Delhi District Court
State vs Aslam Feroz on 11 August, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. PRITAM SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET
COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Case no. RBT352/I dated 03.03.2014
FIR No. 224/09
PS : Badarpur
State Vs Aslam Feroz
JUDGEMENT
S. No. of Case : RBT352/I dated 03.03.2014
Date of Commission : 15.06.2009
of offence
Name of Complainant : Sh.Rajender Kumar Gupta
Name and address : Aslam Feroz
of accused S/o Late Sh.Mukarram Hussain,
R/o Village & P.O. Bagahi, P.S. Lauriya,
Distt. West Champaran (Bihar).
Offence Complained : U/s 386 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Arguments heard : 05.08.2014
Date of judgment : 11.08.2014
Final order : Acquitted
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. at M.B. Road, Badarpur, Railway Bridge, New Delhi, the accused put the complainant Rajender Kumar Gupta in fear of death and demanded Rs.50 lacs in the name of Chhota Rajan in order to commit extortion.
2. Chargesheet was filed in the court for offence u/s 386 IPC and the accused was supplied complete set of documents. Thereafter, vide order dated FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 1 of 11 2 09.11.2009, charge for the offence punishable u/s 386 IPC was framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Sh.Rajender Kumar, who is the complainant, was examined as PW1, Sh.Pankaj Malik S/o Sh.S.K. Malik was examined as PW2, Ct. Pratap, who was a member of raiding party, was examined as PW3, HC Ramesh, who was also a member of raiding party, was examined as PW4, Sh.Rajeev Sharda, Nodel Officer, Reliance Communication Ltd., was examined as Pw5, ASI Satya Prakash, who is the IO was examined as PW6 and HC Jagdish, who was the Duty Officer, was examined as PW7. The following documents were exhibited in the prosecution evidence :
(i) Complaint Ex.PW1/A
(ii) Seizure memo Ex.PW1/B
(iii) Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/C
(iv) Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW1/D
(v) Personal search memo of accused Ex.PW1/E
(vi) Request for issuing call details Ex.PW5/A
(vii) Call details Ex.PW5/B (colly)
(viii) Rukka Ex.PW6/A
(ix) Site Plan Ex.PW6/B
(x) Copy of the FIR Ex.PW7/A
(xi) Endorsement on the Rukka Ex.PW7/B
(xii) Case properties i.e. Bag and papers Ex.P1 & P2
4. The statements of accused u/s 313 read with section 281 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 4.3.2014 wherein he denied deposition of witnesses against him being false and interested witnesses. Accused examined Sh.Parvej Alam in his defence FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 2 of 11 3 evidence as DW1.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused and considered carefully. I have also gone through the written Section 386 IPC provides as under: Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. - Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
6. PW1 Sh.Rajender Kumar deposed that on 8.6.2009 at about 12.55 noon, he received a telephone call on his number 29893574 by some male. He was saying "50 Peti ki Parchi Fati Hai Tere Naam Se Dubai Se". PW1 further deposed that when he asked as to why, the said person replied "Tere Ko Samjh Me Nahin Aya, Tere Nam Ki 50 Peti Ki Supari Hai". PW1 further deposed that when he asked as who was calling, that person replied "I am Rajan." PW1 further deposed that he asked which Rajan, that person replied, he was Chhota Rajan. PW1 further deposed that the said person lost his control and threatened him to ruin his business and family and the said person asked him to deposit 50 peti at Gurgaon at place to which he would tell later on. PW1 further deposed that on 12.6.2009, he received telephone from said person again and the said person asked him to bring money on 15.6.2009 under Railway Bridge, M.B. Road. He alongwith his Marketing Manager, Pankaj Malik went at the given place. PW1 further deposed that police apprehended them at the spot at the time of delivery of bag containing papers, advertisement material. He had reported the matter to the FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 3 of 11 4 police and they had acted on advise of police for delivering the papers instead of money. Later on, they had signed the papers. PW1 further deposed that his complaint with police Ex.PW1/A bore his signature at point 'A', seizure memo Ex.PW1/B bore his signature at point 'R' and disclosure statement Ex.PW1/C bore his signature at point 'R'. Arrest memo Ex.PW1/D bore his signature at point 'R' and personal search memo Ex.PW1/E bore his signature at point 'R'. PW1 further deposed that name of accused revealed as Aslam Firoz. PW1 correctly identified the accused in the court. He also correctly identified the case properties i.e. documents, papers etc. and bag as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. PW1 deposed in his crossexamination that he received a call on 8.6.2009 at 12.55 a.m. When he received the said call, he was alone. No one was sitting with him. Accused told him that he was speaking Rajan and a supari of Rs.50 lacs was in his name. PW1 further deposed that he did not remember the police officer who met him at police station. PW1 admitted that Satya Prakash Tyagi not met him on that day. PW1 further deposed that his report was received by the police on that day. He did not remember the time. Second call was received on 12.6.2009 at about 11.30 / 12.00 noon. PW1 further deposed that he reported the matter to police orally. He could not tell as to when the FIR was registered by the police. No threateneing call was received by him from the accused after 12.6.2009. In personal search of accused, one bag, some clothes, telephone cards were found. Personal search was conducted in his presence. PW1 denied the suggestion that he had business terms with the accused and an agreement wherein Rs.2 lacs were FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 4 of 11 5 invested/contributed by accused and said agreement was reduced in presence of Pankaj Malik. He further denied that vide said agreement, some batteries were to be supplied by him to the accused. He further denied that some batteries were supplied by him and rest of the batteries were withheld and not supplied by him. He further denied that the said agreement was typed and reduced in writing in his presence. He further denied that the said agreement in original was kept by him and copy of same was provided to accused. He further denied that when he stopped supply of batteries due to accused, accused demanded refund of his money and in order to evade said amount, he hatched a conspiracy with Pankaj Malik and falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
7. PW2 Pankaj Malik deposed that at about 1.00 noon on 8.6.2009 while he was sitting in the office of Rajender Kumar, Badarpur. Rajender Kumar became nervous and told him that he had received a threatening call from some Chhota Rajan and Supari of Rs.50 lacs (Peti) and in case money was not paid, his friend Rajender and his children would be killed and further asked his friend to deposit Rs.50 Peti at Gurgaon and the place would be informed later on. PW2 further deposed that they reported the matter to police and on 12.6.2009 they received a telephone from accused for bringing money under railway bridge at M.B. Road. PW2 further deposed that as per direction of police, he arranged the bag with some waste papers and advertisement material and went to given place. While Rajender Gupta was delivering bag to accused, police standing in the plain uniform apprehended the accused with bag. PW2 further deposed that the black FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 5 of 11 6 colour bag was sealed in a white colour cloth with seal of S.P. Initials. They signed the documents Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/E. Ex.PW1/A was complaint of Sh.Rajender Gupta. PW2 correctly identified the accused in the court. PW2 deposed that he could identify the case property if shown to him as he remembered it was black colour bag and there were some military type green pocket. PW2 correctly identified the case property when shown to me. PW2 deposed in his crossexamination that when the threatening call was made to Rajender Kumar Gupta by the accused he was present there. The said call by the accused was received at 11.55 a.m. He did not heard the call. Rajender Kumar Gupta called him. PW2 further deposed that a call was received from accused. He told him that accused had told that there was a Supari of sum of Rs.50 lacs from Rajan. Therefore, complainant asked which Rajan, then he told he was Chota Rajan. The said caller told Rajender Gupta that if the said demand was not met, he would finish the life of Rajender Kumar as well as his family members. PW2 further deposed that after some time Rajender Kumar informed the concerned police officials of P.S. Badarpur in regard to said incident. He and Rajender Kumar went to concerned P.S. to lodge the complaint in regard to said incident on the same day. He did not remember the time when he went to P.S. where they submitted complaint to concerned IO/SHO. They received their complaint. PW2 further deposed that accused person again made call on 12.6.09 and he was present at that time with Rajender Gupta. Complaint was again made and police visited their house. He could not say as to when the case was registered FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 6 of 11 7 but he knew that complaint was lodged. PW2 further deposed that he was looking marketing work of Rajender Kumar who used to sell inverters/batteries. He denied the suggestion that Rajender Kumar was engaged in manufacturing of batteries. The complainant used to deal in Getek batteries. PW2 further deposed that he was working with Rajender Kumar for last 34 years but he did not know as to when the complainant started its business. 34 other staff were working with Rajender Kumar. PW2 denied the suggestion that accused had business dealings with complainant. He further denied that any agreement whereby the money had been contributed by the accused to complainant Rajender Kumar. He further denied that he had seen the amount mentioned in the said agreement. He further denied that the agreement was reduced to writing in his presence. He further denied that the accused reported the matter to the police when the dispute between complainant and accused arose. He further denied that accused had been falsely implicated by them in order to evade the payment due to the accused which came to Rs.2 lacs.
8. PW6 ASI Satya Prakash deposed that he was posted as ASI at P.S. Badarpur on 15.6.2009. On that day DD No.22A was handed over to him by SHO, Badarpur. Complainant Rajender Gupta and Pankaj Malik were also at the police station. During enquiry it was revealed that accused had given extortion call to Rajender Gupta to give him Rs.50 lacs and he had called in the name of Chhota Rajan. PW6 further deposed that he was directed by concerned SHO to form a raiding party. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ramesh, Ct. Pratap, Rajender Gupta FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 7 of 11 8 and Pankaj Malik formed a raiding party. Rajender Gupta was having a bag in his hand. PW6 further deposed that they reached at railway bridge, M.B. Road where accused had asked Rajender Gupta to reach. They reached at around 1.45 p.m. They hide themselves. At around 2.00 p.m., the accused came and took bag from Rajender Gupta. At that moment, they overpowered the accused. PW6 further deposed that he recorded statement of Rajender Gupta Ex.PW1/A. He also seized the bag vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B after duly sealing the same with the seal of SP. The bag was containing papers. Seal after use was handed over to him (Ct. Pratap). PW6 further deposed that Ct. Pratap came back at the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR Ex.PW6/A. PW6 further deposed that he also recorded the statement of Pankaj Malik at the spot. He made enquiry from the accused, recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/C, arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/E. He prepared site plan Ex.PW6/B at the instance of the complainant Rajender Gupta. PW6 further deposed that after getting the accused medically examined, he lodged the accused at lock up and deposited the case property at Malkhana. After completion of investigation, he filed the challan in the court. PW6 deposed in his crossexamination that the earlier complaints made by complainant were not handed over to him and same were dealt by ASI Tej Ram. The complainant had made first complaint on 10.6.2009. He could not tell whether any DD entry was made in this regard or not. PW6 admitted the suggestion that the agreement dated 25.5.2009 Ex.PW6/DX1 was verified by him from concerned notary and same was FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 8 of 11 9 found to be in order. PW6 further deposed that the accused came from Mehrauli side. PW6 admitted that the road around the spot is a busy road and no public witness was joined in the investigation. He denied that no raiding party was formed and accused was falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant.
9. DW1 Sh.Parvej Alam deposed that he was witness of business agreement Ex.PW6/DX1 dated 25.5.2009. The agreement was entered between Sh.Rajender Kumar Gupta, Prop. of Gupta Trading having its office at in front of Police Station Badarpur, New Delhi and accused Aslam Firoz son of Late Mokkaram Hussain. DW1 further deposed that Rajender was running business of battery work and accused Aslam had invested Rs.2 lacs in that business and as per agreement, Rajender had assured to pay weekly profit to the accused Aslam Firoz. He had signed the said agreement before Ms. Komal Singh, Notary Public at Patiala House Court and at that time, accused Aslam Firoz, Rajender Kumar Gupta, Om Prakash and one other person known to Rajender Kumar Gupta were also present. PW1 deposed in his crossexamination that he had come Delhi in April, 2009 to work in L&T Co. at Airport. He knew the accused as he was from his native village. There was fixed duty hours from 7.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. in L&T Co. He had not brought any document to show that he was working on 25.5.2009 in L&T Co. and he had not brought any document to show that at the time of alleged agreement Ex.PW6/DX1, he was residing at Delhi. DW1 further deposed that when he had signed the alleged agreement before Notary Public as a witness, Om Prakash, Aslam Firoz, Rajender Kumar Gupta and one another person known FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 9 of 11 10 to Rajender Kumar Gupta were present there. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed agreement Ex.PW6/DX1. He further denied that he was not present in Delhi in the month of April, May, 2009, therefore, he was unable to produce any document of his residence and his working at Delhi at that time. He further denied that the agreement was not duly verified and was falsely prepared.
10. PW1 deposed that on 8.6.2009 when he received a telephone call, he was alone at his office, whereas, PW2 deposed that on 8.6.2009, he was sitting with PW1 in his office. PW1 deposed that the accused was searched in his presence and his personal search memo Ex.PW1/E was prepared. PW1 further deposed that in the personal search of accused, one bag, some cloths, telephone cards were found. Whereas, as per personal search of accused, driving license, a black purse containing Rs.100/, visiting card, mobile phone make Nokia, ATM of ICICI Bank and SIM card were recovered. PW1 and PW2 deposed that PW1 received the telephone call on 8.6.2009 and he reported the matter to the police on 12.6.2009 in writing, but no such complaint in writing dated 12.6.2009 was produced in the prosecution evidence. If a complaint was made to the police on 12.6.2009 by the complainant in writing, then, there must be a DD entry, but no DD entry was produced. Accused has taken a defence that he knew the complainant and he had invested Rs.2 lacs in the business of the complainant. According to the complainant, an agreement Ex.PW6/DX1 was executed between the complainant and the accused, in which, it has been stated that the accused has invested Rs.2 lacs in the business of the complainant. PW1 and PW2 both have FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 10 of 11 11 denied the execution of the said agreement, however, PW6 who is IO deposed that he had verified the agreement dated 25.5.2009 Ex.PW6/DX1 from concerned Notary and the same was found in order. DW1 deposed that the agreement Ex.PW6/DX1 was entered between the complainant and the accused and he was witness of said agreement. There is hardly any contradiction in crossexamination of DW1. Thus, it is established that the complainant and accused known to each other and the agreement Ex.PW6/DX1 was executed between them. As discussed above, there are contradictions in the depositions of PW1 and PW2. It has also been established that the complainant and accused known to each other and agreement Ex.PW6/DX1 was also executed between them, therefore, I am of the considered view that the accused has succeeded to raise doubts in the story of the prosecution that he had made a call to the complainant and demanded Rs.50 lacs as extortion amount. In view of above discussions, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is well settled law that benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused.
11. Accordingly, accused Aslam Feroz S/o Late Sh.Mukarram Hussain is acquitted from the charges of offences u/s 386 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (PRITAM SINGH )
Dated: 11.08.2014 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South East District/Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi/11.08.2014
FIR No.224/09, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Aslam Firoj 11 of 11