Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Kumar Etc. on 7 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL PAHUJA, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. MANOJ KUMAR ETC.
FIR NO. 248/12
PS: MOTI NAGAR
U/S: 186/332/353/34 IPC &
u/s 3/4 of PREVENTION OF
DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ACT.
JUDGMENT
New Case no. : 64937/16
Date of commission of offence : 05.11.2012
Date of institution of the case : 20.06.2014
Name of the complainant : HC Ram Avtar
Name of accused and address : A-1 Manoj Kumar S/o Sh.
Babu Ram Sharma R/o W-
153-A/29, B-58, Rama
Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi.
A-2 Lallu Nishad S/o Sh.
Ram Murat R/o A-167W, B-
58, Rama Road, Moti
Nagar, Delhi.
A-3 Natwar Singh S/o Sh.
Rambrij Singh R/o W-153,
A-39, B-58, Rama Road,
Moti Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : 186/332/353/34 IPC and u/s
3/4 of Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act.
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 05.09.2018
Date of judgment : 07.09.2018
***************************************************************************************************************** FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 1/12 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused persons namely Manoj Kumar, Lallu Nishad and Natwar Singh pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS Moti Nagar U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and u/s 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No.248/12.
2. As per the prosecution, on 05.11.2012 at about 12:15 PM at Gol Chakkar near B-58, Rama Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi, all the accused persons voluntarily obstructed and caused simple hurt to the complainant HC Ram Avtar (public servant) in discharging of his public functions. Further, they assaulted, used criminal force and pelted stones against the complainant and that stones hit the glasses of the DTC bus (which was a public property) as well as the passengers, while the complainant was exercising his duties as such public servant to prevent him from exercising his duty. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and u/s 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused persons. After hearing arguments, charge for offence punishable under section 186/332/353/34 IPC and u/s 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. The prosecution in support of present case has examined thirteen witnesses in total.
5. PW1 HC Jogender Singh stated that on 05.11.2012, he was on FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 2/12 patrolling duty at Rama Road alongwith HC Ram Avtar. It is further stated that at 12:15 PM, he saw accused persons namely Manoj Sharma and Natwar Singh at the circle of Rama Road. It is further stated that one DTC bus (number not remembered) was standing there and accused persons namely Manoj Sharma and Natwar Singh were instigating the public persons to sit in the bus as the accused persons wanted to take them to Jantar Mantar where a dharna was organized by their leader namely Hari Ram Tiwari. It is further stated that public persons were not sitting in the bus but accused persons were compelling them forcefully. It is further stated by PW1 that when he and HC Ram Avtar asked accused persons namely Manoj Kumar and Natwar Singh as to why they are forcing the public to sit in the bus, accused namely Lallu Nishad came at the spot. It is stated that accused Manoj Sharma caught hold the uniform of HC Ram Avtar and in the scuffle, accused Manoj Sharma torn of the same. It is further stated that upon intervention by police officials, all the accused persons started pushing them and started beating HC Ram Avtar. It is further stated that accused persons started throwing the stones upon police officials and one public person got injured by the stone and back side glass of the bus got broken. It is further stated that one lady namely Rajwanti came there and joined the accused persons while throwing stones. It is further stated that all the three accused persons were apprehended by PW1 and HC Ram Avtar whereas Rajwanti managed to escape from the spot. It is stated that a call to PS was made upon which ASI Maman Singh came at the spot alongwith one Constable. It is further stated that all the accused persons gave a slap to HC Ram Avtar and also given fist blow to him. It is stated that statement of HC Ram Avtar was recorded by the IO and the rukka was prepared upon which FIR was registered. This witness exhibited the seizure memo of DTC bus as Ex.PW1/A. Medical examination of HC Ram Avtar and accused persons were conducted at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital. The accused persons were arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW1/C to Ex.
PW1/H. The uniform of HC Ram Avtar was sealed in one pullinda with FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 3/12 the seal of 'ABGH' vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. This witness also exhibited the photographs of the bus as Ex.P1. This witness correctly identified the accused persons during the trial before the court. This witness was cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
6. PW-2 Sh. Shamsher stated that on 05.11.2012, he was directed to take the bus at Rama Road to meet accused Manoj Sharma as written on the duty memo with mobile number. It is stated that PW2 took the bus no. DL-1PB-7864 to Rama Road and met accused Manoj Sharma. It is stated that accused Manoj Sharma asked the public persons to sit in the bus as they were to be taken to Jantar Mantar for procession. It is further stated that PW2 remained at the spot for one hour and thereafter proceeded for Jantar Mantar. PW2 further stated that when the bus proceeded up to a distance, two police officials came at the spot by motorcycle and asked for documents from the persons who were taking procession and altercation took place between them. The witness was taken to PS Moti Nagar and when he came back at the spot alongwith the police officials after half an hour, he found left back side pane glass of the bus broken. The bus was taken to PS. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for state. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
7. PW3/5 HC Ram Avtar deposed on the same lines as that of PW-1.
This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
8. PW4 HC Anita was the DD writer, who exhibited on record DD no.39B dated 05.11.2012 regarding departure of police officials for beat patrolling as Ex.PW4/A. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
9. PW6 HC Pradeep Kumar was posted as MHC(M), who exhibited on record the relevant entry in register no.19 vide which the case property FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 4/12 was deposited in the Malkhana as Ex.PW6/A. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
10. PW7 HC Bimla was the Duty Officer, who exhibited on record computer generated copy of FIR as Ex.PW7/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW7/B. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
11. PW8 Ct. Vinod deposed that on 05.11.2012 on receipt of DD No. 19A he along with IO reached at the spot I.e. Rama Road Circle. It is stated that on reaching at the spot they met HC Ram Avtar and Ct. Jogender. It is stated that the driver of the bus namely Shamsher Singh was also present at the spot. It is stated that one bus bearing no. DL1PA7864 was also standing at the spot whose back side glass was broken. It is stated that IO recorded the statement of HC Ram Avtar and on the same statement IO prepared the tehrir and the same was handed over to PW8 for registration of FIR. It is stated that on the basis of tehrir the present FIR was got registered. It is stated that after registration of FIR PW8 returned at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to IO ASI Maman Singh. It is stated that in this regard his statement was recorded by the IO. This witness was cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
12. PW9 Sh. Raj Kumar from DTC Naraina Depot brought the authority letter and his ID marked as Mark-X & Y. This witness exhibited on record the superdarinama as Ex.PW9/A and the photographs as Ex.P1. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
13. PW10 Dr. Hirdesh, CMO from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital exhibited on record MLC bearing no.180 of injured Santosh Kumar as Ex.PW10/A. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 5/12 persons.
14. PW11 Dr. Biswajit Das, Medical Officer from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital exhibited on record MLC bearing no.181 of injured HC Ram Avatar as Ex.PW11/A . This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
15. PW12 ASI Maman Singh was the IO of the case, who deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the investigation. This witness relied upon several documents which are already exhibited on record in the testimony of other witnesses. In addition to the said documents this witness also exhibited on record rukka Ex. PW12/A, site plan Ex. PW12/B and the certified copy of notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. served to DTC and the concerned manager in reply of the same provided the application for hiring of DTC buses is Ex. PW12/C. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
16. PW13 Retd. SI Ram Raj exhibited on record the application given to the concerned ACP for obtaining sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. as PW13/A. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed by this witness. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
17. No other witness was examined, hence PE was closed vide order dated 26.07.2018.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
18. Statements of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to them to which they pleaded innocence and stated that they have FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 6/12 been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is stated by them that on 05.11.2012, their leader Hari Ram Tiwari hired a DTC bus no.DL-1PB- 7864 through accused Lallu Nishad to stage a dharna at Jantar Mantar. The bus reached at the spot i.e. Rama Road and many persons boarded the said bus. The driver of bus started to go to Jantar Mantar and when the bus reached at a distance about 10 steps, two police officials came on motorcycle and stopped the bus and the driver was taken by them to the PS and they did not allow to take the bus to Jantar Mantar, so accused Natwar Singh alongwith 10-15 persons went to Jantar Mantar by metro and staged dharna there against the illegal act of police officials of PS Moti Nagar. At about 04:00/04:30 PM, the police of PS Parliament stopped from staging dharna and arrested/ apprehended accused persons and their leader Hari Ram Tiwari alongwith 50 or 60 persons. Thereafter, accused persons came back to their house and from their house the police of Moti Nagar apprehended accused persons and falsely implicated me. It is a false case. Accused persons opted not to lead defence.
ARGUMENTS:
19. Ld. APP for state has argued that on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses testimony, offence U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC and u/s 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are proved beyond doubt.
20. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused persons. It is argued that prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely, hence their testimony cannot be relied upon. It is further argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case and the same is clear from the tainted testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Arguing further Ld. counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 7/12 hence accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
FINDINGS:
21. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
22. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused persons are indicted for the offences U/s 186/332/353/34 IPC. Section 186 IPC provides punishment for causing obstruction to any public servant while discharging of his public functions. Section 332 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty or with intend to prevent or deter person from discharging his duty as such public servant. Section 353 IPC provides punishment for assault or using of criminal force to a person being public servant in the execution of his duty as such or with intend to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as public servant. Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public property act provides punishment for committing mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property.
23. After appreciating the evidence and going through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses this Court finds the accused persons not guilty for any offence charged herein and they deserve acquittal for the following reasons:-
24. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution that render the story of prosecution highly doubtful and the false implication of accused persons cannot be ruled out in view of the same. Now coming to the testimony of PW1 HC Jogender. PW1 stated that the rukka was handed over to FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 8/12 him for registration of FIR and he went to the police station along with the rukka and came back along with the copy of FIR whereas contrary to his claim PW8 Ct. Vinod stated that rukka was handed over to him for registration of FIR and he got the FIR registered and returned back to the spot handing over the same to the IO. PW1 stated that accused Lallu Nishad was present at the spot but nowhere it is stated by PW1 that he absconded from the spot at the time of apprehension so the arrest of the accused Lallu Nishad away from the spot and from a different place I.e. jhuggi of Rama Road could not be explained by the witness. PW1 stated that he accompanied the complainant HC Ram Avtar and the accused Acharya Bhikshu Hospital for medical examination whereas in view of the testimony of PW11 Dr. Biswajit Dass, the injured HC Ram Avtar came himself to the hospital meaning thereby that he was not accompanied by any other person. During the cross examination PW1 could not tell the DD number vide which he was on patrolling duty with HC Ram Avtar. PW1 during his cross examination stated that he has not seen the stones being thrown by accused persons that have hit to any public person. PW1 further stated that the public persons made the complaint orally to him that accused persons were forcefully asking the public persons to sit in the bus for the purpose of Dharna whereas no statement of the public person have been recorded by the police nor any independent witness have been cited by the prosecution in the present case. The accused persons have taken the plea of defence that they were going to stage a dharna at Jantar Mantar against the police officials at PS Moti Nagar and the same is admitted by PW1 during his cross examination. PW1 gave an evasive reply to the suggestion put to him qua the earlier dharna staged in front of PS Moti Nagar against its police officials by Union Leader Sh.
Hari Ram Tiwari. The motive of police officials to falsely implicate the accused persons is quite probable from the above facts. The testimony of PW1 is full of material discrepancies vis-a-vis the testimony of other prosecution witness that does not inspire confidence at all.
FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 9/1225. Now coming to the testimony of PW2 I.e. the driver of the DTC bus. It is pertinent to mention that PW2 has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner. Nowhere it is stated by the PW2 that the accused persons misbehaved or cause any obstruction to the police officials while discharging their duties. Infact, the testimony of PW2 in his examination in chief is contrary to the stand of the complaint PW3 and the witness PW1. As per PW2 police officials stopped the bus when it was already on its way and proceeded to some distance towards Jantar Mantar and it was not waiting for the public to step in as claimed by police witnesses. As per the testimony of PW2 only some altercation took place between the police officials and the alleged accused persons. PW2 denied having any knowledge about the incident whereas he is stated to be present on the spot at the time of alleged incident. PW1 categorically stated that he has not seen as to who has broken the glass nor he could identify the person who quarreled with the police officials. Even during the cross examination of PW2 by Ld. APP for state the witness failed to support the case of prosecution in any manner and denied the facts alleged to have been stated by him to the police when confronted. Hence, the only independent witness PW2 instead of supporting the case of prosecution refuted the version of the police officials.
26. PW3 HC Ram Avtar, though has not been cross examined by the accused persons but his testimony also does not inspire confidence for three major reasons. Firstly, that the independent witness PW2 Shamsher has deposed completely contrary to his testimony. Secondly, the testimony of PW1 who accompanied the complainant/PW3 is full of material contradiction that render the testimony highly unreliable. Similar infirmities have been appeared in the testimony of PW3 that also created strong doubt in the version of the police witnesses. Above all, the witness claim the presence of the public persons in huge number at the time of alleged incident but none of the public person has FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 10/12 been examined by the IO nor they have been joined the investigation for recording their statements.
27. PW12 ASI Maman Singh I.e. IO of the present case has also made several contradictory statements and material infirmities appeared in his testimony which clearly shows the lapse in the investigation on the part of the IO that caused dent to the story of the prosecution. As per the testimony of PW8 Ct. Vinod who accompanied the IO ASI Maman Singh, the driver of the DTC Bus was also present at the spot whereas as per the testimony of PW12 IO ASI Maman Singh the driver of the DTC bus was not present there and he came at the spot after 15-20 minutes. PW12 stated that he reached the spot on his personal motorcycle but he could not tell the registration number of the same. Further, he stated that the distance between the spot and the police station was about 1.5 kms whereas as per the testimony of PW8 Ct. Vinod the distance between the two places was about 400-500 mtrs. PW12 admitted that at the spot there were several public persons but none of them apprised regarding the illegal possession of the DTC bus by the accused persons as alleged by the complainant PW3. It is further stated by PW12 in his cross examination that there was no complaint made by the driver of the bus with respect to the illegal possession of the bus by the accused persons. No efforts were made by the IO to join the public persons in the investigation. The IO placed on record the MLC of injured Santosh. Neither the said person Santosh has been cited as witness by the prosecution nor he has been examined. As per the IO PW12 the glass of back side of the DTC bus was already broken when he reached at the spot and no one stated as to who has broken the same despite inquiry from the public persons. It is further stated by IO during the cross examination that there was no statement of anybody regarding pelting stones which is again contrary to the statement made by the complainant PW3. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies the testimony of IO /PW12 also does not FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 11/12 support the case of prosecution.
28. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in case there is fallacy in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to successfully build the case against the accused persons as there are material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the version of prosecution witnesses. No allegations/charges against the accused persons have been established on record beyond reasonable doubt in absence of sufficient evidence. Accordingly, all the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted for the offences they are charged with.
30. Requirements of Section 437A Cr.P.C have been complied with. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date: 2018.09.07
14:38:10 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA)
COURT ON 07.09.2018 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 12 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
VISHAL Digitally signed by
VISHAL PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date: 2018.09.07
14:38:17 +0530
(VISHAL PAHUJA)
MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
FIR No. 248/12, PS Moti Nagar Page 12/12