Delhi District Court
State vs . Brijpal @ Bittoo on 4 July, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH PAWAN KUMAR, MM01,
SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Brijpal @ Bittoo
FIR No. 612/07
P.S. Lajpat Nagar
Under Section 224 IPC
1.Serial No. of the case : 514/1
2.Date of commission of offence : 15.06.2007
3.Name of the Complainant : Ct. Duli Chand
No. 1238/SD
PS Lajpat Nagar.
4.Name of the accused, and
his parentage and residence: : Brijpal @ Bittoo S/o Sh. Anoop Singh
R/o A1/963, J J Colony, Madanpur
Khadar, New Delhi.
5.Date when reserved for judgment : 24.06.2014
6.Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 04.07.2014
7.Offence Complained of or proved : 224 IPC
8.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9.Final Judgment : Acquitted.
FIR No. 612/07
P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 1 of 7
2
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused person namely Brijpal is facing the trial for commission of offence U/s 224 IPC. The present case FIR was registered on the statement of Ct. Duli Chand (hereinafter referred as 'the complainant'). As per the statement, on 15.06.2007 he alongwith Ct. Murari Lal took the accused Brijpal and another person namely Anand Kumar to produce before SEM/SD court under kalandra 107/151 Cr. PC. The accused Brijpal escaped from the custody of the complainant. After search the accused was apprehended on 18.06.2007.
2. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Section 224 IPC was filed by the IO and copy was supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C on the same day.
3. Charge U/s 224 IPC framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined total four witnesses.
FIR No. 612/07 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 2 of 7 3
5. PW1 HC Duli Chand Yadav deposed that on 15.06.2007 he alongwith Ct. Murari Lal was taking Anand Kumar and accused Brijpal to the SEM/SD Court. When they reached the court of SEM/SD, the accused at about 03.45 pm escaped from his custody after relieving his hand from him. He along with Ct. Murari Lal tried to search the accused but no avail. On 18.06.2007 he along with Ct. Murari Lal was present near Madanpur Khadar, J J Colony where they saw that accused was returning towards his house at about 12 noon. They chased and managed to apprehend him. They took accused to the PS. ASI Sukhvinder recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C.
6. PW2 HC Nihal Singh deposed that on 18.06.2007 at about 2.30 pm Ct. Duli Chand came in the PS and on the basis of his statement, the present case FIR was registered and copy of FIR ex. PW2/A. The statement of Ct. is already Ex. PW1/A.
7. PW3 HC Murari Lal deposed that on 15.06.2007 he alongwith HC Duli Chand Yadav came to Patiala House courts to produce the accused Anand Kumar and Brijpal, who had committed the offence u/s 107/151 Cr. PC in the court of SEM/SD court and at about 3.45 pm when they reached near the court of SEM, accused Brijpal escaped from their FIR No. 612/07 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 3 of 7 4 custody after relieving his hand from them. Thereafter they searched him but could not be found. On 18.06.2007 they reached his residence and accused was found present near Madanpur Khadar, J J Colony who was walking and he was thereafter apprehended by them at about 12 noon after chasing him for quite some distance. The accused thereafter was taken to the PS. At the police station the statement of HC Duli Chand Yadav was recorded and after the registration of FIR, the accused was arrested vide Ex. PW1/B. His personal search was also conducted vide Ex. PW1/C.
8. PW4 SI Sukhvinder Singh deposed that on 18.06.2007 the DO handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He interrogated Ct. Duli Chand and Ct. Murari and recorded their statements. As per their statements, accused Brijpal had fled while he was in the police custody in some case and hence the present case was registered. He recorded the statement of concerned witnesses u/s 161 Cr. PC. He arrested the accused Brijpal and conducted his personal search vide memos already Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C.
9. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, PE was closed and all the incriminating circumstances came in the evidence against the accused were put to him while recording his statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. The accused opted not to lead defence evidence. FIR No. 612/07 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 4 of 7 5
10. I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also perused the material available on record.
11. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused had escaped from the custody of the complainant while he took him to produce in the court of SEM/SD. The defence of accused is that he had not absconded or escaped from the custody as he was in the injured condition and waited for the police at SEM/SD court but due to miscommunication they could not contact.
12. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have not been cross examined as the accused was not represented by any counsel. As per the prosecution the accused was in the custody of complainant regarding the kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr. PC. The date of incident on 15.06.2007 and the FIR has been registered on 18.06.2007. No information of escape from the custody was given to the police station by the complainant. Without giving information to the concerned PS the complainant himself embarked upon in the search of the accused. The delay in lodging the FIR and not giving the information to the Police Station creates doubt over the prosecution case.
FIR No. 612/07 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 5 of 7 6
13. Admittedly, apart from the accused, one more person namely Anand Kumar was in the custody of the police at the time of incident but he has not been examined by the IO during investigation. He was the natural public witness of the incident.
14. In the present case, the accused was in the preventive detention u/s 107/151 Cr. PC. There is no reason to commit a serious offence after escaping from such a minor offence. The alleged kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr. PC has not been placed on record. Further, there is no record which can establish that the accused was in the custody of complainant.
15. The accused was apprehended after three days of the alleged incident while he was returning to his house. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there are number of missing links in the case of prosecution and explanation given by the accused while replying in response to the question put while recording his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC appears to be probable and plausible one.
16. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable FIR No. 612/07 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 6 of 7 7 doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
17. In view of above mentioned discussion, it is clear that prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Brijpal @ Bittoo is acquitted for offence U/s 224 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. Personal bond and surety bond stand cancelled. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled. Documents, if any, be returned.
Announced in open Court today (PAWAN KUMAR) on 04.07.2014 MM01 (South East):Saket Courts:04.07.2014 FIR No. 612/07 P.S. Lajpat Nagar Page No. 7 of 7