Delhi District Court
State vs . Sachin Etc. on 11 February, 2014
STATE vs. SACHIN ETC.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SHAHDARA), KKD COURTS DELHI.
FIR No.14/2012
PS : Jagatpuri
U/s 160 IPC
State vs. Sachin Etc.
a) Serial No. of the case : 02402R00145772012
b) Date of Institution : 23.05.2012
c) Date of commission of offence : 10.01.2012
d) Name of complainant : SI Dinesh Kumar
e) Name of the accused, and 1. Sachin Dheer
parentage and address S/o Sh. Adrin Pal Dheer
R/o D15/1, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi.
2. Amit Kapoor S/O Kawal
Kapoor
R/O H. No.11A,
Laxman Park Chander
Nagar, Delhi.
3. Deepak Chhabra
S/O Baldev Raj Chhabra
R/O H. No.J1/6, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi.
4. Vinay Mahendru
S/O Late Braj Mohan
Mahendru
R/O D68, East Chander
Nagar, Delhi.
f) Offence complained of : U/S 160 IPC
FIR NO.14/12 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 1/8
STATE vs. SACHIN ETC.
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Date of judgment reserved : Unreserved
i) Final order : Acquittal
j) Date of such Order : 11.02.2014
JUDGEMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose off the present case filed by the prosecution against four accused persons, namely: 1) Sachin Dhir
2)Vinay Mahendru 3) Amit 4) Deepak. Accused Amit and Deepak pleaded guilty on the very first day of the trial. They were convicted and accordingly sentenced by the court. Accused Sachin Dhir and Vinay Mahendru pleaded innocence and contested the case on merits. Notice under section 251 Cr.P.C was accordingly framed upon them.
2. Prosecution examined three witnesses in support of its version. PW1 is Constable Kunwar Pal who deposed that he was posted as a beat constable in the area where the incident occurred on the relevant date. At about 7:30 PM, while patrolling he reached at street number two and in front of house number D73 where four persons, i.e. the four accused were quarreling with each other. Sub inspector Dinesh was also present they were trying to pacify the abovementioned four accused persons but the accused persons did not stop quarreling. Emergency response vehicle number nine (Gypsy) was also present at the spot. Thereafter sub FIR NO.14/12 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 2/8 STATE vs. SACHIN ETC.
inspector Dinesh/investigating officer prepared the Rukka and handed over the same to Constable Kunwar Pal who thereafter got the FIR registered. Thereafter investigating officer arrested all for accused persons and also conducted their personal searches vide their respective personal search memos. The said memos are exhibit PW1/AH and bear the signatures of the investigating officer at point A. Thereafter, all accused persons were taken to the police station where they were released on police bail. The said witness correctly identified the present two accused who were facing trial.
3. PW2 is head Constable Jaya Prakash who was stationed on emergency response vehicle number nine and was one of the police personnel who had responded to the call of alleged quarrelling between the four accused persons. This witness testified that there were some public persons also who had gathered on the spot of incident. He testified that the investigating officer of the case tried to pacify the accused persons but they continued to fight and quarrel with each other. Rest of his testimony is almost on the same lines as that of prosecution witness number one.
4. Sub inspector Dinesh Kumar was examined as prosecution witness number three. He was also the investigating officer of the case.
FIR NO.14/12 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 3/8
STATE vs. SACHIN ETC.
He testified that he was assigned DD numbers 54B and 55B which are exhibit PW3/A and PW3/B. These DD entries were regarding the quarrel in which the aforementioned accused persons were alleged to have been involved in. The investigating officer/PW3 testified that there were a lot of public persons at the spot of incident and he heard noises of abusive languages. He deposed that with the help of police personnel, he apprehended all the four accused persons after his failed attempt of pacifying them. Thereafter he prepared a rukka upon which the present FIR was registered in pursuance of which a site plan exhibit PW3/E was prepared, which also bears the signature of the investigating officer at point A. Thereafter all the accused persons were arrested, their arrest and search memos prepared. IO testified that accused persons could not produce any sureties on the spot, so therefore they were shifted to the police station.
5. All these three prosecution witnesses were thoroughly cross examined by the counsel of accused. During the crossexamination, there were many material contradictions which go to the root of the prosecution story and makes it highly doubtful. Prosecution witness number 2 could not state the name of the police witnesses/officers who were present at the spot. This witness testified he left the spot after about 20 minutes and that it was the investigating officer who had taken away all the four accused FIR NO.14/12 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 4/8 STATE vs. SACHIN ETC.
persons. This witness deposed that he left the spot but could not state the reason as to why he left the spot before the proceedings were completed. This witness deposed that he could not tell whether there were any commercial shops at the spot of incident despite the fact that as per his testimony, he was present at the spot for a substantial amount of time. This witness denied the suggestion that the accused were falsely implicated as they could not meet the unlawful demands of bribes of senior police officials at the police station.
6. Prosecution witness number one deposed that he was a beat constable of the area where the incident had occurred. He replied in the affirmative to the suggestion that there were some shops situated at the spot of incident along with a good many number of public persons. He deposed that he could not remember as to by which mode the accused persons were taken to the police station. He denied the suggestion that the original/real culprits of the incident had escaped and that the accused persons were called to the police station on the pretext of holding a social welfare meeting and thereafter were falsely arrested in order to avoid administrative action for the lapses in apprehending/arresting the original culprits.
7. Prosecution witness number three was investigating officer of FIR NO.14/12 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 5/8 STATE vs. SACHIN ETC.
the case. His testimony is very crucial to decide whether the accused persons were innocent or guilty of the offences charged against. There are many material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the investigating officer of the case which become especially relevant as no public person was joined as a witness despite the fact that all the prosecution witnesses testified to the fact that many public persons were present on the spot at the time of the alleged incident. Prosecution witness number two had deposed in his crossexamination that all the four accused persons were taken to the police station by the investigating officer of the case. But during his crossexamination prosecution witness number three,i.e. the investigating officer of the case deposed that he reached the spot of incident on his own motorcycle. A motorcycle can lawfully seat only two people. In the present case there were four accused persons apart from the investigating officer himself bringing the total count to 5. Five persons cannot be seated on a motorcycle. Moreover, the statements of prosecution witnesses, who happened to be police personnel only were recorded only after arresting and releasing the accused persons on bail, which is highly unusual. The investigating officer deposed in this crossexamination that the place of occurrence was a residential area whereas the prosecution witnesses deposed that it was a commercial area with a lot of public persons having a lot of shops. The investigating officer failed to explain and clarify that if the spot of occurrence was a FIR NO.14/12 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 6/8 STATE vs. SACHIN ETC.
residential area, why public persons were not made witnesses to this charge of offence under section 160 IPC. By his own admission there were at least 30 to 40 persons who were present at the spot of the occurrence. The investigating officer deposed that the accused persons were shifted to the police station by the emergency response vehicle wagon. Whereas other witnesses have deposed that they were shifted to police station by the IO in his own vehicle. The investigating officer submitted that at the first instance he rejected the sureties of the accused persons because of lack of documents but thereafter he accepted the same sureties even without placing on record the photocopies of their identification proofs and other relevant documents. As per the testimony of the investigating officer, the sureties of accused persons were earlier rejected as they were not having any valid documentation and thereafter the same sureties were accepted without taking on record any proof of the documentation. This whole suspicious circumstance lends credence to the defence version of the accused persons that they were falsely implicated and arrested in the present case, when they could not meet some illegal demands of the police officials. During his crossexamination, the investigating officer admitted not having given any notice to the sureties to produce their relevant documents, because of which reason these sureties were earlier rejected by the investigating officer. The investigating officer admitted not having placed the documents of the FIR NO.14/12 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 7/8 STATE vs. SACHIN ETC.
sureties on record during the entire proceedings and trial.
8. In their statement recorded under section 313 CRPC read with section 281 CRPC, both the accused persons denied the version of the prosecution and reaffirmed their defence/stance of innocence maintaining that they were falsely implicated as it could not meet the illegal demands of the police officials present in the police station.
9. After reading the evidence of all the witnesses in totality, this court is of the opinion that there are material and glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and combined with the fact that no public witness was joined in the investigation, and their evidence does not seem to be trustworthy and believable.
10. Therefore, in view of the abovementioned observations and discussion of testimonies of the witnesses who were examined and cross examined, this court finds the accused persons namely Sachin Dheer and Vinay Mahendru "NOT GUILTY" and acquits them of the offence under section 160 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (SUNIL BENIWAL)
11.02.2014 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Shahdara Distt., KKD Courts, Delhi
FIR NO.14/12 PS Jagatpuri PAGE 8/8