Delhi District Court
State vs . 1) Jagdish @ Jaggi on 17 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 80/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0359392010
State Vs. 1) Jagdish @ Jaggi
S/o Mangat Ram,
R/o H. No. 46A, Vill. Naharpur,
Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
2) Maha Singh
S/o Mangat Ram,
R/o H. No. 41, Vill.: Naharpur,
Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
3) Raghubir Singh
S/o Mangat Ram,
R/o H. No. 41, Vill. Naharpur,
Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
4) Rajesh
S/o Raghubir Singh
R/o H. No. 41, Vill.: Naharpur,
Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
5) Sunil
S/o Balbir Singh,
Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 1 of 41
R/o H. No. 41, Vill: Naharpur,
Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
6) Ravinder @ Rinku
S/o Maha Singh,
R/o H. No. 41, Vill.: Naharpur,
Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
FIR No. : 430/2007
Police Station : South Rohini
Under Section : 435/436/506/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 10.04.2013
Date on which orders were reserved : 17.01.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced : 17.02.2014
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
(1) As per the allegations, on 15.1.2005 at about 12:00 midnight in the gali of House No. 46, Village Naharpur, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi, the accused Jagdish @ Jaggi, Maha Singh, Raghubir Singh and Rajesh, in furtherance of a common intention, committed mischief of breaking the glasses, front and rear lights of the TSR No. DL 1R J 4009 with the sticks which TSR belonging to Jai Pal Singh was parked in the gali and caused loss or damage to the amount of Rs.50/ or upward. It is also alleged that on the above said date, time Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 2 of 41 and place, the above accused persons criminally intimidated Chander Bhan and threatened to kill him in case if he did not withdraw the case against them pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. (2) It is further alleged that on 4.3.2006 at about 2:00 AM (midnight) at House No. 46, Village Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi, the accused Maha Singh, Rajesh, Sunil and Rinku, in furtherance of their common intention committed mischief by fire or explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that they will thereby cause damage to the TSR No. DL 1R J 4009 belonging to Jaipal Singh to the amount of Rs.100/ or upward and thereby cause the destruction of building which was ordinarily used for place of worship or for human dwelling or as a place for custody of property belonging to Chander Bhan. It is further alleged that the aforesaid accused in furtherance of a common intention, criminally intimidated Chander Bhan that they all would set his house on fire if he did not withdraw all the cases pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Case of Prosecution in brief:
(3) The present FIR had been registered on the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC filed by Chander Bhan wherein he alleged that on 15.1.2005 at about 12 midnight he was sleeping in the outer room of his house adjoining the gali when he heard some noise Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 3 of 41 of breaking something in the gali. The complainant woke up and opened the door of his house and saw that the accused Jagdish @ Jaggi, Maha Singh, Raghubir Singh and Rajesh were damaging the TSR bearing No. DL 1RJ 4009 which was parked in the gali and the said accused had broken the front and rear glasses and head light of the said TSR belonging to the son of complainant. It is alleged that when the complainant protested to the act of the aforesaid accused, they started abusing him and threatened to kill him and his family and also warned / forced him to withdraw the case pending before the Hon'ble High Court. It is alleged that the complainant then reported the matter to the police but no action was taken by the police but thereafter every now and then the accused started threatening the complainant and his family members of facing dire consequences in case he does not withdraw pending before Hon'ble High Court. The complainant further alleged that on 4.3.2006 at about 7:00 PM his son Jai Pal parked his TSR bearing No. DL 1RJ 4009 as usual in the Gali near the gate of his house and in night at about 2:00 AM, the complainant sensed some smoke in the room which was coming through the opened window from the gali on which he got up and saw from the window that the TSR bearing No. DL 1RJ 4009 was in flames and the accused Maha Singh, Rajesh, Sunil and Rinku were running away after putting the said TSR on fire who were clearly identified by the complainant. It is also alleged by the complainant Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 4 of 41 that the accused persons had tried to kill his whole family by putting the vehicle on fire which was parked very close to the dwelling house of the complainant. Thereafter, police was informed and DD No. 6A dated 5.3.2016 was lodged at Police Station Rohini but the local police did not take any action in the matter. It is alleged that the local police has been in total collusion with the accused persons and did not take any action against them despite repeated complainants / reminders and at last left with no option, the complainant approached the court of law by of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC pursuant to which on the directions of the Ld. MM, present FIR was registered.
CHARGE:
(4) Charge under Sections 435/436/506/34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Maha Singh, Rajesh, Sunil and Rinku and charge under Sections 427/506/34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Jagdish @ Jaggi, Maha Singh, Raghubir Singh and Rajesh. All the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
(5) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses:
Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 5 of 41
(6) PW3 Chander Bhan has tendered his evidence which was recorded before Ld. Magistrate on 19.04.2010 as precharge evidence and he has adopted the same as his examinationinchief before this court and has identified all the accused persons.
(7) In his evidence before Ld. MM the witness has deposed that he is residing at House No. 46, Village Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini along with his son Jai Pal Singh and his family. According to him, his son Jai Pal Singh was plying an auto/ three wheeler bearing No. Dl1RJ4009 and he used to park the said vehicle in the gali near the window of aforesaid house and he used to sleep in the outer most room of his house near which the said vehicle used to be parked. (8) The complainant has deposed that on 15.01.2005 in the midnight at about 12 O'clock he was sleeping in the room of his house adjoining to the gali when suddenly he heard some breaking noises in the gali and he got up and opened the door and he saw Jagdish @ Jagga, Maha Singh, Raghubir Singh all resident of House No. 41, Village Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini were breaking the TSR No. DL1RJ4008 of his son which was parked in the gali near the window of his room. Witness has further deposed that the said accused broke the glasses, front and rear lights of the said TSR with the sticks and on his intervention the accused also used filthy and abusive language against him and threatened to kill him in case if he did not withdraw the cases against them pending before the Hon'ble Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 6 of 41 High Court of Delhi. The witness has deposed that he informed the police at Police Station Rohini regarding the said incident but the police did not take any action against the said accused persons. (9) The complainant deposed that again on 04.03.2006 as usual he was sleeping in the aforesaid room of his house and the aforesaid vehicle was also parked at the aforesaid place and at about 2:00 AM in the night, he felt some smoke in the aforesaid place and also felt some smoke in the room. According to him, he got up and opened the door of his room and saw that the TSR No. DL1RJ4009 of his son was in flames and the accused Maha Singh, Rajesh, Sunil, Rinku all resident of House No. 41, Village Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini, were standing near the burning TSR. Witness has further deposed that on his asking as to why they had set the said vehicle on fire they started saying that "we shall set you and your house on fire if you do not withdraw the aforesaid case against us pending before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi". According to him, when he raised alarm, all the accused persons left the place using abusive and filthy language against him and he saw and recognized the accused persons at the spot. Witness has further deposed that thereafter on his call his son Jai Pal Singh came to the spot and they informed the fire station and tried to extinguish the fire of the vehicle and they also informed the police after which the PCR Van came to the spot and the DD entry No. 6A dated 05.03.2006 was registered at Police Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 7 of 41 Station Rohini but the police did not take any action against the accused persons. Witness has further deposed that they also called the photographer and photographed the said burnt vehicle and the photocopy of RC of the said vehicle is Ex.CW1/A, the copy of the complaint to the SHO of Police Station Rohini dated 16.02.2005 is Ex.CW1/B, the photographs of the burned vehicle are Ex.CW1/C to CW1/F and the complaint to the SHO Police Station Rohini dated 09.03.2006 and dated 21.08.2006 are Ex.CW1/G and Ex.CW1/H, respectively.
(10) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has explained that all the accused persons are his neighbors. He has stated that they are four brothers and Mangat Ram is his brother. Witness has admitted that accused Jagdish, Maha Singh and Raghubir are the sons of Mangat Ram. According to him, they are his nephew and accused Rajesh is the son of Rabhubir Singh, Rinku is son of Maha Singh and Sunil is son of Balbir and he has five sons. Witness has further deposed that three of his sons resides separately from him and his two sons resides with him and his two sons are employees of Delhi Police. He has admitted that Mangat Ram and others had filed a civil suit in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi against other persons which was a civil suit for partition. Witness has admitted that initially he was a plaintiff in the said civil suit later on he was substituted as defendant and has voluntarily explained that he advised Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 8 of 41 Mangat Ram that there is no share in the disputed plot and unnecessary not to file the partition suit. Witness has admitted that the gali in which his son used to park the TSR falls in Khasra No. 169 and has voluntarily explained that the passage of six feet of this gali had given by him from Khasra No. 169. Witness has further deposed that none other person had left the passage from their respective Khasra numbers. Witness has denied the suggestion that other persons had also left the passage in the said gali. Witness has further deposed that at present the width of the said gali is 15 feet. Witness has also admitted that he has filed a suit against Kalawati & others U/s 133 Cr. P. C. According to him with the intervention of the concerned court, the matter was resolved and has voluntarily explained that it was with the intervention of Hon'ble High Court. Witness has denied the suggestion that he used to stop the public persons from using as a way in that gali or that he used to used abusive language against the persons who used to use the said gali as a passage.
(11) According to the witness, he had filed an application in the MCD Department to install a pole in the said gali and has voluntarily explained that "Bade bade truck ate thay aur mere makaan me takkar marte thay, kis kis se jhagra mol loo isliye pareshan hokar darkhast di thi". Witness has denied the suggestion that he had been filing false and frivolous complaints against his Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 9 of 41 neighborers and against the other persons of the locality. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had cooked up an enmity against the accused persons in his mind due to the property disputes. Witness has denied the suggestion that he have developed a nature in his mind to harass his neighborers and accused persons. Witness has admitted that he also filed a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court against the inhabitants and has voluntarily explained that a committee of 70 persons was constituted to file the same as sewer became jammed due to cattle dung, so to get rid of this problem the writ was filed through him. Witness has denied the suggestion that inhabitants of his locality are fed up with his behaviour. Witness has further deposed that he has filed the complaint to the extent of facts which he had witnessed, correctly and prior to the present incident of complaint, his son's TSR was broken. According to him, on the day of his deposition in the court, he was not recollecting on which date his TSR was broken and states that he had filed a complaint in this regard in the police station and had filed a copy of the said complaint in the present case. Witness has denied the suggestion that his TSR was not broken by anyone or that he was deposing falsely. According to him, their TSR was put on fire at about 2.15 AM but exact date, month and year he is not recollecting now and has voluntarily explained that it was about 56 years back. He has deposed that the family of his son Jai Pal used to reside inside his Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 10 of 41 house. Witness has admitted that on the first floor above his room, his other son resides with his family. He further admits that he had mentioned the TSR number in his complaint and statest hat he does not know its registration number. According to him, he had witnessed when his TSR was put on fire by some persons and he had noticed accused Maha Singh, Rinku, Rajesh and Sunil while putting his TSR on fire. The witness has explained that Maha Singh was having the oil in a dibbi and poured it on the TSR and then put the TSR on fire.
(12) Witness has further deposed that at the time of the alleged incident he was awakened and their TSR was standing by the wall of his house and the smoke of the fire filled his house on which he came out of his house and noticed the same. He has stated that he has mentioned the incident of putting the TSR on fire in his complaint. Witness was confronted with complaint Ex.PW3/DX1 where it is not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had mentioned the fact that "Maha Singh was having the oil in a dibbi and poured it on the TSR and then put the TSR on fire", in his statement made before Ld. Magistrate. Witness has denied the suggestion that his son Jaipal used to consume liquor. Witness has denied the suggestion that Jaipal was got arrested by his wife in some quarrel when he was under the influence of liquor. Witness has denied the suggestion that his son Jaipal might have left the burning Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 11 of 41 cigarette in the TSR due to which the TSR might have caught fire. Witness has denied the suggestion that the persons against whom he had filed the false and frivolous complaints and the person to whom he used to prevent from using the said gali for the passage might have put the TSR on fire. Witness has denied the suggestion that none of the accused persons had put the TSR on fire. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused persons were falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion as he had cookedup an enmity in his mind against accused persons.
(13) According to him, he made the call at 100 number and thereafter local police came and fire brigade also reached at the spot. Witness has admitted that no other person saw the accused persons at the spot except him and has voluntarily explained that it was the night time. Witness has admitted that police inquiry was conducted but allegations against the accused persons could not confirmed. Witness has admitted that accused persons had gone to Gohana for a Lagan ceremony of a marriage and has voluntarily explained that they had gone in the morning and returned back in the evening. Witness has denied the suggestion that Maha Singh and Raghubir Singh stayed in the Gohana at that night. Witness has admitted that there was marriage ceremony in the family relations of accused persons where on 5th accused persons had gone for Lagan, on 6th a Barat was to come for the girl's marriage and on 7th another Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 12 of 41 boy's barat was to go and has voluntarily explained that they returned back on the same day in the evening. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused did not put his TSR on fire or that he has named them merely on suspicion. Witness has denied the suggestion that the passage to that gali was blocked by making falsely complaints against the resident and by installing a pole in the said street. Witness has denied the suggestion that he keep his sons behind the curtain and intentionally come forward against the accused persons due to previous enmity. Witness has denied the suggestion that due to his misbehaviour his two sons have left him. (14) Witness has admitted that even in the year 2012, an FIR was got registered through the court against the accused persons on the allegations of snatching of mobile vide No. 55/12 Police Station Rohini which is Ex.PW3/DX2, and has voluntarily explained that they had entered his house and snatched his mobile. According to him, he was not aware if the accused persons have also filed a cross case regarding the same incident vide FIR 71/2013 of Police Station South Rohini which is Ex.PW3/DX3. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately filing false cases against the accused and other neighbors for ulterior motives. Witness has denied the suggestion that no incident as alleged by him had taken place since the accused persons were busy in the arrangements of marriage in family. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has filed a false Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 13 of 41 complaint case or that the contents of the complaint and the ground raised therein on the basis of which the FIRs were registered are false frivolous or that he has deposed falsely.
(15) PW4 Jai Pal has tendered his evidence which was recorded before Ld. Magistrate on 20.08.2010 as precharge evidence and adopted the same before this court as his examinationinchief and he identified all the accused persons present in the court. (16) In his statement before Ld. MM, the witness has deposed that he is residing at House No. 46, Naharpur Village, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi, along with his family and father. According to the witness, his father purchased a three wheeler Auto bearing No. DL1RJ4009 in his name and he used to park the said vehicle in the gali near the window of his above said house. He has deposed that his father used to sleep in the room adjoining the glai where the said three wheeler was parked and on 15.01.2005 at about 12:00 midnight, his father was sleeping in the aforesaid room when he heard some breaking noise in the gali on which he got up and opened the door and saw the accused Jagdish @ Jagga, Maha Singh, Raghubir Singh all sons of Sh. Mangat Ram and Rajesh S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh all residents of House No. 41 Village Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi were breaking his TSR No. DL1RJ4009 which was parked in the gali near the window of his house. Witness has further deposed that they broke the glasses, front and rear lights Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 14 of 41 of the said TSR.
(17) Witness has further deposed that again on 04.03.2006 as usual he parked his above said TSR at above said place and his father was also sleeping in the above said room when at about 2:00 AM in the midnight, his father sensed some smoke in the above said room on which his father got up and opened the door of his room and saw that his TSR No. DL1RJ4009 was in flames and the accused Maha Singh S/o Sh. Mangat Ram, Rajesh S/o Raghubir Singh, Sunil S/o Balbir Singh, Rinku S/o Maha Singh all resident of House No. 41, Village Naharpuyr, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi, were standing near the burning TSR. The witness has deposed that on intervention by his father, these accused said that they will also set his father on fire if he does not withdraw the cases pending before the Hon'ble High court against them. According to him, thereafter they informed the fire station and tried to extinguish the fire of the vehicle and also informed the police, PCR came at the spot and the diary entry No. 6A dated 05.03.2006 was registered at police station Rohini but officials of the Police Station Rohini did not take any action against accused persons. Witness has further deposed that the wall of his house was also burnt near which the burning vehicle was parked and he authorized his father to make the complaint to the police of this incident and also file the complaint before the appropriate court of law. According to him, they are a joint family and he along with Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 15 of 41 father are living together in the same house.
(18) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that all the accused persons are his neighbors. He has stated that they are seven brothers and sisters and has voluntarily explained that he is the youngest of the four brothers and four sisters. Witness has further deposed that his father Sh. Chander Bhan were four brothers and one sister and Mangat Ram is his Tauji. Witness has admitted that accused Jagdish, Maha Singh and Raghubir are the sons of Mangat Ram and are his first cousins, whereas the accused Rajesh is the son of Rabhubir Singh, Rinku is son of Maha Singh and Sunil is son of Balbir being the grandsons of Mangat Ram.
(19) Witness has further deposed that he is the only one residing with his father Sh. Chander Bhan, his three brothers are residing separately and his brother Mani Ram resides with him along with his father and all his four sisters are married and residing separately whereas his two brothers namely Sant Ram and Ram Kumar are employee of Delhi Police. Witness has admitted that Mangat Ram and others had filed a Civil Suit in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi against other persons and a Civil Suit for partition was also filed wherein his father was initially a plaintiff but later on he was substituted as defendant.
Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 16 of 41 (20) Witness has admitted that the gali in which he used to park the TSR was falls in Khasra No. 169 and has voluntarily explained that the said place is a passage near the gali of his house. Witness has denied the suggestion that other persons had also left the passage from their respective Khasra number or that the gali was combine and has voluntarily explained that the entire passage has been left by his father. Witness has further deposed that at present the width of the said gali is 15 feet. He has stated that he is not aware if his father had filed a suit against Kalawati & others U/s 133 Cr.P.C. but has admitted that it was with the intervention of the Delhi High court that the dispute between Kalawati and others has been resolved. Witness has denied the suggestion that his father used to stop the public persons using way in that gali and used abusive language against the persons who used the said gali as a passage. Witness has admitted that his father had filed an application in the MCD Department to install a pole in the said gali and has voluntarily explained that it was for safety purpose because heavy trucks used come there. Witness has denied the suggestion that this application was filed by his father in the MCD on legal advise only to establish his right over the passage. Witness has denied the suggestion that his father used to file false and frivolous complaints against his neighbors and against the persons of the locality. Witness has denied the suggestion that his father along with himself and other family Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 17 of 41 members had cooked up an enmity against the accused persons in his mind with an eye on the property. Witness has denied the suggestion that his father is a habitual litigant who is into filing false cases against the persons of the locality.
(21) Witness has admitted that his father had also filed a writ petition in Hon'ble High Court against the residents which was filed through him with regard to the blocking of the sewer lines. Witness has denied the suggestion that inhabitants of his locality were fed up with the behaviour of his father. Witness has denied the suggestion that he am a habitual alcoholic and has voluntarily explained that he is only a occasional drinker. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was got arrested by his wife in a quarrel when he was under the influence of liquor and has voluntarily explained that it was his personal dispute with his wife and has been sorted out. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had accidentally left a burning cigarette in the TSR in a stage of intoxication due to which the fire must have taken place in the TSR but the blame of the same has been falsely diverted upon the accused due to previous enmity. (22) Witness has admitted that in the above case relating to the burning of TSR, a police inquiry was conducted but implications of the accused persons could not found. Witness has denied the suggestion that during the incident of burning of TSR accused persons had gone to Gohana for a Lagan ceremony of a marriage. Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 18 of 41 Witness has denied the suggestion that Maha Singh and Raghubir Singh stayed in the Gohana during that night. Witness has admitted that there was marriage ceremony in the family relations of accused persons where on 5th accused persons had gone for Lagan, on 6th a Barat was to come for the girl's marriage and on 7th another boy's barat was to go.
(23) Witness has denied the suggestion that the passage to that gali was blocked by making false complaints against the residents and by installing a pole in the said street. Witness has denied the suggestion that by taking advantage the age being a senior citizen his father kept him and his other brother behind the curtain and has intentionally came forward made allegation against the accused due to previous enmity. Witness has denied the suggestion that due to misbehaviour of his father, his other two brothers have left him and started residing separately. Witness has admitted that even in the year 2012 an FIR was got registered by his father through the court against the accused persons on the allegations of snatching of mobile vide No. 55/12 Police Station Rohini which is Ex.PW3/DX2. Witness has further admitted that the accused persons have also filed a cross case regarding the same incident vide FIR 71/2013 of Police Station South Rohini which is Ex.PW3/DX3 and has voluntarily explained that it is a falsely case. Witness has denied the suggestion that his father has been deliberately filing false cases against the Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 19 of 41 accused and other neighbors for ulterior motives. Witness has denied the suggestion that no incident as alleged by him and his family had taken place since the accused were busy in the arrangements of marriage in family. Witness has denied the suggestion that his father has filed a false complaint case. Witness has denied the suggestion that the contents of the complaint and the ground raised there in on the basis of which the FIRs were registered are false frivolous. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely under the pressure of his father only on account of previous enmity. Police Witnesses:
(24) PW1 ASI Baldev Singh has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon DD No.34A dated 02.05.2007, copy of which is Ex.PW1/A, copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A (Original DD entry and original FIR seen and returned). This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity. (25) PW2 ASI Jagbir Singh has tendered his examinationin chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon entry in register No. 19 vide Mud Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 20 of 41 No. 3383/06, copy of which is Ex.PW2/A (Original entry seen and returned). This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity.
(26) PW5 ASI K. P. Singh has deposed that on 05.03.2006 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Rohini and on that day on receipt of DD No. 6A (copy of which is not placed on record), he along with ASI Ramphool reached the spot where he found a three wheeler / TSR parked in a gali in a burnt condition. According to him, the tarpal/ roof of the TSR was burnt and Investigating Officer took the same into his possession and kept the same into a polythene bag and thereafter seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/A and later on 21.05.2007 his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. On Court question if the pullanda was sealed in his presence, the witness has replied hat pullanda was sealed in his presence but he is unable to tell the details but he thinks it was RK or something.
(27) The witness has stated that he can identify the case property if shown to him. This court was informed by ASI Jagbir, the then MHC (M) that as per the record, the case property had been deposited in the District Nazarat for the purposes of destruction by HC Jagdish, No. 170/OD however he is unable to show any court order directing the destruction of the case property. Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 21 of 41 (28) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that he had told the Investigating Officer his statement was recorded U/s 161 Cr. P.C. that the pullanda was sealed. However, when the witness was confronted with the statement Ex.PW5/DX1 where this fact of sealing is not found mentioned. Witness has admitted that the tarpal as above is an item of commercial use which is put on the TSRs and is easily available in the market. According to him, his statement was recorded by ASI Ramphool. Witness has admitted that his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. which is Ex.PW5/DX1 shows an overwriting on the date and shows as 05.03.2007 has been made into 21.05.2007. Witness has admitted that in his statement Ex.PW5/DX1 it does not find a mention that the burnt tarpal had been sealed. Witness has admitted that only the roof made of tarpal of the TSR was burnt but not the remaining TSR which was alright. Witness has further deposed that the Investigating Officer did not call the Crime Team and states that he only got the photographs taken at the spot. He has stated that it was through a private photographer that the photographs were taken but he does not recollect whether he has mentioned this fact in the statement Ex.PW5/DX1 that the private photographer had been called and the photographs were taken. This Court observed that this fact is not mentioned in the statement though some photographs are present on the record and even the private photographer had not been cited as a Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 22 of 41 witness.
(29) Witness has stated that the photographs Ex.PW5/DX2 to Ex.PW5/DX5 were the ones which were taken by the private photographer. According to him, the said photographs were taken around 4:00 AM but he did not call the photographer. He is also not sure if the Investigating Officer had called the photographer or not but states that he was called somewhere from the vicinity. Witness has admitted that the above photographs appear to have been clicked during the day time. Witness has denied the suggestion that the entire record has been fabricate by the Investigating Officer including the photographs, his statement and the seizure memo.
According to him, in his presence the Investigating Officer had never called anybody from FSL nor sent the TSR to FSL for expert examination to confirm about the cause of the burning. (30) PW6 SI Ramphool has deposed that on 05.03.2006 he was posted as ASI at Police Station Rohini and on that day he was on night duty and at around 2:00 AM he on receipt of DD No. 6A, he along with HC K. P. Singh reached the spot i.e. house No. 46, Naharpur village and there he found a three wheeler/ TSR bearing No. TL1RJ4009 parked in a gali with its roof/ tarpal in a burnt condition. He has stated that fire brigade had not reached the spot because it was a congested gali with no space and has explained that the fire had been put off by public persons. Witness has further Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 23 of 41 deposed that he met Chander Bhan and Jaipal Singh at the spot and he made inquiries from them but they did not make any specific statement and simply kept on saying that somebody had burnt their TSR. According to him, he collected the ashes and burnt pieces of the tarpal which were lying at the spot and kept the same in a polythene and converted the same into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of RPS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Witness has further deposed that they also informed that they were on inimical terms with neighbors staying on either side of their house and had suspicion on them. According to him, meanwhile it was morning and he tried to make inquiries from the persons who were passing through the area which included milkmen but nobody could inform anything about the incident so he returned to the spot and directed HC K.P. Singh to remain there whereas he himself had went to call a private photographer from the area and got photographed the spot of the incident which are Ex.PW5/DX2 to Ex.PW5/DX5 now to be read as Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A4. Witness has further deposed that it was already morning by that time and at around 67 AM Jaipal handed over to him a written complaint and he brought the pullanda and the complaint to the police station and placed both the complaint and the pullanda to the SHO and explained the circumstances to him and thereafter on the directions of the SHO he brought the complainant and the persons on whom he Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 24 of 41 had expressed his suspicion to the police station. According to him, from the side of the complainant Jaipal and his father Chander Bhan came whereas from the side of the other persons on whom they had expressed their suspicion, one Balbir came alone because there was a marriage in their family and SHO himself interrogated both the parties in the presence of each other and thereafter the SHO directed him to keep the DD entry pending and carried out a detail inquiry in this case. Witness has further deposed that he interrogated Balbir Singh and it was then revealed that Maha Singh and Raghubir had gone to Gohana Sonepat for purposes of fixing of matrimonial alliance of their daughter and thereafter taking permission from senior officers, he went to Gohana and on inquiry he came to know that Mahavir Singh and Raghubir were present at Gohana during the night and had already left during the day. Witness has further deposed that he then returned from Gohana and informed the SHO that presence of Maha Singh and Raghubir was shown at Gohana and he then interrogated the suspects Maha Singh, Raghubir, Rajesh, Sunil and their servant Darbari and Wakil and also the neighbors who were reluctant to say anything of account of previous enmity between the parties and he also recorded the statement of Chander Bhan. According to him, thereafter he produced Chander Bhan and Jai Pal before the SHO and both of them expressed their satisfaction with the inquiry and requested for the copy of the inquiry Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 25 of 41 report for the purposes of obtaining insurance and he handed over to them the copy of the report and recorded the statement of Jaipal in this regard and filed DD No. 6A vide DD No. 10A.
(31) Witness has further deposed that thereafter the complainant filed the complaint U/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. in the court of Ld. MM and on the directions of the Ld. MM the present FIR was registered on 02.05.2007 and he was on leave during this period and when he returned from leave on 21.05.2007 he was handed over the investigations of this case. Witness has further deposed that he then prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Jai Pal Singh which site plan is Ex.PW6/B and he recorded the statement of HC K.P. Singh and again interrogated the various suspects but he did not find any evidence warranting the apprehension, arrest of the accused or for proceedings against them. The DD No. 10A dated 15.03.2006 vide which he had closed the DD No. 6A is Ex.PW6/C. Witness has further deposed that on 16.09.2007, the present case was transferred from him. He states that he can identify the case property if shown to him.
(32) On court question if would can tell the name / address and details of the photographer from whom he got the photographs taken, the witness has replied that he cannot tell the name / address and details. On another Court question if he can tell the distance between village Naharpur and Gohana and the time it takes to reach Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 26 of 41 there, the witness has replied that he was not sure but it is 7075 Km and it takes around 11.15 hours and maximum 1 ½ hours to reach Gohana and states that he had made inquiries as to how Maha Singh and Raghubir had reached Gohana and was told that they had taken a bus but did not collect the tickets because he was told that they had gone in a car but came back in a bus. On further asking by the court if he had made any entry in the rojnamcha before leaving or after coming back and provide the details if any, the witness has responded that he had not made any departure entry and had made an entry at Sadar Thana but he cannot tell the entry details. The witness was put a question by the court if he had issued any notice U/s 160 Cr. P.C. before calling the complainant and the suspects to the police station, on which the witness has replied in negative and has stated that he had only called them on the instructions of SHO Insp. Surender Dahiya.
(33) This court was also informed by ASI Jagbir, the then MHC (M) that as per the record, the case property has been deposited in the District Nazarat for the purposes of destruction by HC Jagdish, No. 170/OD but he is unable to show any court order directing the destruction of the case property as has been done. (34) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has admitted that the tarpal as above is an item of commercial use which is put on the TSRs and is easily available in Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 27 of 41 the market. Witness has admitted that his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. which is Ex.PW5/DX1 shows an overwriting on the date and shows as 05.03.2007 has been made of 21.05.2007 and has voluntarily explained that it was a mistake. Witness has admitted that in the statement of HC K.P. Singh which is Ex.PW5/DX1 it does not finds mentioned that the burnt tarpal had been sealed. According to him, he did not call the crime team but he got the photographs taken at the spot and since the case had not been registered therefore he did not mention this fact regarding the calling of the private photographer or regarding the sealing of the tarpal any where including in the arrival entry which he made when he returned to the police station. Witness has admitted that during the investigations after the registration of the case, he did not mention the name and details of the private photographer and it is for this reason that he has not been cited as a witness. Witness has denied the suggestion that photographs Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A5 has been fabricated and has been taken after manipulating the scene of crime and were given to him by the complainant and his father much later or it is for this reason that he was unable to give the details of the photographer. According to him the photographs were taken around 78AM and he did not call the team from the FSL nor he sent the TSR or the seized ashes and tarpal to the FSL for purposes of examination and ascertaining the cause of fire. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not do so Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 28 of 41 deliberately or that the entire record has been fabricate by him including the photographs, statements of various witnesses and documents prepared by him including seizure memo.
(35) PW7 Retd. SI Shri Ram has deposed that he was entrusted the investigations of the present case on 17.09.2007 and the MHC (R) handed over the case file to him on which he interrogated Maha Singh, Sunil, Rajesh and Raghuvir and one or two persons whose name he does not recollect but could not find any evidence against the accused on the basis of which they could be connected with the offence of the present case and therefore he prepared the closure report of the case and filed the same in the court. This witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted.
(36) PW8 SI Manwar Patwal has deposed that in the month of October, 2006 date he does not recollect, he was asked to file a status report in the court of Ld. MM in which the application of the complainant U/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. was filed and he filed the status reports in the court which are Ex.PW8/A1 (dated 07.12.2006) bearing his signatures at point A Ex.PW8/A2 (dated 03.05.2007) bearing his signatures at point A and Ex.PW8/A3 running into two pages (dated 15.12.2008) bearing his signatures at point A and thereafter on discussion with the SHO, the present case was got registered in the police station. This witness has not been cross Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 29 of 41 examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(37) After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure in which all the incriminating evidence / material was put to them which they have denied.
(38) The accused Jugdish @ Jaggi has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the the present case has been falsely registered against him on the false complaint of complainant because the complainant is a habitual complainant against him and his family and also the other local residents of the locality. According to the accused, the complainant has also developed an enmity against his family due to property matters and he is bent upon to harassing and implicating them in false and fabricated cases. He has stated that there was a marriage in his family and he was busy in the arrangements along with his other family members as marriage ceremony took place from 4.3.2006 to 6.3.2006 as on 4.3.2006 he along with his family members had gone to Gohana for Lagan ceremony and on 5.3.2006 the said Barat was to come and on 6.3.2006 the Barat of another boy was to leave. (39) The accused Maha Singh has also stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him the Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 30 of 41 present case has been falsely registered against him on the false complaint of complainant because the complainant is a habitual complainant against him and his family and also the other local residents of the locality. He has stated that the complainant has also developed an enmity against his family due to property matters and he is bent upon harassing and implicating them in false and fabricated cases. According to him, there was a marriage in their family and he was busy in the arrangements along with his other family members as marriage ceremony took place from 4.3.2006 to 6.3.2006 as on 4.3.2006 he along with his family members had gone to Gohana for Lagan ceremony and on 5.3.2006 the said Barat was to come and on 6.3.2006 the Barat of another boy was to go. According to the witness, on 4.3.2006 after giving Lagan he stayed at his sister's house at Gohana on that night and next day morning he came back and was busy in the marriage.
(40) The accused Raghubir Singh has stated that he is innocent and present case has been falsely registered against him on the false complaint of complainant because the complainant is a habitual complainant against him and his family and also the other local residents of the locality. According to the accused, the complainant has also developed an enmity against his family due to property matters and he is bent upon harassing and implicating them in false and fabricated cases. He has further stated that there was a Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 31 of 41 marriage in their family and he was busy in the arrangements along with his other family members as marriage ceremony which took place from 4.3.2006 to 6.3.2006 and on 4.3.2006 he along with his family members had gone to Gohana for Lagan ceremony and on 5.3.2006 the said Barat was to come and on 6.3.2006 the Barat of another boy was to leave. The accused has also stated that on 4.3.2006 after giving Lagan he stayed at his sister's house at Gohana on that night and next day morning he came back and was busy in the marriage.
(41) The accused Rajesh has stated that he innocent and present case has been falsely registered against him on the false complaint of complainant because the complainant is a habitual complainant against him and his family and also the other local residents of the locality. According to the accused, the complainant has also developed an enmity against his family due to property matters and he is bent upon to harassing and implicating them in false and fabricated cases. He has further stated that there was a marriage in their family and he was busy in the arrangements along with his other family members as marriage ceremony took place from 4.3.2006 to 6.3.2006 as on 4.3.2006 he along with his family members had gone to Gohana for Lagan ceremony and on 5.3.2006 the said Barat was to come and on 6.3.2006 the Barat of another boy was to leave.
Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 32 of 41 (42) The accused Sunil has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, the present case has been falsely registered against him on the false complaint of complainant because the complainant is a habitual complainant against him and his family and also the other local residents of the locality. He has stated that the complainant has also developed an enmity against his family due to property matters and he is bent upon to harass and implicate them in false and fabricated cases. He has stated that there was a marriage in their family and he was busy in the arrangements along with his other family members as marriage ceremony took place from 4.3.2006 to 6.3.2006 as on 4.3.2006 he along with his family members had gone to Gohana for Lagan ceremony and on 5.3.2006 the said Barat was to come and on 6.3.2006 the Barat of another boy was to leave.
(43) The accused Rinku @ Ravinder has also stated that he is innocent and present case has been falsely registered against him on the false complaint of complainant because the complainant is a habitual complainant against him and his family and also the other local residents of the locality. According to the accused, the complainant has also developed an enmity against his family due to property matters and he is bent upon to harass and implicate them in false and fabricated cases. He has further stated that there was a marriage in their family and he was busy in the arrangements along Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 33 of 41 with his other family members as marriage ceremony took place from 4.3.2006 to 6.3.2006 as on 4.3.2006 he along with his family members had gone to Gohana for Lagan ceremony and on 5.3.2006 the said Barat was to come and on 6.3.2006 the Barat of another boy was to leave.
(44) In their defence, the accused have examined one Dharambir as DW1 who has deposed that he knew the accused persons being related to him as they are sons and grand sons of his chacha. He deposed that he also know the complainant and his family as the complainant Chander Bhan is his real chacha. According to him it was on 5.3.2006 the marriage of his daughter was fixed and on 4.3.2006 he along with his relatives including the accused persons had gone for the lagan ceremony of his daughter Gohana and thereafter they all came back except Maha Singh and Raghubir as they stayed there at the house of their sister who is married in Gohana. He has deposed that on 5.3.2006 the Barat of his daughter came to their house and in the night the after completing the marriage ceremony the Barat returned back.
(45) The witness has further deposed that on next day i.e. on 6.3.2006 the marriage of his son was also fixed and on that day at about 7:00 PM the barat had left the house for village Garh Sahjanhanpur Distt.: Sonipat, Haryana and in the morning they came back to their house after completing the marriage ceremonies. Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 34 of 41 According to the witness all the accused persons were present in the said marriage with them. The marriage card of his son and daughter which is placed on record is Ex.DW1/A. (46) In his crossexamination by Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, the witness has deposed that he is not a summoned witness and had come to the court on the asking of accused Raghubir Singh. He has deposed that he had not brought any documentary proof showing his identity but he is running a dairy. He is unable to produce any photographs or video CD from his side to establish the fact that the accused persons were present in the function of marriage at Gohana. The witness admits that the photographer had been called and has voluntarily explained that the photographer was brought by the family of the bridegroom. He has denied that the accused persons were not present in the marriage or that on account of his family relations and close business dealings with the accused he is deposing falsely only to save them from penal consequences.
FINDINGS:
(47) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and the memorandum of arguments Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 35 of 41 filed by the parties. My findings are as under:
(48) At the very outset I may observe that pursuant to the investigations conducted by the police, a closure report had been filed as the Investigating Officer did not find sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused persons who according to the Investigating Officer has raised a defence of alibi and on inquiry it was found that at the time of incident they were present at Gohana, Haryana and were not present a the spot of alleged incident.
However, subsequently it was only on the basis of the statement of the complainant and his son that the Ld. MM had summoned the accused persons and the offence under Section 436 IPC being triable by the court off Sessions the case had been received by this court on committal.
(49) Secondly the case of the complainant rests on his own statement and on the testimony of his son Jail Pal Singh. I may observe that Chander Bhan the complainant before this court aged around 85 years is into serious litigations both Civil and Criminal, with the accused persons who are related to him being his brothers, nephews and first cousins. It is not denied by both the parties that the area where the incident took place is a rural area and there is a civil dispute pending between the parties with regard to rasta/ right of way and in pursuance thereto a large number of cases have been registered by them against each other. Both Chander Bhan and Jai Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 36 of 41 Pal have been exhaustively cross examined wherein they have considered all these aspects and it is confirmed from the record that Chander Bhan is habitual litigant with two of his sons as serving officials of Delhi Police.
(50) Thirdly it is evident from the record that apart from being involved into litigations with his cousins / accused persons, the complainant and his son Jai Pal are also involved into litigations with other persons of the same area having filed Public Interest Litigations. In so far as Jai Pal is concerned, he was also into a dispute with his wife previously wherein the allegations were that he consumed liquor and was addicted to it and harassed her. When this aspect was put to Jai Pal and Chander Bhan in their cross examination they conceded and admitted the same. In fact Jai Pal also admitted that he consumed liquor but denied that he is a habitual alcoholic and on the date of incident could have left burning cigarette in the TSR on account of which it was burnt. The allegations of the accused having burnt the TSR are only oral with no corroboration forthcoming from any other source.
(51) Fourthly it is writ large from the testimony of the IO SI Ramphool (PW6) that on receiving the complaint when he first came to the spot, the only person he met there was Jai Pal and his father Chander Bhan but at that time they did not raise any suspicion on any person including the accused. He has stated that when he reached the Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 37 of 41 spot he had collected ashes and burnt pieces of tripal and put the same in the polythene. He has confirmed that at that time there was nobody from the family of the accused as he was informed that that there was a marriage in their family and all of them had gone for attending the marriage at Gohana, Sonipat on which he (IO) also went to the said area at Gohana, Sonipat and made inquiries and confirmed that the accused persons were in fact present there in the to attend the marriage ceremonies. He has also proved having made inquiries from the local milkwalas and other persons who had come to the spot in the morning including the neighbours but none of them could confirm the incident. I am sure that in case some incident had taken place in the manner as alleged by the complainant, some person of the area including neighbours, chowkidars, milkmen etc. would have come to know of the same which is not the case. (52) Fifthly it is evident from the record that neither the ashes nor the pieces of Tirpal which were collected from the spot of alleged incident, were sent to FSL for examination of the same to confirm the presence of any patrol / kerosene contents. In this background, the other causes of burning of Tirpal of TSR cannot ruled out. (53) Sixthly the Investigating Officer has also admitted that no Crime Team had been called to the spot and the photographs were taken. The said photographs and inspection of Crime Team is neither on record nor proved. The photographs on record which according Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 38 of 41 to the Investigating Officer were taken by a private photographer who has neither been named nor cited as a witness nor proved confirm that they were taken during the day time and nor at the time of the incident and hence non provide of these photographs are liable to be read against the prosecution.
(54) Seventhly the case property i.e. burnt tirpal pieces etc. have not been produced in the court and as per information of the department, the same had been destroyed and not preserved. It was necessary that while the case is pending and closure report has not been accepted by the court, the case property should have been preserved. The manner in which no expert report in the form of FSL has been obtained and the case property had been destroyed, the possibility of the same being at the instance of the complainant whose two sons are in the Delhi Police so that the complainant is not exposed to the criminal prosecution for making false complaints is possible.
(55) Lastly the accused persons have also examined witnesses in their defence and DW1 Dharambir who is related both the complainant being his real nephew and the accused who are the sons and grand sons of his other uncle / chacha, had confirmed that the accused persons along with other relatives were present in the marriage which took place in his family and on 4.3.2016 he along with the accused persons and other relatives had gone for lagan Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 39 of 41 ceremony of his daughter at Gohana and thereafter they all came back while the accused Maha Singh and Raghubir stayed at Gohana at the house of their sister who is married at Gohana. He further stated that on 5.3.2006 the Barat of his daughter came to his house and in the night after completion of marriage ceremony, the barat returned back. He has also proved that on 6.3.2006 the marriage of his son was also fixed and at about 7:00 PM the barat had left for village Garh Sahjahanpur District Sonipat, Haryana and in the morning after completion of marriage ceremonies, they came back. Under the given circumstances, it is impossible that when there were two marriages in the family that the accused would have been indulged into some criminal act as is being alleged by the complainant. Rather, there is every possibility that taking the advantage of absence of accused, the complainant who is inimical to them has filed a false complaint.
(56) This being the background and in view of the history of litigations between the parties and particularly the fact that even the complainant during his crossexamination has not completely supported the version given by him in his examinationinchief and has not been able to give not only the date of incident but also the time when it took place and the manner in which he noticed the incident and that he made improvement with regard to the allegations first made to the police, I hold that the prosecution has not been able Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 40 of 41 to prove and establish the allegations against the accused for which benefit of doubt is given and the accused Maha Singh, Rajesh, Sunil and Rinku are hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 435/436/506/34 Indian Penal Code and the accused Jagdish @ Jaggi, Maha Singh, Raghubir Singh and Rajesh are acquitted of the charge under Sections 427/506/34 Indian Penal Code. All the accused are on bail. Their sureties be discharged as per rules.
(57) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 17.02.2014 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
Chander Bhan Vs. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc. FIR 430/07 PS South Rohini Page 41 of 41