj Singh & Ct. Shayambir of PP Govindpuri were also found there. He has further deposed that office of Asst. commissioner of police was ransacked, the chairs were fallen here and there, goods of the office were also found scattered condition. He has also deposed that accused persons Deetar Singh, Prakash Rao, Shivji Shah, Mohan Nair, and Sanjiv Tiwari were also present there. He has further deposed that HC Raj Singh apprised him with the facts and recorded the statement of Sh. Suraj Pal Singh and prepared the rukka. He has further deposed that FIR was got registered through Ct. Shyambir and further investigation of the case was taken over by him when Ct. Shyam Bir handed over him the copy of FIR and rukka. He has further deposed that during investigation, he had taken the photographs of the spot from his own camera which are marked PH colly. He has further deposed that at the instance of the complainant he inspected the scene of crime and prepared the site plan Ex. PW 1/C and he also recorded the statement witnesses. He has further deposed that Mohan Nair, Shivji Shah and Sanjiv Tiwari had sustained injuries in the scuffle hence, their injuries sheet were also prepared by HC Raj Singh and he sent them for medical examination with Ct. Shyambir. He has further deposed that he interrogated Deetar Singh and Prakash Rao and arrested them vide arrest memos and conducted their personal search memos. He has further deposed that thereafter, he along with HC FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.5 /16 Raj Singh came at the PS along with both the accused and complainant Sh. Suraj Pal Singh. He has further deposed that when Ct. Shyambir along with injured Mohan Nair and Shivji Shah and witness Sanjiv Tiwari reached at the PS from hospital, he arrested accused Mohan Nair and Shivji Shah. He has further deposed that during investigation, he obtained an opinion on MLC of inured and collected from the hospital. He has correctly identified all the accused persons before the court. He was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
11. It is matter of record that after examining all the material witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 08.10.2009.
12. Subsequent to the recording of statement of witnesses, statement of accused persons was recorded and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to the accused persons in which they have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments. It is a matter of record that a copy of MLC Shivji Shah i.e. one of the accused was put before the State for admission denial, to which Ld. APP for State submitted that he has no objection, if the same is admitted and accordingly, same was Ex. PD in terms of section 294 CrPC. It is also matter of record that Ld. Counsel for accused Mohan Nair had moved an application U/s. 311 Cr.P.C. r/w 315 CrPC which was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2011. Accordingly, DW 1 Mohan Nair was examined in the present case, who has deposed that he was holding the post of Secretary in New Delhi General Majdoor Union which was a registered trade union and having its office at B-89, Gulmohar FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.6 /16 Park, New Delhi 49 and in the capacity of the union, he used to take the grievances of the union workers before the Labour Authorities and labour courts. He has further deposed that on 21.11.1995 at about 11.30 am, he approached the office of Asst. Labour Commissioner, Kalkaji regarding the case of Krishna Hotel workers and workmen of water proofing corporation and there he enquired from S P Singh who was the Asst. Labour Commission (ALC) of Kalkaji about the complaint of non-payment of minimum wages to the workers of Krishna hotel. He has further deposed that at that time in the office of said ALC, Mr. Malik, Mr. Gupta, and about 5-6 outisiders were sitting listening his inquiry about the complaint and Mr. S P Singh taunted at him and stated that he was the person who used to make complaint against their department and teach him a lesson, is very necessary. He has further deposed that all of a sudden, Mr. Malik Steno of the office asked these persons sitting there Sale ko maro or inko aaage complaint karne ka mauka nai dena" and on listing this, those persons who were sitting there started beating him on his body and stomach and he started throwing the office items here and there. He has further deposed that Mr. S P Singh along with Mr. Malik and Mr. Gupta, labour inspector started pulling down the almirah in the office here and there. He has further deposed that due to their attack on him, he ran out from the office but they again hit him from behind on his back and he fell down outside the office. He has further deposed that in the meantime, some union officials including one Sh. Shivji Shah tried to restrain them and pacify them and upon this, one fellow hit by a lathi upon the head of Mr. Shahu and due to which he sustained serious injuries on his head and after some time, PCR came and took him and Shahu to AIIMS for their medical treatment. He has proved the MLC of Mr. Shahu and of himself as FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.7 /16 Ex. DW 1/A and DW 1/B respectively. He has further deposed that thereafter, police took them to PS Kalkaji and they took signatures from him on various documents. He has further deposed that police made this entire case at the instance of Mr. S P Singh and Mr. Gaur, Labour Inspector. He has further deposed that on the contrary, their complaint was not entertained by the police and thereafter, he wrote to the DCP South, New Delhi regarding the entire incident on 22.11.1995 which is Mark X. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for State at length.
13. It is a matter of record that after examination of DW 1, DE was closed on 16.03.2012 and matter was again fixed for final arguments. It is also a matter of record that again on 04.02.2013, an application under section 311 r/w 254 CrPC was filed by the accused persons. However, said application was not pressed by the accused persons and accordingly, vide order dated 20.03.2013 said application was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, matter was again fixed for final arguments.
14. I have heard Ld. APP for the state as well as Ld. Defence counsel. I have also perused the entire record.
15. In the present matter, accused persons have been charged with for the offences U/s. 186/323/341/353/34 IPC and prosecution has to prove that on 21.11.95 at about 10.45 am at Labour Office, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, a public servant in discharge of his public function and all accused persons also assaulted him in execution of his duty and further all accused persons in furtherance of their common FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.8 /16 intention wrongfully restrained one Sanjeev Kumar and caused simple injuries to him.
16. During the course of arguments, it was vehemently argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case and even one of the witness Sh. Sanjeev Kumar i.e. PW 6 has not supported the case of prosecution. It was further argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that there is no corroboration with regard to testimony of PW 1 despite the fact that as per prosecution story some other independent witnesses like Mr. Malik and Hari Chand were also present at the time of incident at the spot and they have not been joined in the investigation.
17. In the background of the above facts, testimony of witnesses PW 1 and PW 6 require careful scrutiny. As per prosecution story, it is alleged against all accused persons that on the date of incident, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained Sanjeev Kumar and caused simple injury to him. It was vehemently argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that PW 6 has not supported the case of prosecution. In these circumstances, first of all it would be appropriate to discuss the testimony of PW 6 Sanjeev Kumar.
18. PW 6 Sanjeev Kumar has deposed that in the month of November 1995, while he was working in Labour Union namely All India General Majdoor Trade Union, as a secretary and said office was situated at Giri Nagar Kalkaji. He has further deposed that on that day, they were present there along with so many people and Mr. S P Singh was the Asst. Labour Commissioner. He has further FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.9 /16 deposed that at about 10.30-10.45 am, about 250-300 persons came into the office and started assaulting over the accused Mohan Nayyar and he saved him and in that event, he also sustained injuries. He has further deposed that Mr. S P Singh had also received injuries as he was pushed by someone. He has further deposed that those persons also damaged the glasses of window and table glass was also got damaged. He has further deposed that those persons came in 4-5 buses and he did not know the number, name and make of those buses. He has further deposed that police had reached at the spot and took all the injured including him to the hospital. He has further deposed that accused Mohan Nayyar was also present there. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State on the ground that he was resiling from his earlier statement. Various relevant suggestions were put to him but he denied all those suggestions. He has specifically deposed in his cross examination by Ld. APP for State that he did not know Deetar Singh, Prakash Rao and Shivji Shah but he know Mohan Nayyar. He has denied the suggestion that on the day of incident, Mohan Nayyar along with his accompanied came at the office and gave beatings to the officials and they have also caused damaged to the office furniture. However, he has admitted that on that day, he was also given beatings. Perusal of his cross examination shows that he has not identified the persons who gave beatings to him and he has denied the suggestion that all the accused persons had given beatings to him. Hence, perusal of his testimony shows that he has not supported the case of prosecution with regard to wrongfully restraining him and causing simple injuries to him by all the accused persons. He has not stated a single word qua any of the accused persons. He has specifically deposed that he cannot identify the persons, who gave beatings to FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.10 /16 him. Hence, as far as offences under sections 323/341/34 IPC are concerned, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as the relevant witness i.e. Sanjeev Kumar has not supported the case of prosecution to this effect.
19. All accused persons have also been charged with for the offences under sections 186/353/34 IPC wherein it is alleged that all accused in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed Suraj Pal Singh in discharging of his public function and also assaulted him in execution of his duty as a public servant.
20. Now, let us examine the testimony of PW 1 Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, which is very material one for the present case since as per the story of the prosecution, the present case was registered at the behest of PW 1 Sh. Suraj Pal Singh, the then Asst. Commissioner Labour. He has deposed that on 21.11.95 he was posted as Asst. Labour Commissioner at Labour Office, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji and was present at his office. He has further deposed that at about 10.45 pm, accused Deetar Singh, Mohan Nair, Prakash Rao and Shivji Shah came to his office along with 100-125 persons and started shouting and abusing. He has further deposed that they put all the hurdles to stop the work and accused Mohav Nair had broken the table glass of his table from his fist and when he tried to make call to the police by telephone, accused Deetar Singh Teja disconnected the wire of the telephone. He has further deposed that accused Prakash Rao picked up all the files and other documents of his table and scattered the same on the floor. He has further deposed that accused Shivji Shah broken the window of his office room and one another labour leader namely Sanjeev Kumar, FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.11 /16 who was sitting in his office at that time, tried to intervene but he was also threatened and assaulted by all the accused persons. He has further deposed that due to the beatings, he sustained injuries. He has further deposed that when he tried to come out of his office, he was also assaulted and threatened. He has further deposed that all the government work was stopped by the accused persons and after about 10-15 minutes the police arrived there and SI D P Singh was also with the police and only then, situation could be brought under control. He has further deposed that police recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A. He has further deposed that accused Prakash Rao, Mohan Nayyar, Shivji Shah and Deetar Singh were arrested and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex. PW 1/B1 to B4. He has further deposed that IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW 1/C at his instance and photographs of the spot were also taken in his presence which are Ex. P 1 to P 5. He correctly identified all the accused persons.
21. Thereafter, he was cross examined by all the accused persons. In his cross examination, he has deposed that accused Mohan Nair had visited his office about one week prior to the incident as the accused Mohan Nair and others wanted to hold a demonstration namely Mukkatan. In his cross examination, he has further deposed that accused persons had also appeared in his office 10 days prior to the incident in respect of some complaint with another officer Sh. M. K Gaur, who was dealing with the complaint independently. He has further deposed in his cross examination that rest of three accused persons might have come along with Mohan Nair in respect of some complaint and Sanjeev Kumar i.e. one of the labour, Union Leader had been in the office on 21.11.95. He has denied the suggestion that jhuggi dwellers FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.12 /16 were called by him with sticks in their hands to assault the accused persons. He has further deposed in his cross examination that one stenographer Mr. Malik, Safai Karmchari Hari Chand were present in his room, when this incident took place. He has further denied the suggestion that he had called the persons from outside, who had beaten the accused persons. He has further deposed in his cross examination that Shivji Shah might have got injured as he had hit to one Sanjeev Kumar. He has specifically denied the suggestion that he had lodged a false complaint. Perusal of cross examination of this witness shows that he has denied various suggestions given to him.
22. Perusal of testimony of PW 1 shows that he has specifically deposed that on 21.11.95, he was posted as Asst. Labour Commissioner at Labour Office, Giri Nagar Kalkaji and when he was present in his office at about 10.45 pm, accused Deetar Singh, Mohan, Prakash Rao and Shivji Shah came to his office along with 100-125 persons and started shouting and abusing. He has correctly identified all the accused persons before the court. He has specifically deposed that they all stopped the work and accused Mohan broke the table glass of his table with his fist and when he tried to make a call to the police, accused Deetar Singh disconnected the wire of the telephone and accused Prakash Rao picked up all the files while accused Shivji broke the window of his office room. Perusal of his testimony shows that he has specifically deposed the role of each accused by name. He has specifically deposed that when he tried to come out of the office, he was also assaulted and threatened and all the government work was stopped by the accused persons. He has specifically deposed that his statement was recorded by the police which is Ex. PW 1/A and FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.13 /16 all accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted in his presence. He has correctly identified all the accused persons before the court by name. He was cross examined at length. Perusal of his cross examination shows that Ld. Defence counsel could not detect anything from his cross examination in favour of the accused persons. Further, minor discrepancies which have been pointed out to me, I am of the view that it is not of such nature which creates infirmity in the prosecution case. It is well established principle of law that every discrepancy in the evidence/statement cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not effect the prosecution case materially does not create infirmity. The testimony of complainant has its own relevance and efficacy. Even though PW 6 has not supported the case of prosecution, despite that I find the testimony of PW 1 reliable as other police witnesses have corroborated the testimony of PW 1 on all material aspects. PW 3 and PW 4 have specifically deposed that on 21.11.95 they reached at the office and found Sh. S P Singh at the office and table glasses of Sh. S P Singh were broken and files were lying scattered and all the accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted. PW 7 has also specifically deposed that on the day of incident, on receipt of information he reached at the office of Asst. Labour Commissioner and found Sh. S P Singh along with 5-6 persons. PW 7 has further deposed that HC Raj Singh and Ct. Shyambir i.e. PW 3 and PW 4 were also present there. He has further deposed that all accused persons were also present there. Hence, these witnesses are corroborating PW 1 on material aspects. To my mind, although PW 6 has not supported the case of prosecution, even then prosecution case cannot loose on this aspect with regard to sections 186/353/34 FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.14 /16 IPC. I am also of the view that if prosecution has not joined any other independent witness during the investigation, then it cannot be said to be the fault of the complainant, whose testimony I find reliable who was a senior officer at the relevant time.
23. As far as defence evidence given by one of the accused Mohan Nair is considered, I am of the view that it has no relevance as perusal of DW 1 shows that he has deposed some new facts which have never been asked in the cross examination of complainant PW 1 Suraj Pal Singh, such as DW 1 had deposed that S P Singh taunted at him and stated that he is the person, who used to make complaint against their department and teach him a lesson. Further, DW 1 has deposed that Mr. Malik, Steno of the office sitting, there asked these persons "sale ko maro aur inko aage complaint karne ka mauka nai dena". The above said facts were never put to the PW 1 in his cross examination and first time, DW 1 has deposed before the court. Hence, I am of the view that deposition of DW 1 is of no help to the accused persons with regard to allegations made by the complainant regarding voluntarily obstruction in discharging of his function as a public servant and assaulting him. Hence, as far as Sections 186/353/34 are concerned, prosecution has able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and to this effect, testimony of complainant is found to be cogent, reliable and had grain of truth and duly corroborated by the statement of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 7 on all material aspects.
24. In view of the discussion made above and after scanning the entire evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.15 /16 under section 323/341/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, all accused persons are acquitted for the offences under Section 323/341/34 IPC. However, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against all accused persons for the offences under Section 186/353/34 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, all accused persons are convicted for the offences under Section 186/353/34 IPC.
25. All accused persons be heard on the point of sentence.
DEEPAK WASON METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 26th April. 2013 FIR No. 631/95 PS Kalkaji Page no.16 /16