Delhi District Court
State vs . Nain Singh on 8 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUNEESH GARG, ACMM,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD, DELHI
Case No. 5438/2021
U/s 182 IPC
PS: Anand Vihar
State Vs. Nain Singh
JUDGMENT
a. CIS No. : 5438/2021
b. Date of commission of offence: 11.04.2012
c. Date of institution : 26.06.2018
d. Name of complainant : Inspector Rakesh Chand
e. Name & address of accused person : Nain Singh, S/o Sh. Girvar
Singh R/o H. No. 62,
Ground Floor, Saini
Enclave, Delhi-92.
f. Offence charged of : U/s 182 IPC
g. Plea of accused : Pleaded Not Guilty
h. Date when Judgment was reserved : 05.04.2022
i. Final order : Acquitted
j. Date of Judgment : 08.04.2022
Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 1 of 12
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
01. Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that accused Nain Singh gave false information to the police against person namely Jagdish, resulting in registration of FIR No. 96/12 and investigation against that person by police. The factual matrix of the case is that on 11.04.2012, Nain Singh came in Police Station Anand Vihar and filed a false complaint that on 17.11.2011 at about 11:35 AM, he was going with his wife and nephew in a car to DCP office, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi to give his statement before Inspector Vigilance, P.G. Cell, East District. As soon as they left from their home and reached near 100 meter from Raghunath Hotel, (where there is a red light), one Jagdish stopped their car with a stone in his hand and he was abusing Nain Singh. Jagdish was accompanied with other unknown persons who had iron rods in their hands with which they attempted to kill the Nain Singh. Nain Singh somehow ran from the spot and after some distance, the incident was informed to beat officer Vinod Kumar who instantly visited spot to apprehend them. Thereafter, Nain Singh reached at DCP office and gave a written complaint on which the FIR was registered. During investigation, inquiry was made from many about the incident and eye- witnesses were tried to be searched from the spot. Police officials got the copy of attendance register of office of alleged person Jagdish at DDA School, Block Shakurpur. Statements of Constable Vinod and Ms. Rajrani, Head Clerk of DDA office were recorded which proved that at the alleged date and time of incident, Jagdish was doing his duty in his Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 2 of 12 office. During investigation, the complaint of Nain Singh was found false. Hence, cancellation report of case FIR No. 96/12 was prepared and complaint u/s 182 IPC was filed against complainant Nain Singh.
02. Accused Nain Singh filed protest petition which was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor of the Court and Court took cognizance of offence under section 182 IPC on the kalandra/ complaint and the accused was called upon to face trial. After compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, on 25.01.2019, having heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused, a formal notice was served upon the accused for having committed an offence punishable under section 182 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined six witnesses.
PW-1 Smt. Raj Rani is Retired Assistant Director, Vikas Minar, ITO, Delhi. She deposed that in the year 2011, she was working as Head Clerk FOD-2, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and Sh. Jagdish Singh was working as UDC in the said office at that time. She further deposed that there was an inquiry with regard to presence of Sh. Jagdish Singh in the office on a particular day in year 2011 and she had also deposed in this regard before the Ld. Judge at Tis Hazari Courts Complex. She had furnished copies of attendance register showing attendance status of Sh. Jagdish Singh of that particular day. She had furnished attested copy of attendance register for the month of November 2011 and deposed that Sh. Jagdish Singh was Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 3 of 12 present on his duty in the said office on 17.11.2011. However, she was on casual leave on that day but Sh. Jagdish Singh was present on his duty as per the Attendance register. Attested copy of the said register is Ex. PW1/A. She was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Legal aid counsel for the accused.
PW-2 HC Vinod deposed that on 17.11.2011, he was posted as Constable at Police Station Anand Vihar. He further deposed that on that day, he was present near Raghunath Hotel in the area of his beat and at about 11:30-11:35 AM, one Nain Singh came there in a vehicle who was known to him prior to that day. Nain Singh was accompanied with one lady and one boy and he told PW-2 that one Jagdish along with his associates attempted to beat them and his associates were carrying sariya in their hand. On Court question regarding demeanour of Nain Singh, PW-2 deposed that Nain Singh was appearing normal to him and he did not notice any abnormal behavior on his part.
He further deposed that Nain Singh went away from there after informing him in this regard. He conducted inquiry in the nearby area in this regard but he came to know that no such incident had taken place there. He also did not notice any person having sariya in his hand there. Later on, HC Virender recorded his statement in this regard. He correctly identified accused Nain Singh and during leading question put to him by Ld. APP, PW2 admitted the suggestion of Ld. APP that Nain Singh had informed to him that one person namely Jagdish had tried to hit them with stone after stopping his vehicle. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 4 of 12 accused cross-examined PW-2 on behalf of accused.
PW-3 is Sh. Jagdish Singh. He deposed that 5-7 months prior to his retirement in the year 2012, police officials called him in the office of DIU and inquired about his official address and where he was on one particular day in year 2011. At that time, PW3 was working in DDA office Sheet bed Park, Laxmi Nagar, Sharkarpur as UDC. When police officials inquired, he informed that he was on duty on the said date. During his cross-examination by Ld. APP, PW 3 admitted that Inspector Rakesh Chand visited his house on 10.05.2011 and inquired about his presence of 17.11.2011 and was informed that he was on official duty in DDA office and joined office at 9:30 am and remained there throughout the day. PW3 also admitted that he informed Inspector Rakesh that copy of attendance register of relevant period of November, 2011 (Ex.PW1/A) was already given to previous IO and the same showed the he was on duty on 17.11.2011. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused cross-examined PW-3 on behalf of accused.
PW-4 is ASI Birender Singh who deposed that on 11.04.2012, investigation was assigned to him by Duty Officer and he visited the spot with FIR and tehrir and prepared site plan Ex.PW4/A at the instance of complainant and recorded his supplementary statement. No other witness was found at the spot. On 01.05.2012, PW 4 visited office of Jagdish at Laxmi Nagar, where clerk Raj Rani met him and PW4 checked attendance register and obtained copy of the same. He recorded Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 5 of 12 the statement of Raj Rani, who stated that Jagdish was present in the office on the date of incident. PW4 further deposed that Nain Singh also disclosed him that he told the entire incident to Constable Vinod and accused persons tried to break the glass of windows of the car. PW 4 recorded statement of Constable Vinod who stated that he could not find any man with iron rod. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused cross- examined PW-4 on behalf of accused.
PW-5 Retd. Inspector Rakesh Chand is the second IO of the case FIR No. 96/12. He deposed that on 28.02.2013, investigation of the case was marked to him and he verified the facts from previous IO, witnesses and office of Jagdish and learnt on verification from office that Jagdish was present in his office at the relevant time when accused Nain Singh has alleged that the offence was committed against him by Jagdish. Accused Nain Singh failed to produce anything to establish that Jagdish was present at the alleged spot and not his office. The complaint of accused was found false and cancellation report was prepared by PW5 on 25.09.2013. On direction of Senior Officer, he also prepared kalandra under section 182 IPC against Nain Singh and the same was filed with the cancellation report before the court. Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused cross-examined PW-5 on behalf of accused.
PW-6 Tej Singh, Security Guard deposed that he is security guard in DDA. He has produced original duty / attendance register in respect of attendance of Jagdish for dated 17.11.2011, copy of which is Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 6 of 12 Ex. PW1/A dated 15.04.2019.
04. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused was recorded on 23.10.2021 and he stated that he wanted to lead evidence in his defence. However, vide order dated 15.12.2021, he gave statement in writing stating that he did not want to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, defence evidence was closed.
05. I have heard the final arguments from both the sides and have perused the evidence on record led by the prosecution carefully.
06. Accused has been charged u/s 182 IPC. To prove the allegations u/s 182 IPC, prosecution was required to prove the essential ingredient of Section 182 IPC. Section 182 IPC is reproduced hereinunder:-
Section 182 IPC provides that "Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant-
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 7 of 12 term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
07. The case of the prosecution is heavily based on official documentary record and testimony of PW-1 Raj Rani, who is stated to be the witness, in whose presence PW Jagdish marked his appearance in attendance register on 17.11.2011. However, when the relevant entry in the register i.e. Ex. PW1/A is read together with the testimony of PW1 and police witnesses, it is seen that there are material loopholes in the case of the prosecution and evidence collected and led is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Ld. LAC for the accused has argued that there are material contradictions in testimonies of PWs. It was argued that PW4 has deposed in his cross-examination that PW1 was present in her office on 17.11.2011 and remained there for the whole day during duty hours and Sh. Jagdish (PW3) had marked his attendance in her presence, whereas, PW Raj Rani deposed that she was on Casual Leave on the said date and it points towards falsity of prosecution case. I find merit in the submissions of Ld. LAC that there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW4, which adversely affect the case of the prosecution. It is seen that PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP and during her cross-examination she stated that due to long lapse of time, she could not recollect some material facts and further that she had stated to the police that as per attendance record, PW3 was present in office on 17.11.2011. PW4 has deposed that Raj Rani had told him that PW3 was present in the office and her statement was recorded. Nowhere in his Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 8 of 12 examination-in-chief PW4 deposed that Raj Rani had stated anything about her presence on 17.11.2011. Examination-in-chief of PW4 does not suggest that Raj Rani had deposed about presence of PW3 on the basis of her presence in the office on the said date or memory instead testimony of PW4 suggests that attendance register was shown to him. However, PW4 deposed in his cross-examination that "Raj Rani stated(sic) me that on 17.11.2011, she came to her office and remained for whole day during the duty hours and Sh. Jagdish marked his attendance in her presence". Testimony of PW4 does not find support in the testimony of PW1. It is clear that either of them is not disclosing the true and complete facts. Though, PW Raj Rani did not bring her attendance sheet of the relevant period on record, her testimony regarding being on casual leave from 17.11.2011 - 19.11.2011 is not disputed by prosecution itself. Hence, once PW1 was on leave on 17.11.2011, it was not possible for her to have seen PW Jagdish signing on the attendance register on the said date. Likewise, she could not have stated to the police about witnessing the signing on the register by Jagdish on 17.11.2011, unless she indulged in falsehood. Now the question is, if PW1 was not available in the office, what could she gain by giving factually wrong statement to the police, unless, she wanted to collude with Jagdish and create evidence favourable to him. PW1 was never confronted with her statement given to the police by Ld. APP to assail her testimony on the point of having witnessed the Jagdish working in the office during working hours on 17.11.2011. Further, it was not disputed by any of the police witnesses that PW1 was on leave on 17.11.2011. A suggestion was given to PW4 Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 9 of 12 that he did not conduct thorough inquiry from the witnesses present at the spot under the influence of PW3 and his son Mahesh Rajput, which was denied by PW4. However, he disclosed in his testimony that he personally knew the son of PW3. Even though it is not disclosed as to in what capacity and manner PW4 knew the son of PW3, it can be said that enquiry/investigation conducted by PW4 is not foolproof.
08. Not a single witness from the office of PW3 was examined to reflect that PW3 was present in the office throughout the office hours on 17.11.2011. No other evidence like the CDR location of PW3 is proved on record. Further, there is considerable delay in the seizure of the attendance register copy Ex. PW1/A. The same was seized only on 01.05.2012, after a gap of about 6 months from 17.11.2011.
09. The testimony of PW3 regarding the practice of keys of almirah(where attendance register is claimed to be routinely kept) being brought from home of PW1 for marking attendance on days when she was on leave, does not inspire much confidence and is bereft of logic and common sense and unsupported by any government rule or regulation or office practice. No senior official from DDA office concerned was examined to reflect on this. From the testimony of PW1 and PW3, at best it can be said that there was no 'sanctity' of the attendance register and attendance could possibly be marked in the same in the absence of any designated official in charge of the register and in such a situation, it is impossible to tell whether any attendance entry of a official marked over Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 10 of 12 the same was of the same date or marked on the subsequent date(i.e. back dated).
In view of the discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the effective cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the defence, it can be safely said that accused has managed to create a dent in the story projected by the prosecution. Benefit of doubt has to go in favour of the accused.
10. Ld. APP for the State argued that accused has failed to prove that complaint lodged by him was not false. I do not find merit in the submission of Ld. APP for the State. Though accused has failed to prove that complaint made by him to police was not false but it is the duty of prosecution to prove its case. It is basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot drive any benefit, whatsoever, from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Reliance is placed on the citation AIR 1984 SC 1622. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. In case law reported as Sadhu Singh vs. State of Pubjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 55, The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed as under:
5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 11 of 12 necessarily has to go to the accused...
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Benefit of doubt has to go in favour of the accused. Accused Nain Singh is, accordingly, acquitted for offence u/s. 182 IPC. Bail bond/surety bond in compliance of section 437-A Code of Criminal procedure have already been furnished. Digitally signed copy be uploaded on the official website.
Announced in the Open (MUNEESH GARG)
Court on 08.04.2022 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Shahdara District/ Karkardooma Courts/
Delhi/08.04.2022
Case No. 5438/2021 State Vs. Nain Singh 12 of 12