Delhi District Court
State vs . Veer Singh S/O Sh. Chattarpal on 21 January, 2014
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SHAHDARA), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Unique I.D. : 02402R0184042006 S.C. No. : 19/2014 FIR No. : 737/2005 Under Section : 328/379/411 IPC Police Station : Seema Puri In the matter of STATE Vs. Veer Singh S/o Sh. Chattarpal R/o Village Chaupur, Thana Rajpura, Distt. Badaun, UP. .................Accused Date of filing of Charge Sheet : 28/03/2006 Date of receiving the case in the : 17/01/2014 present court Date of reserving judgment : 17/01/2014 Date of pronouncement : 21/01/2014 Decision : Acquitted (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 1 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi. State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC J U D G M E N T
CASE SET UP BY PROSECUTION
1. On 14/12/2005, an information was received in PS Seemapuri regarding apprehension of a thief near Traffic Booth, Shahdara Border, Delhi. This information was recorded vide DD no. 12A and was sent to SI Dharam Singh. SI Dharam Singh alongwith Ct. Devender Singh reached Traffic Booth, Near Shahdara Border. On that spot, complainant Babu met them and he handed over custody of accused Veer Singh alongwith a bag to SI Dharam Singh. Complainant Babu gave his statement alleging that he was a resident of Panipat, Haryana and was a Rikshaw Puller. He was going to his native place at Distt. Badaun, UP from Panipat and in that process, he had come to Delhi. At around 10 AM at Shahdara Border, he was taking tea at a tea stall, when accused came to him. Accused started talking to complainant and told the complainant that he was also a resident of Badaun and planned to go together. In the meantime, two more friends of the accused came there and started having conversation with the complainant. The complainant had one briefcase containing his cloths and cash amount of Rs.10,000/ as well as one bag containing a pair of pant and shirt. The two friends of the accused slipped away with briefcase of complainant and accused also started running away after (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 2 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC taking the bag of the complainant. Complainant caught accused with the help of public persons.
2. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, SI Dharam Singh prepared a rukka and FIR was lodged for offence under Section 379/411 IPC. During investigation, IO recorded statement of several police witnesses and owner of the tea stall. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet against accused, for offence under Section 379/411 IPC was filed in the court of Ld. MM. A trial commenced against the accused Veer Singh for offence under Section 379/411 IPC in the court of Ld. MM, however, when complainant testified before Ld. MM on 18/10/2012, he mentioned in his statement that accused alongwith his associates shrugged off a blanket in front of his mouth, due to which, he became disoriented. On the basis of such statement of the complainant, Ld. MM observed that a case of offence under Section 328 IPC was disclosed before the court and therefore Ld. MM committed this case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 16/11/2012.
3. Thereafter, fresh charges were framed against the accused in this court, for offence under Section 328/379/411/34 IPC vide order dated 25/03/2013.
CHARGES AGAINST ACCUSED
4. Accused was charged with allegation that on 14/11/2005, at about (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 3 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC 10.00 AM at tea stall, near Shahdara Border, he alongwith his two other associates formed common intention to steal the articles of the complainant Babu, by intoxicating him through some unwholesome drugs and in furtherance of that intention, they shrugged off a blanket containing unwholesome drug in front of mouth of the complainant, due to which he became disoriented and thus accused committed an offence under Section 328/34 IPC. Accused was also charged with allegation that on same date, time and place, he alongwith two associates in furtherance of common intention, committed theft of one briefcase containing cloth and Rs.10,000/ alongwith a bag containing old pant and shirt thereby committing offence under Section 379/34 IPC. Accused was also charged with allegation that on same date, time and place, he was found in possession of stolen bag containing old pant and shirt of the complainant, which he had stolen or received or retained intentionally and having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, thereby committing offence under Section 411 IPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. PW1 Smt. Nasreen was examined twice in this case. For the first time, she was examined on 06/07/2011 before Ld. MM. At that time, she testified that on 14/11/2005 at about 10.00 AM, she was present at her tea stall and two persons came there (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 4 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC asking for tea. They were served the tea and in the meantime, accused also came there and sat alongwith those two persons. Those two persons took away her attachee (briefcase) while accused took away her bag, which was containing earring, Pajeb, cloths and cash of Rs.5,000/ or Rs.6,000/ (approx.). Two persons managed to flee away from the spot with the attachee (briefcase). On raising hue and cry by PW1, public persons gathered and apprehended the accused. Someone made a call to police at 100 number and thereafter, police came there. Custody of the accused and case property was handed over to the police. Police prepared site plan at the instance of the PW1 and seized the case property i.e. bag. Accused was arrested. During examination of PW1, one unsealed bag of cloth containing one set of pant and shirt was produced before her and she identified the same as the case property in this case.
6. Since PW1 had deposed contrary to her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, Ld. APP cross examined her and in her cross examination, she was read over her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW1 denied that the briefcase and bag belonged to a different person, who came to her shop for tea. She also denied that accused had taken away the briefcase and bag belonging to that other person. She deposed that she had never given such statement to the police that the briefcase and bag belonged to that other person and she claimed that she had told the police that these articles belonged to her.
(Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 5 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC In her cross examination conducted by counsel for accused, she deposed that police had not recorded statement of any other person in her presence and her statement was recorded in the police station.
7. In her fresh testimony before this court recorded on 27/04/2013, PW1 deposed that on 14/11/2005 at about 10.00 AM, she was present at her tea stall situated at Seemapuri border. Two boys carrying a briefcase and bag came at her shop and asked for tea. They were served with tea and in the meantime, accused also came there and picked up the bag of a person, who was taking tea at her tea stall. Accused started running away but the public persons caught him. The police brought the accused at her shop and she had identified him as the person, who had taken away the bag of the person, who was taking tea at her tea shop. Once again, a bag of Khaki colour was produced before her and she identified the same as the same bag, which was picked up by the accused from her shop and which was recovered from the possession of the accused. In her cross examination conducted by ld. defence counsel, she deposed that she had not stated in her previous statement before the court of ld. MM that accused had taken away her bag containing her belonging and articles. She further deposed that the statement given by her in this court was the correct statement. She denied having made the statement as recorded on 06/07/2011 in the Court of ld. MM. She further deposed that she did not visit the police station and (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 6 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC police was called by her. She further deposed that she could not tell the name of the owner of the briefcase and bag. She could not tell whether any customer had put up a blanket on himself at the relevant time. She reiterated that the bag and briefcase were belonging to some other person, who came to take tea at her shop.
8. Like PW1, PW2 Babu Singh was also examined twice in this case. For the first time, he was examined on 18/10/2012 before ld. MM, when he testified that around seven years back from that day, he came from Panipat and arrived at ISBT Anand Vihar in order to go to his native place at Distt. Badaun, UP. He was carrying his briefcase containing five coconuts, ash, one dhoti kurta of his father, one dhoti of his mother, his pant and shirt. He was also having cash of Rs.80/ in front pocket of his shirt and cash amount of Rs. 12,000/ inside his shoe. At about 5.30 AM, when he was present at ISBT Anand Vihar and was waiting for a bus for Badaun, accused alongwith one associate came to him and asked him about the place to get a bus for Badaun. In the meantime, third person came there calling passengers for Badaun. At the same moment, accused alongwith his associate started shrugging off a blanket in front of his mouth, due to which he became disoriented. Thereafter, all these persons including accused took him out of ISBT Anand Vihar and suggested to him that one bus for Badaun was stationed at their travel office. When they (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 7 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC were heading towards the office, all of sudden accused caught hold of him from behind and one of his associate showed knife to him and took away his briefcase. All these persons unlaced his shoes and took out cash of Rs.12,000/ as well as cash of Rs.80/ from his front pocket. Thereafter, both associates of the accused fled away with his briefcase and cash amount, but he caught hold of accused Veer Singh and did not let him go. Thereafter, he brought the accused to the police station Seemapuri and narrated the entire incident to the police. Police recorded his complaint Ex. PW2/A.
9. On the basis of aforesaid statement, this case was committed to this court and thereafter, this witness was again examined before this court on 03/07/2013. In his testimony before this court, PW2 deposed that he came to Anand Vihar Bus Stand and accused Veer Singh met him at the bus stand and told him that he was plying a vehicle from Delhi to Badaun, which was parked outside the bus stop. The accused was accompanied by two other persons. Accused caught hold of him from his back and his two associates put a blanket over his head. He was intoxicated by putting blanket. Other two associates of the accused snatched his briefcase and ran away, but he overpowered the accused Veer Singh and took him to the police station. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A bearing his thumb impression at point A. His briefcase was containing Rs.10,000/ and his cloths, which were not recovered so far.
(Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 8 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC
10. He was once again cross examined by Ld. PP as his statement was different from his statement given to police. In his cross examination by Ld. PP for State, he denied the suggestion that he was taking tea at the tea stall at Shahdara Border or that at that time, accused came to him and told him that he also belonged to Badaun thereby asking him to accompany him to Badaun. He denied the suggestion that two other associates of accused also came there and started talking with him and took away his briefcase. PW1 deposed that he did not state these facts before the police. He further denied that accused was caught with the help of the public persons. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW2/A. PW1 deposed that police had made a false story, while recording his statement and denied that he was won over by the accused. In his cross examination by counsel for defence, he deposed that he took accused to the police station and he was not aware about any blanket. He was not medically examined. He also denied having made statement in the court of Ld. MM on 18/10/2012 to the effect that accused was having one associate.
11. PW3 WSI Kusum Lata was the Duty Officer in PS Seemapuri on 14/11/2005 and had received the wireless message at around 10.00 AM to the effect that a thief was caught near Traffic Booth, Apsara Border. She recorded that information vide DD no. 12A and sent a copy of the same to SI Dharam Singh through Ct. Dinesh. A true extract of DD no. 12A was proved as Ex.
(Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 9 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC PW3/A. She further deposed that at about 2.10 PM on same day, she received a rukka sent by SI Dharam Singh and on the basis of same, she recorded FIR in this case. Copy of FIR was proved as PW3/B. She denied the suggestion that the FIR was antedated or antitimed.
12. PW4 Ct. Devender Singh deposed that on 14/11/2005, he was handed over a copy of DD no. 12A. He took that DD entry and handed over the same to SI Dharam Singh. Both of them went to Traffic Booth, Apsara Border, where a person namely Babu i.e. complainant in this case, was present. The accused was in the custody of public persons, who was beaten also by the public persons. SI Dharam Singh made enquiry and complainant told him that accused alongwith his two associates had removed his bag and briefcase, who was apprehended with the help of public persons, though his other two associates ran away. SI Dharam Singh recorded the statement of the complainant, made his endorsement on the same and the same was taken to PS by PW4 for registration of FIR. Accused was identified by this witness as well, who also proved Arrest Memo, Personal Search Memo and Disclosure statement of the accused by identifying his signatures on the same. PW4 further deposed that complainant produced a bag containing shirt and pant and told that accused had removed that bag from his possession and started running away, but was caught alongwith the bag. The bag was also taken into police (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 10 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC possession vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW4/D. Accused was taken to the hospital and after his medical examination, he was put behind the bar in the police station. Onceagain, unsealed bag with a set of pant and shirt was produced before this witness, who identified the same as the case proprty in this case.
13. In his cross examination on behalf of the defence counsel, he deposed that he had reached Apsara Border at around 10.15 AM, but no lady with the name of Nasreen met him. He further deposed that IO did not record statement of public persons except that of complainant, though he had made enquiry from the public persons gathered at the spot. He further deposed that public persons and the complainant alongwith the accused were found at the traffic booth and not at any tea stall. He also deposed that no blanket was recovered from the possession of the accused from the spot.
14. PW5 SI Dharam Singh was the IO. He also deposed that on 14/11/2005, after receiving DD no. 12A, he alongwith Ct. Devender Singh reached the spot i.e. tea stall, near Traffic Police Booth, Shahdara Border and met the complainant there. Complainant produced accused alongwith one bag of cloth and gave his statement Ex. PW2/A. He made his endorsement upon the same and sent it for registration of FIR through PW4. Thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex. PW5/B at the instance of Babu. After receiving copy of FIR, he seized the bag, arrested the accused, conducted his personal search and (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 11 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC interrogated and recoded his disclosure statement. Thereafter, he searched for coaccused persons, but they could not be traced. Thereafter, accused was sent to lock up at PS after his medical examination. On next date, accused was taken out from the lock up and taken to the tea stall. At the tea stall, he recorded the statement of Nasreen and again searched for coaccused persons, but they could not be traced. He also obtained police custody of the accused from the court for one day, but still coaccused persons could not be traced. On next date i.e. on 16/11/2005, accused was sent to the J/C by the court. He prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court. He also identified the bag produced having one shirt and pant.
15. In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, he deposed that he reached the spot at about 10.15 AM, where Ct. Devender / PW4 was already present. He recorded the statement of the complainant at the tea stall. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused or the entire proceedings were conducted in the police station.
16. PW6 was posted as MHC(M) in the PS Seemapuri at the relevant time and he brought original register no. 19 and proved the entry made by him at Sr. no. 3114, regarding deposit of Khaki colour bag containing pant and shirt, in the Malkhana.
PLEA OF THE ACCUSED (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 12 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC
17. The incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 11/11/2013. He denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence. He gave statement that his signatures were taken by the police in the police station on some blank papers and the witnesses had deposed against him at the instance of the IO, in order to falsely implicate him as this was one of the unsolved cases.
Accused did not opt to lead any defence evidence. FINDINGS
18. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW1 and PW2 are not trust worthy witnesses because they have given contradictory statement on different point of time. He further argued that their statement are not in consonance with the case projected by the prosecution. It was also argued on the basis of case law cited as Santosh Kumar v. State, 2008 [4] JCC 2919, that no offence under Section 328 IPC is made out against the accused as there is no medical evidence on the record, to establish that any intoxicating or unwholesome drug was administered to him.
19. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State relied upon statement of PW4 and PW5 and the statement given by PW1 and PW2 before this court, to say that despite PW1 and PW2 being hostile witnesses at different point of time, there is sufficient evidence with aid of statement given by PW4 and PW5 to (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 13 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC prove the charges against the accused.
20. I shall start with the charge relating to offence under Section 328 IPC. In Santosh Kumar v. State (Supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi laid down the essential ingredients of Offence under Section 328 IPC in the following manner: "A perusal of this Section would show that the following elements are essential to constitute an offence under Section 328 IPC:
(i) Some person or persons should administer or cause to be taken by any person any poison or stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing; and
(ii) The intention of the person or persons mentioned in (i) should be to cause hurt to the person concerned, or should be within knowledge on the part of the person or persons that the result of his act or their act was likely to cause hurt to the concerned persons.
Both these elements should exist conjunctively, then and then alone would the (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 14 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC offence be complete and the person or persons, as the case may be, would be guilty of the offence contained in Section 328 IPC."
21. In the same case, the Court also held that there must be concrete medical evidence to establish administration of any drug or intoxicating substance, while making following observations: "Simply on the basis of the statement of PW5 alone it could not be concluded that he had become unconscious because of eating the biscuit or drinking tea offered to him by the accused. There had to be medical evidence to the effect that PW5 had, in fact, become unconscious because of consuming any drug or intoxicating substance etc. mixed in tea or biscuit."
22. Admittedly, in the present case the complainant was not taken for any medical examination. In the complaint Ex. PW2/A, no such allegations were recorded, therefore, it is not improbable that no need was realized by the IO to take the complainant for his medical examination. The judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Santosh (Supra) lay down the essential ingredients of Section 328 IPC. Thus, the observations made in that case make it amply clear that it is onus of the prosecution to produce medical evidence on the record, in (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 15 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC order to establish that the victim was intoxicated due to administration of some intoxicating or unwholesome drug. The mere oral statement in this regard cannot be sufficient to establish such charge. Therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge under Section 328 IPC against the accused.
23. Besides aforesaid conclusion given on the basis of the judgment passed in the case of Santosh Kumar (supra), I find that the evidence on the record of this case present different set of story regarding same incident. As per the case of the prosecution, an information was received in PS Seemapuri regarding apprehension of a thief near Traffic Booth, Apsara Border, Delhi and in response to the same, PW4 and PW5 visited the spot i.e. tea stall belonging to PW1 and met the complainant ie.. PW2.
24. However, PW1 has given two set of statements in this case. In her first set of facts, she claimed that accused alongwith two accomplish took away the briefcase and bag belonging to her. The two persons fled away with her briefcase, but the accused was caught by the public persons at the spot with the bag. In the another set of facts stated by her before this court on 27/04/2013, she changed her version altogether. She disowned her statement given before ld. MM on 06/07/2011 and came up with a statement, which was more in consonance with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, I (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 16 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC find that this witness had been changing her statement from time to time, as per her convenience for the reasons best known to her.
25. Similarly PW2 i.e. complainant in this case, came up with different version of the facts in his different statements. In his statement recorded before ld. MM on 18/10/2012, he mentioned that while he was waiting for a bus for Badaun at ISBT Anand Vihar, accused came alongwith one associate and asked him about the place to get the bus for Badaun. He further mentioned that a third person came and started calling passengers for Badaun and during that time, accused alongwith his associate started shrugging off the Blanket in front of his mouth, due to which he became disoriented. On the other hand, in his statement dated 03/07/2013 recorded before this court, PW2 mentioned that the accused came to him at Bus Stand Anand Vihar and told him that he was plying a vehicle from Delhi to Badaun, which was parked outside the bus stop. He further mentioned that accused was accompanied by two other persons. Accused caught hold of him near the bus stand from his back and his other two associates put blanket upon his head and he was intoxicated due to putting of that blanket upon him. There cannot be any confusion in respect of shrugging off the blanket in front of mouth and putting a blanket on the head and hence, two different descriptions of this same fact cannot be assumed to be a statement given out of inadvertence.
(Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 17 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC
26. Similarly, on one hand, PW2 claimed that accused asked him about a place from where he could get a bus for Badaun, but on next occasion, he deposed that accused told him that he was plying a vehicle from Delhi to Badaun. Thus, the story regarding the third person coming and calling passengers for Badaun is totally inconsistent with the another story projected by PW2 that accused came alongwith two persons and told him that a vehicle for Badaun was parked outside the bus stop. Similarly, in the statement dated 18/10/2012, PW2 mentioned that he had cash amount of Rs.80/ in front pocket of his shirt and Rs.12,000/ inside his shoes. But in his statement dated 03/07/2013, he modified the amount and stated that his briefcase contained Rs. 10,000/ as well as cloths, which were never recovered. These contradictions are reflective of the fact that even this witness did not give correct account of facts before the court, when he was examined on two occasions. The modifications and fluctuations in the description of facts, make this witness untrustworthy.
27. Now coming to the testimony of PW4 and PW5, who were the police officials and who visited the spot of the incident in response to DD no. 12A, I find that there is inconsistency in respect of the place visited by these two persons. PW4 in his cross examination by ld. defence counsel deposed that the public persons and the complainant alongwith the accused were found (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 18 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC at the traffic booth and not at any tea shop.
28. On the other hand, PW5 deposed that he had reached the spot at the tea stall, where PW4 was already present and at the same place, he met the complainant alongwith the accused. This witness further deposed in his cross examination that he recorded the statement of the Babu at the tea stall and did not find any other person present there. Thus, the presence of public persons at Traffic Booth on one hand is contradicted by statement of PW5 with his statement that he found PW4 and complainant at tea stall with no other person present there.
29. Furthermore, PW2/complainant in his statement dated 18/10/2012 as well as 03/07/2013 mentioned that he was present at Anand Vihar Bus Stand waiting for a bus for Badaun and he apprehended the accused and took him to the PS Seemapuri. It is worth to mention here that Anand Vihar bus stand and Apsara/Seemapuri border are situated far apart, with at least a distance of more than two kms. Therefore, the story regarding apprehending the accused outside Anand Vihar bus Stand and taking him to PS Seemapuri does not sound to be probale and natural course of action. Moreover, Anand Vihar bus stand does not fall under jurisdiction of PS Seemapuri. PW2 does not talk about any tea stall or about PW1 at all.
30. Thus, these different star witnesses of the prosecution created a (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 19 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC mess of the facts, in order to create only confusion regarding different account of facts pertaining to the alleged incident. The allegations regarding use of intoxicating blanket are not established at all. The place of theft is also uncertain as two different places have been projected in the evidence, where the theft of briefcase and bag had allegedly taken place. One projected place is tea stall of PW1 at Seemapuri border, while other projected place is outside of Anand Vihar, bus stand. On one hand PW2 claimed that he himself apprehended the accused, on the other hand PW1 and PW4 projected that accused was caught with the help of public persons. PW1 said that siteplan was prepared by IO at her instance, but IO/ PW5 said that he prepared site plan at the instance of PW2. PW2 did not say anything about the siteplan. In this case, IO could have obtained signature of the concerned person on the site plan, which is not there. IO should have looked for other public person as well to take account of facts regarding apprehension of the accused, but no other person was examined by him.
31. In my considered opinion, inconsistent evidence on the record cannot be relied upon in order to assume the guilt of the accused for alleged charge of theft or possession of stolen articles. In respect of prosecution of the case by public prosecutor, I do not find any fault. I am not even sure of tainted investigation of the case, though, there is always a scope for better and more (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 20 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.
State v. Veer Singh FIR No. 737/2005 PS Seemapuri U/S 328/379/411 IPC comprehensive investigation, so as to overcome the problem of hostile witnesses.
32. Therefore, in view of my aforesaid findings and observations, I find that prosecution has failed to prove the alleged charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, accused is acquitted of the charges. Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 21/01/2014 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
(This Judgment contains 21 pages) (Pulastya Pramachala) Page no. 21 of 21 Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi.