Delhi District Court
State vs Govind @ Nikku on 28 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 392/2017)
CNR No. DLNT01-008124-2017
FIR No. 512/2016
Police Station Prashant Vihar
Charge sheet filed 195A IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 195A IPC
Section
Govind @ Nikku s/o Sh. Inderjeet
State Vs. Singh r/o H. No.6, Near MCD School,
Village Jhangola, Alipur, Delhi.
Date of institution 10.07.2017
Arguments concluded on 28.10.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 28.10.2024
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 06.06.2016, complainant Surender Singh went to Chowki Rohini Court and gave his complaint to SI Pawan Tomar wherein he stated that on 06.06.2016 he, being a witness, went to give evidence in FIR No. 44/15 under section 302 IPC PS Alipur. At about 12:15 PM, after his evidence he was sitting in the last SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 1 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:31:31 +0530 row and accused was also sitting in the same row. Accused while staring threatened him to kill as he gave evidence against accused. On his complaint, FIR was registered and initially investigation was done by SI Jeet Singh, who prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. During investigation, production warrants were issued against the accused and in pursuance of the same, he was produced before the court. After obtaining permission from the court, accused was formally arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences u/s 195-A IPC against accused was filed in the court.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 26.02.2018, charge under section 195-A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 7 witnesses in all.
FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW3 HC Dindayal being duty officer, he registered the FIR which is Ex. PW3/1, made his endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW3/2 and issued certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW3/3.
5. PW7 SI Pawan Kumar deposed that on 06.06.2016, Surender Singh, who was a witness in FIR No. 44/15 under section 302 IPC PS Alipur, handed over a complaint that he was threatened by accused to him. He made SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 2 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:31:39 +0530 endorsement on the said complaint which is Ex. PW7/A. MATERIAL WITNESSES 6.1 PW1 Ct. Surender Singh is the complainant in this case. He deposed that on 06.06.2016, he came to Rohini Court Room No. 207 to give evidence in case FIR No. 44/15, PS Alipur. He further deposed that at about 12:15 PM, after his deposition when he sat inside the court room on chair in the last row, accused, who was also sitting in custody in last row, threatened him saying that "mere khilaf gawahai de hai, jaise karamvir constable ko maar diya, tujhe bhi waise hi goli maar denge." He further deposed that he disclosed this fact to Ld. Presiding Officer, who reprimanded the accused and advised complainant to take necessary action as per law. He further deposed that thereafter, he went to Police Post Rohini Court Complex and made a complaint which is Ex. PW1/1. After registration of FIR, site plan was prepared at his instance.
6.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that police protection was not provided to him though he was escorted by police officials of PP Rohini Court. He could not tell the date on which he was escorted by the police.
7. PW2 HC Rajender Singh deposed that on 06.06.2016, he produced the accused before the court at around 12:15-12:30 PM from Lock Up Rohini Courts. He further deposed that one Home Guard Constable was sitting in the court room at the same time, who was a witness in the case in which accused Govind @ Nikku was facing trial. He further deposed that on seeing the witness, accused Govind @ Nikku started abusing him and threatened him saying that " mere khilaf gawahi de raha hai, phele bhi ek SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 3 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:31:46 +0530 constable ko goli maari hai tujhe bhi jaan se maar doonga". Witness made a complaint to Ld. Presiding Officer regarding the same, who reprimanded the accused. He further deposed that after hearing of the case was over, he took accused Govind back to lock up.
This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused and his testimony has gone unrebutted.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION 8.1 PW4 Ct. Sunny deposed that on 09.12.2016, he joined the investigation of this case and accompanied IO ASI Suraj Mal to Rohini Court and took the JC remand of accused Govind @ Nikku.
8.2 He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he stated that accused Govind @ Nikku was produced before the court from judicial custody. He stated that after obtaining permission from the court, accused was interrogated by IO, accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW4/1 and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW4/2. He stated that accused refused to sign his arrest memo and disclosure statement.
9. PW5 SI Jeet Singh is the Ist IO in this case. He deposed that on 06.06.2016 investigation of this case was assigned to him and he alongwith complainant Surender went outside court room No. 207 where he prepared site plan which is Ex. PW5/1 at the instance of complainant.
10. PW6 ASI Suraj Mal being the IO deposed about the investigation being carried out by him. He deposed that on 25.08.2016 investigation of this case was assigned to him. On 08.12.2016 he moved an application before SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 4 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:31:53 +0530 concerned court for issuance of production warrants against accused Govind @ Nikku which is Ex. PW6/1. He further deposed that on 09.12.2016, he again reached Rohini Court when accused Govind @ Nikku was produced before the court. He moved an application seeking permission for interrogation and arrest of accused which is Ex. PW6/2 which was allowed by the court. He arrested the accused and recorded his disclosure statement. He further deposed that accused Govind refused to put his signature on his arrest memo and disclosure statement. Thereafter, he was again produced before the court and sent to JC.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C 11.1 After closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 02.11.2023, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidences put to him. He stated that he is innocent. On 06.06.2016 he was in custody and appeared in the court. He stated that he made a complaint to the judicial officer (presiding Officer) against complainant that in the FIR No. 44/2015 registered at PS Alipur, he was falsely implicated by the IO Mahavir Singh as on the said day. Mahavir Singh apprehended him and co-accused Malkeet Singh and took them to the PS Alipur and thereafter, he had called Ct. Surender, who was on leave on that day, to come to the police station and made him an eye witness in FIR No. 44/15, PS Alipur.
11.2 He further stated that after hearing him, Ld. Presiding Officer in the open court, had also scolded the eye witness Ct. Surender by saying that he was deposing falsely before the Hon'ble Court and Ld. Presiding officer would take strict action against him and thereafter, as a counter blast, Ct. Surender had made another false complaint against him. He opted to lead defence evidence.
SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 5 of 15
PS Prashant Vihar
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2024.10.28
16:32:00 +0530
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
12.1 DW1 Govind @ Nikku, who is accused himself, deposed that on
06.06.2016, he was brought to the court No. 207 from the judicial custody and on the said day, the evidence of complainant Ct. Surender was going on. He further deposed that while Ct. Surender was deposing in the court, in the meantime, he made an oral complaint to the Hon'ble court against the complainant that IO of FIR No. 44/15 PS Alipur after apprehending him and other co-accused in the police station called the complainant, who was on leave on that day to the police station. He further deposed that when complainant reached at police station, IO Mahavir had tutored the complainant to give false evidence against him and other accused persons. He further deposed that thereafter, Ld. Presiding Officer made enquiries from complainant Ct. Surender as to whether he was on leave on the date of incident in FIR No. 44/15 but he could not give satisfactory reply. He further deposed that thereafter, Ld. Presiding officer scolded the complainant in the open court but no action was taken against the complainant. He further deposed that he had not threatened the complainant on 06.06.2016 as he was in judicial custody. 12.2 During cross examination done on behalf of State, he stated that only two cases are pending against him i.e., FIR No. 44/15 PS Alipur under section 302 IPC and the present case. He stated that he moved and RTI application in PS Alipur and received copy of reply after one month. He further stated that on 06.06.2016, he handed over copy of reply to RTI to Ld. Presiding Officer. He stated that he had informed Ld. Presiding officer about the reply of RTI but court directed him to produce the same at the stage of evidence of Ct. Surender. He denied that he never moved an application under RTI Act with regard to presence of Ct. Surender on duty. He denied that he never received any reply pursuant to any such application and never put forth this fact before SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 6 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:32:07 +0530 Ld. Presiding Officer at any point of time and he is deposing falsely to save himself from conviction in FIR No. 44/15, PS Alipur as Ct. Surender was the only eye witness against him in that case.
13. DW2 HC Ashish, produced rojnamcha of Delhi Home Guard Officials of PS Alipur dated 12.01.2015. Vide DD No. 76, Ct. Surender No. 5155 (DHG), Ct. Sushil, Ct. Dilbagh, Ct. Anil Kumar, Ct. Rakesh and Ct. Nitish were on duty and their names are mentioned in arrival and departure entry. He exhibited copy of daily diary register as Ex. DW2/A.
14. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
15. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Nishant Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused.
16. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature. He was facing trial in FIR No. 44/15 PS Alipur with an allegation that he shot dead a police constable and complainant herein was an eye witness in that case. On 06.06.2016 when complainant came to the court for the purpose recording of evidence, accused was produced from JC and he threatened the complainant by saying that " mere khilaf gahwai de raha hai, phele bhi ek Constable to goli maari hai, tujhe be jaan se maar doonga". The incident took place in the presence of HC Rajender Singh, who had produced the accused in custody. Prosecution has examined complainant as well as eye witness PW2 HC Rajinder Singh and they have thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution against the accused. It is argued that SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 7 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:32:13 +0530 accused has clearly committed an offence under section 195-A IPC by threatening the complainant in so many words.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC
625.
17. Per contra, Sh. Nishant Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that accused had been falsely implicated in FIR No. 44/15 PS Alipur and complainant herein was a planted witness in that case. On the day of death of Ct. Karamvir in FIR No. 44/15, complainant was not on duty but IO Inspector Mahavir cited him as an eye witness in that case. Accused came to know about this fact when he received a reply to RTI application wherein he received a copy of daily diary register. In the departure entry signature of Ct. Surender were not present. During examination of PW Ct. Surender in FIR No. 44/15, accused brought this fact into the knowledge of Ld. Presiding Officer and also shown reply of RTI application. Ct. Surender was rebuked by the Presiding officer and out of humiliation and anger, Ct. Surender filed the present complaint and got registered the FIR against the accused. It is further argued that there are variations in the words which were allegedly used by the accused to threaten the complainant. There are material variations in the deposition of PW1 and PW2 in this regard which shows that both these witnesses are not on the same page and no such threat was ever given by the accused to the complainant. It is submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against the accused. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted accordingly.
SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 8 of 15
PS Prashant Vihar
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2024.10.28
16:32:21 +0530
18. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
19. The accused Govind @ Nikku has been charged for the commission of offences punishable under Section 195-A IPC.
20. The relevant section is reproduced as under:
SECTION 195-A IPC Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both; and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.]
21. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 9 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:32:28 +0530 criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved.It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
22. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
23. The allegations against the accused is that he extended criminal threats to the complainant with the purpose that he may give false evidence which would be beneficial to the accused in FIR No. 44/15 PS Alipur. Prosecution has examined PW1 complainant Ct. Surender and PW2 HC Rajender to prove the incident. Ld. Defence counsel has emphasized on the fact that in the complaint given to the police, PW1 Ct. Surender had given a version that accused had stated "mere khilaf gawahi de raha hai, tere ko jaan se maar doonga". When complainant deposed as PW1 before the court, he stated that accused threatened him by using words "mere khilaf gahwai di hai, jaise Karamvir Constable to maar diya, tujhe bhi waise hi goli maar denge."
Therefore, it is clear that complainant has improved his version which reflects SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 10 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:32:34 +0530 that afterthought on his part. Similarly, eye witness of the incident PW2 HC Rajender has improved his version.
24. It is correct that there are minor variations in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 but both witnesses have proved the incident and the fact that accused had threatened the complainant. Slight variation in their testimonies qua words used by the accused in extended such threat is immaterial. They had proved the allegations against the accused on material aspects and moreover, it is a well known fact that no person is supposed to have a mirror image like memory. Mental faculties of a human being are bound to be affected with the passage of time, age and various other factors. While evaluating the testimony of a witness, the focus of the court is on the fact whether the witness has proved the material case of the prosecution or not. Minor abrasions in their testimony, if they exists, have to be ignored considering the totality of circumstances and the manner in which the witness has deposed before the court.
25. The court is also conscious of the fact that witness do tends to improvise their allegations out of anger, frustration and with an objective to secure the conviction of the accused. In these circumstances, it is to be weighed whether the contradictions/improvisations are not such which are covered in the category of major contradictions. If the court is of the view that contradictions falls in the domain of major category then it would be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of such a witness. Otherwise, minor contradictions do tends to occur and need to be ignored by the court.
26. The contradictions pointed out by ld. Defence counsel are minor SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 11 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:32:41 +0530 in nature and do not go to the roots of the case. It is also worth mentioning that testimony of PW2 HC Rajender Singh has gone unrebutted as this witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused. Hence, I do not find any merit in the argument that testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are suffering from serious deformities and this argument stands rejected. It is duly proved against the accused that he extended threats to the complainant in the court room on the date of incident.
27. Now, the question which is worth consideration before the court is whether the act of the accused qualifies to be an offence under section 195-A IPC or not. The ingredient of section 195-A is that a person is being threatened with an intent "to give false evidence". The threat given to the victim should be related to false evidence described in section 191 IPC. There should be clear allegation against the accused that he threatened the complainant/victim and forced him to give false evidence in the court.
28. In the present case, it is admitted case of the prosecution that the alleged threat was extended by the accused after recording of evidence of the complainant in FIR No. 44/15 PS Alipur. In the complaint given to the police, complainant stated as under:
"samay kareeb 12:15 gawahi ke baad jab main court room ke peechli seat per aaya to wahan muljim Govind @ Nikku police ke sipahi ki hirasat main baitha tha jisne meri taraf ghoorte hue kaha, mere khilaf gawahi de raha hai, tere ko jaan se maar doonga".
29. It is quite clear that the alleged threat was extended by the accused after recording of evidence of the complainant. It is not the case that after this threat, complainant had again deposed before the court in that case. Therefore, SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 12 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:32:47 +0530 the threat was given as complainant had deposed against the accused and there is no averment that accused had forced or threatened the complainant to give false evidence in FIR No. 44/15 PS Alipur.
30. In Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 2344/2023 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.08.2023 similar kind of situation arose. In that case, complainant had got registered an FIR against the accused persons under section 376(D)/323/120- B/452 IPC. During investigation of that FIR, complainant was again threatened by the accused persons by saying that if she does not settle that case then she and her family will be killed and a pistol was also used to threaten her. The matter was taken up by the police and FIR was registered. Accused approached Hon'ble High Court for quashing of FIR but the petition was dismissed and resultantly, the SLP was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court. After discussing the law and the facts involved in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme court held as under:
"16. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that if any individual is threatened with any injury to his person, reputation or property and such threats are administered with intent to cause to that person to give false evidence, the same would constitute an offence under section 195-A of the IPC. In our opinion, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under section 195-A of the IPC are disclosed, on plain reading of the FIR and the further statement of the first informant including the statement of the so called eye witness. The allegation in the FIR is that accused persons threatened and pressurised the first informant to withdraw her first FIR bearing No. 122 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under section 376(D)/323/120-B/354A/452 of IPC. There is nothing to indicate that the accused persons threatened the first informant with the intent that the first informant gives false evidence before the court of law. The later part of section 195-A IPC makes it very SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 13 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:32:53 +0530 clear that false evidence means false before the court of law. On such false evidence, if a person is convicted and sentenced, then the persons found guilty of administering threats would be liable to be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent as such innocent person is punished and sentenced. The word 'false' in section 195-A should be read in the context with what has been explained in section 191 of the IPC which falls in chapter XI-of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice. Thus, even if we believe the allegations levelled in the FIR to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under section 195 A are disclosed. To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or to settle the dispute would not attract 195 of the IPC."
31. While observing so, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no offence under section 195-A IPC was made out and proceedings were quashed against the accused persons. Applying the ratio of Salib's case (discussed supra) to the present case, the situation is same as accused threatened the complainant with dire consequence as he had deposed against him in FIR No. 44/15 PS Alipur. Complainant did not allege that accused threatened him to give false evidence and therefore, the threat extended by the accused, although it is proved, fails to qualify to be an offence under section 195-A IPC as essential ingredients of section are missing from the alleged threat.
CONCLUSION
32. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the threat extended by the accused to the complainant is an offence under section 195-A IPC as necessary ingredients are missing in the complaint and evidence adduced against the accused. No other alternate charge has been framed against the SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 14 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2024.10.28 16:33:00 +0530 accused and therefore, he cannot be convicted for any other minor offence instead of section 195-A IPC. Accordingly, accused stand acquitted of the charges levelled against him for committing offence under section 195-A IPC.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.28 16:33:09 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana) Court on 28.10.2024 ASJ:Special Judge (NDPS) (running in 15 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 392/2017, FIR No. 512/2016 State Vs. Govind @ Nikku Page No. 15 of 15 PS Prashant Vihar