Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay on 16 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 05, (CENTRAL
DISTRICT) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLCT01-016526-2018
Sessions Case No. 992/2018
FIR No. 230/2018
PS: Subzi Mandi
U/s 307 IPC
State Vs. Sanjay
a) Date of commission of offence : 08.08.2018
b) Name of the complainant : Ct. Naveen Kumar
c) Name of accused and address : Sanjay
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o RZ-153/179, Gali
No. 5, Sagarpur,
Delhi. Also at VPO
Bharthal, Dwarka,
Delhi
d) Offence complained of : u/s. 307 IPC
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : Acquittal
Date of institution of the case : 16.11.2018
Date of committal : 05.12.2018
Date on which judgment was : 18.09.2024
reserved
Date of judgment : 16.10.2024
SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 1 of 33
JUDGMENT
1. The criminal machinery of the State was put into motion in the present case on receipt of DD no. 32A dated 08.08.2018 by ASI Har Swaroop who along with Ct. Vikram reached at Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital and collected the MLC bearing no. 2199/1A of the complainant Praveen Kumar. As per the MLC, there was alleged history of physical assault by the accused near Tis Hazari Metro Station and the nature of the injury was opined to be sharp and simple. The concerned Doctor handed over the police dress shirt and hanky of the complainant together with the blood sample on gauge piece to the above said ASI which were taken into possession vide seizure memos.
2. The above said FIR bearing no. 230/18 dated 08.08.2018 u/s 224/186/353/332/307 IPC PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi has been lodged at the instance of the complainant Ct. Naveen Kumar who alleged that on 08.08.2018, he was posted as constable at PS Mayapuri and on that day, he along with HC Manoj was producing accused Sanjay to Tis Hazari Courts from PS Mayapuri. The accused Sanjay was arrested in case FIR no. 126/18 dated 11.07.2018 U/s 366/376/365 IPC PS Mayapuri. DD entry no. 25B had already been lodged at PS Mayapuri in respect of producing the accused Sanjay to Tis Hazari Courts from PS Mayapuri. The accused was brought to the court in the metro. At about 03:30 PM, he along with HC Manoj and accused Sanjay were coming downstairs from metro footover bridge near the gate of Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the complainant had held the SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 2 of 33 hand of the accused Sanjay. While coming downstairs, suddenly, the accused bent down on the pretext that he had suffered some pain in his leg. Accused Sanjay lifted a surgical blade and assaulted on the neck of the complainant Naveen Kumar by the surgical blade with the intention to kill the complainant. The accused Sanjay tried to get himself released from the clutches of the complainant. The complainant raised an alarm and with the help of HC Manoj, the accused Sanjay was overpowered. HC Manoj snatched the surgical blade from the accused Sanjay. Blood started oozing out from the neck of the complainant and with the help of the handkerchief, stopped the blood. The complainant in the injured condition with the help of HC Manoj produced the accused Sanjay in court room no. 268, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi where, the IO of the case W SI Anju Tyagi was already present. The accused Sanjay was handed over to W SI Anju Tyagi and the complainant came to Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital for his treatment. The accused Sanjay tried to flee by causing injuries to the complainant and caused obstruction in the discharge of the official duties of the complainant.
3. As per the charge sheet, HC Manoj also came to the Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, after a short while and the blood stained surgical blade was handed over to the IO SI Naveen. The sketch of the surgical blade was prepared and the same was seized vide seizure memo having the seal of NS which was handed over to ASI Har Swaroop after use. The site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant. The CCTV footage of the incident in question SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 3 of 33 was also obtained by the IO. The accused was interrogated after issuance of the production warrants and thereafter, the accused was arrested. The accused refused to sign on the disclosure statement. Complaint u/s 195 of the Cr.P.C. was obtained from ACP Mayapuri. The statements of the witnesses were recorded u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi for expert opinion.
4. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused Sanjay u/s 224/186/353/332/307 IPC.
5. Perusal of the record of the case reveals that the case was assigned to the Sessions Court on committal from the court of the Ld. MM by the orders dated 05.12.2018 passed by the ld. Sessions Judge, Delhi.
6. Vide orders dated 26.02.2019, the charges were framed against the accused Sanjay u/s 224/186/353/332/307 IPC.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as sixteen witnesses.
8. PW1 is Dr. Surendra Kumar, CMO from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital who has proved on record the MLC bearing no. 2199/2018 of the complainant Naveen Kumar as Ex. PW1/A. This witness has stated that on 08.08.2018, he was posted as CMO with Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and at about 03:55 PM, he had examined the patient Naveen Kumar vide MLC Ex. PW1/A. In the cross-examination by the ld. Counsel for the accused, PW1 has stated that he cannot say as to by which weapon, injuries were caused to the injured.
SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 4 of 33
9. PW2 is HC Manoj who was accompanying the complainant Ct.
Naveen Kumar on 08.08.2018, at the time when the accused was being produced in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi via metro. PW2 has stated that on 08.08.2018, he was posted as HC with PS Mayapuri and on that day, he along with Ct. Naveen was bringing accused Sanjay to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi from PS Mayapuri. Accused was arrested in case FIR no. 126/2018 PS Mayapuri. DD no. 25B had already been lodged with PS Mayapuri in respect of taking accused Sanjay to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi from PS Mayapuri. At about 03:30 PM, he along with Ct. Naveen and accused Sanjay were coming downstairs from metro footover bridge near the gate of Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. They had come down 10 or 12 stairs and in the meantime, accused Sanjay pretended to have pain in his leg. He bent, took out a surgical blade and assaulted on the neck of Ct. Naveen by the surgical blade. Accused Sanjay tried to get him released from the clutches of Ct. Naveen. Blood started oozing out from the neck of Ct. Naveen. He took custody of accused Sanjay and snatched the surgical blade from the hand of the accused. Ct. Naveen stopped blood with the help of handkerchief. They brought accused Sanjay to court no. 268 and produced the accused before the ld. MM. After seeing the condition of Ct. Naveen, ld. MM enquired as to what had happened. They narrated the incident before the ld. MM. Ct. Naveen was sent to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. Accused was sent to JC. The IO of case FIR no. 126/2018, W SI Anju Tyagi was already present in the SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 5 of 33 court room. He went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where, Ct. Naveen was under treatment. SI Naveen of PS Subzi Mandi came to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and he handed over the surgical blade to IO SI Naveen, who prepared the sketch of the surgical blade as Ex. PW2/A, which was bearing his signatures. After some time, Ct. Naveen was discharged from the hospital and he along with the Complainant and the IO came to the spot. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Naveen. Later, IO recorded his statement. PW2 has correctly identified the accused Sanjay, who was present in the court on that day and he also identified the weapon of offence i.e. the surgical blade which was exhibited as Ex. P-1.
In the cross-examination done by the ld. Counsel for the accused, PW2 has stated that on 08.08.2018, his duty hours were from 09:00 AM to 11:00 PM. PW2 states that he does not know in which case, accused Sanjay was arrested. He also does not know the time of arrest of the accused Sanjay. W SI Anju Tyagi had arrested the accused. Duty Officer had called him and informed him that he had to go to the police station as an accused had to be produced before the court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He did not receive any call from the IO. PW2 has admitted it to be correct that it is the duty of the IO to produce any accused before the court. He does not remember the exact time when he left the police station for the court to produce the accused. He along with Ct. Naveen and accused left the police station for the court. He does not know whether Govt. Vehicle was available at police SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 6 of 33 station. No Govt. vehicle was provided for taking the accused to the court.
PW2 has further stated in the cross-examination that he came to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi by a TSR. By way of volunteer, PW2 states that from the police station, they went to the dossier cell and then went to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He does not know the registration number of the TSR. He does not remember the time when they reached dossier cell. He has not claimed any bill of TSR from his department. He had purchased the token for traveling from Madipur to Tis Hazari. PW2 further states that no report is available to prove the aforesaid journey on the judicial file. He does not remember the time when they boarded the metro train. He also does not remember the time when they reached Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. PW2 has admitted it to be correct that Tis Hazari metro station was a very busy place.
PW2 has further stated that he had boarded the metro train at Inderlok Metro Station. Accused was in the custody of Ct. Naveen. PW2 was not holding the accused. He does not know by which hand, Ct. Naveen was holding the hand of the accused. PW2 further states that he was ahead of accused and Ct. Naveen. PW2 again states that he was 4 or 5 steps behind them. One or two persons were in between him and Ct. Naveen. He had mentioned about taking out of surgical blade by the accused in his statement. PW2 was confronted with his statement Mark PW2/1 recorded u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. where pointed object was mentioned instead of surgical blade. PW2 has admitted it to be SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 7 of 33 correct that many public persons were coming from their front side. He does not remember from where the accused had taken out the surgical blade. He does not know by which hand, accused had lifted the blade. IO did not record statement of any public person in his presence. IO did not record statement of any street vendor who used to remain present under the footover bridge. PW2 had taken the surgical blade from the hand of the accused. He did not ask any public person to assist him in snatching the blade from the hand of the accused.
10. PW3 is Ct. Naveen Kumar and he has deposed exactly on the same lines on which PW2 HC Manoj has deposed in his examination-in-chief. During the testimony of this witness, his statement, on the basis of which, the FIR in question has been lodged has been exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. The site plan has been exhibited as Ex. PW3/B and the seizure memo pertaining to the surgical blade has been exhibited as Ex. PW3/C. The uniform shirt and the handkerchief have been exhibited as Ex. P-2. In the cross-examination by the ld. Counsel for the accused, PW3 states that he does not know what were his duty timings on 08.08.2018. PW3 further states that the duty officer had asked him to take the accused to the court. He had not talked to the IO before taking the accused to the court. By way of volunteer, PW3 states that IO had met him at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He had met HC Manoj at PS Mayapuri. HC Manoj was also assigned the same duty by the Duty Officer. When he came to the police station, HC Manoj was already present there. He reached police SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 8 of 33 station at about 11:30 AM. No vehicle was available at PS at that time for taking the accused to the court. They left the police station after 12:00 noon but they did not remember the exact timings. They went to Madipur chowki from PS Mayapuri by an autorickshaw. He did not remember the registration number of the said autorickshaw. He did not claim the fare from his office. HC Manoj had paid the fare of the auto rickshaw. They did not come to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on that day. From police post Madipur, they went to Madipur metro station by another autorickshaw. DD entry was made at Police Post Madipur. He did not remember the DD number. He did not know whether the IO had placed the copy of the said DD entry on record. The distance between police post Madipur and Madipur Metro Station was about 1 Km. They reached the Madipur Metro Station at about 02:30 PM.
PW2 further states that they reached Tis Hazari metro station at about 03:20 PM. HC Manoj had purchased the token of metro for their journey from Madipur to Tis Hazari. He does not know whether HC Manoj had claimed the amount of token from the Govt. PW3 also did not claim any such amount. He did not know whether any proof of above said journey was placed on record by the IO. PW3 admits it to be correct that Tis Hazari metro station was a very busy place. He was not aware in which FIR accused had been arrested by the IO. PW3 admits it to be correct that IO had to produce before the court. By way of volunteer, PW3 states that on that day, IO had already reached Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 9 of 33 PW3 further states that the handcuffs of the accused were opened after reaching Tis Hazari metro station. PW3 did not take any permission from the IO to open the handcuffs. PW3 further states that accused was in his custody. He had mentioned about taking out of surgical blade by the accused in his statement. He did not remember the number of steps of staircase on which, he was present when the accused bent over to take out the surgical blade. PW3 admits it to be correct that many public persons were coming from the front their front side. He did not remember from where the accused had taken out the surgical blade. He did not know by which hand, accused had lifted the blade. He did not remember the measurements of the surgical blade. IO did not record statement of any public person in his presence. IO did not record statement of any street vendor who used to remain present under the footover bridge.
11. PW4 is ASI Jaswant Singh, the Duty Officer, who recorded the FIR bearing no. 230/2018. The copy of the FIR has been exhibited as Ex. PW4/A, the endorsement on the rukka has been exhibited as Ex. PW4/D and the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been exhibited as Ex. PW4/C, during the testimony of this witness.
In the cross-examination, PW4 has denied the suggestion that the FIR was ante-timed and ante-dated.
12. PW5 is Sh. Monu and this witness has stated that he was working as a clerk with Sh. Nishant Sharma, Advocate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whose chamber was situated near gate no. 3, Tis Hazari SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 10 of 33 Courts, Delhi. PW5 has further stated that on 08.08.2018, he was present in his chamber and at about 03:30 or 04:00 PM, one Constable and one Head Constable came in front of his chamber. There was an accused in their custody and there was an injury on the cheek of the Constable and blood was oozing out. PW5 has further stated that he came to know that the person who was in the custody of above said Constable and Head Constable had caused injuries on the cheek of the Constable by a blade. PW5 has further stated that after some time, both the above said police officials took the accused to the court complex and later on, the IO recorded his statement. PW5 has further stated that no incident had taken place in his presence. PW5 correctly identified the accused present in the court on that date.
In the cross-examination, PW5 has stated that he could not tell the names of the persons who had gathered after seeing HC Manoj and Ct. Naveen. The chamber no. of PW5 was A1 and it was situated at Gate no. 2 under bridge. He did not see in whose custody, the accused was. He did not see any blood. PW5 has further stated that Ct. Naveen was having handkerchief on his cheek.
13. PW6 is W SI Anju Tyagi and this witness has stated that on 07.08.2018, she was posted as SI at PS Mayapuri and on that day, she had arrested accused Sanjay in FIR no. 126/18 PS Mayapuri. On 08.08.2018, she had come to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the morning and she had directed HC Manoj and Ct. Naveen to bring accused at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. At about 03:30 PM, she was SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 11 of 33 sitting in the court of Sh. Manoj Kumar, ld. MM and after some time, HC Manoj and Ct. Naveen brought accused Sanjay in the court. She saw that blood was oozing out from the neck of Ct. Naveen and he had put his handkerchief on the wound. Ct. Naveen told him that accused Sanjay had caused injuries to him by blade. She informed the ld. MM in this regard and on the directions of the ld. MM, Ct. Naveen was sent to the hospital. She moved an application before the ld. MM to put handcuffs on accused Sanjay and the said application was allowed. The accused was remanded to JC and was lodged in the lockup. During investigation, she handed over the copies of the relevant documents of FIR no. 126/2018 to the IO of the present case. The photocopies were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. She correctly identified the accused present in the court on that date.
In the cross-examination, PW6 has stated that normally, accused persons were brought to the court by Govt. Vehicle but if the vehicle was not available at the police station, the accused persons were brought to the court by other modes of transportation like TSR or metro. She does not know as to how many Govt. Vehicles were available at PS Mayapuri on that date. She could not say as to by which mode of transport, HC Manoj, HC Naveen had come to the police station from PS Mayapuri. He does not know from which metro station, they boarded the metro train. She did not know whether they had come to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi directly or had gone somewhere else. She did not SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 12 of 33 remember whether any blade was produced before the ld. MM by HC Manoj and Ct. Naveen.
14. PW7 is ASI Har Swaroop, who has stated that on 08.08.2018, he was posted as ASI with PS Subzi Mandi and on that day DD no. 32A was assigned to SI Naveen. He reached Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital along with SI Naveen. SI Naveen collected the MLC of the injured Naveen Kumar. SI Naveen also seized a sealed parcel vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A(which was bearing the signatures of PW7 at point A) sealed with the seal of the hospital along with the sample seal which was handed over by the doctor to SI Naveen. SI Naveen recorded the statement of the injured and prepared rukka which was sent to police station for registration of the FIR through Ct. Vikram. After some time, HC Manoj also came to the said hospital and handed over a blood stained surgical blade to SI Naveen Kumar who prepared the sketch of the blade. The surgical blade was kept in a parcel which was sealed with the seal of MS and the parcel was seized vide seizure memo which has already been exhibited as Ex. PW3/C and which bears the signatures of PW7 at point B. PW7 along with SI Naveen, HC Manoj and the complainant Anil Kumar went to the spot from the hospital. SI Naveen prepared the rough site plan at the instance of the complainant. In the mean time, Ct. Vikram reached at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to SI Naveen. PW7 deposited the exhibits with MHC(M). IO recorded the statement of PW7 in the police station.
SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 13 of 33 PW7 has identified the surgical blade which has already been exhibited as Ex. P-1.
In the cross-examination, PW7 has admitted it to be correct that the surgical blade was not recovered from any person in his presence. PW7 has admitted it to be correct that the spot was a thickly populated area and SI Naveen had requested some public person to join the investigation at the time of pointing out of the place by the complainant but none of them had joined the investigation. No notice was served upon them by SI Naveen. SI Naveen had made enquiries from public persons but he did not record statement of any one of them in his presence. PW7 has admitted it to be correct that no chance prints were taken from the surgical blade and that the surgical blade was not having any blood stains.
15. PW8 is ASI Hashim Beg and this witness has stated that on 08.08.2018, he was posted at Tis Hazari Courts, Security as ASI and he was present at gate no. 2 along with ASI Anand. PW8 has further stated that at about 03:30 to 04:00 PM, one Ct. Naveen, HC along with one accused came at gate no. 2, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. PW8 noticed that there was cut injury on the neck and blood was oozing from the neck of Ct. Naveen. PW8 asked him about the blood and Ct. Naveen told him that accused Sanjay had inflicted blade on his neck as he tried to run away from his custody. PW8 correctly identified the accused who was present in the court on that day.
SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 14 of 33 In the cross-examination, PW8 has admitted it to be correct that he was not the eye-witness to the incident in question. PW8 has admitted it to be correct that many persons were coming up and down from metro stairs for boarding and deboarding from metro station. PW8 has again admitted it to be correct that some shops were running on the footpath near the stairs of the metro.
16. PW9 is HC Vikram Singh, through whom, IO SI Naveen had sent the rukka to the police station Subzi Mandi for registration of the FIR on 08.08.2018. PW9 has stated that on 08.08.2018, he was posted at PP Tis Hazari Courts, PS Subzi Mandi Delhi as Constable and on that day, he received DD no. 32A. He along with SI Naveen and ASI Harswaroop went to the Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, where, IO collected the MLC no. 2199/1A of the injured/ patient Naveen Kumar. Thereafter, the concerned doctor handed over to SI Naveen sealed pullanda with the sample seal and IO seized the same vide seizure memo which has already been exhibited as Ex. PW7/A, bearing his signatures at point B. IO recorded the statement of the injured Ct. Naveen and prepared the rukka and handed over to him for registration of the FIR. PW9 went to the PS for registration of the FIR along with the original rukka and got the FIR registered. PW9 returned to the spot i.e. metro stairs outside gate no. 2, where, he met SI Naveen, ASI Harswaroop, injured Ct. Naveen and HC Manoj. PW9 handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the IO. Thereafter, they returned to the police station and IO recorded his statement. PW9 has further stated that on 20.08.2018, he again SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 15 of 33 joined the investigation along with SI Naveen and went to court no. 345, where, on the production warrants of the IO, accused Sanjay was produced from the Jail. IO moved the application for interrogation and arrest of the accused and after taking the permission from the concerned court, IO interrogated the accused and arrested the accused in the presence of Ct. Anil vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/A bearing his signatures at point A. IO also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused as Ex. PW9/B. In the cross-examination, PW9 has stated that in his presence, IO did not make any enquiry about the incident in the hospital from any other except Ct. Naveen. PW9 has admitted it to be correct that IO did not make enquiry about the incident on the spot when he reached there along with the rukka and copy of the FIR. PW9, by way of volunteer, has stated that no public person was found present at the spot as it was already 09:00 PM. PW9 has admitted it to be correct that the distance between AAA Hospital and Tis Hazari Police Post is about 200-300 metres. PW9 has further stated that it took around one and a half hour in the PS Subzi Mandi in getting the FIR registered.
17. PW10 is Retd. SI Sushil Kumar and this witness has stated that on 18.08.2018, he was posted at CCTV control room, Tis Hazari Courts, Security as Sub Inspector. PW10 has further stated that the incident took place at gate no. 2, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. IO of the case made a request to provide him the CCTV footage of the incident which took place at gate no. 2 and of gallery in front of court no. 266. On the request of the IO, the CCTV footage was SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 16 of 33 given to him in two CDs along with the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act vide certificates Ex. PW10/A and Ex. PW10/B. The CDs have been exhibited as Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 during the testimony of PW10.
In the cross-examination, PW10 has stated that he had seen the footage at the time of giving the same to the IO. PW10 further states that he does not remember if he had seen in the footage, the accused while inflicting the injuries upon the complainant. PW10 has further stated that hard disk was not taken into possession by the IO. Ct. Chhote Lal developed the CDs Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 in the CCTV room in his presence. CCTV room is situated at room no. 44, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. PW10 does not know as to from which computer and configuration, the said CDs were developed. PW10 has denied the suggestion that Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 i.e. the two CDs are not containing the footage of the incident which took place at gate no. 2 and gallery in front of court room no.
266.
18. PW11 is ASI Ashok Kumar and this witness has stated that on 08.08.2018, he was posted as Naib Court in court no. 268 of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and on that day, HC Manoj and Ct. Naveen produced accused in the said court. PW11 has further stated that there was injury on the neck of Ct. Naveen. Ct. Naveen stated about the incident in the court while stating that the accused, who was present in the court on that day(correctly identified), had inflicted the injury upon him. W SI Anju Tyagi was also present in the court in respect of some SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 17 of 33 other case. SI Anju Tyagi moved an application before the court for handcuffing of the accused. The said request was allowed by the court and the accused was taken for his medical examination. In the cross-examination, PW11 has admitted it to be correct that the incident did not take place in his presence and that he has no personal knowledge of the present case.
19. PW12 is Ct. Hari Om and this witness has stated that on 11.10.2018, he had deposited three sealed pullandas and a sample seal from MHC(M) with FSL Rohini vide RC no. 178/21/18. PW12 has further stated that no tampering took place with the above said exhibits, so far as, the same remained in his custody. This witness has not been cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
20. PW13 is SI Anand Kumar and this witness has stated that on 08.08.2018, he was posted as ASI and his duty was in the security of Tis Hazari Courts at Gate no. 2. PW13 has further stated that on that day, in between 3-4 PM, the accused, who was present in the court on that day, was brought at Tis Hazari Courts from Gate no. 2 and he was in the custody of Ct. Naveen and one Head Constable. PW13 observed that blood was oozing out from the wound over the neck of Ct. Naveen and on enquiry, Ct. Naveen disclosed that the accused had inflicted injury upon him with some object.
In the cross-examination, PW13 has admitted it to be correct that he does not have any knowledge as to how Ct. Naveen had SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 18 of 33 received injury. PW13 further states that he does not know as to by which weapon, Ct. Naveen had been assaulted.
21. PW14 is Retd. ACP Anand Sagar and this witness has exhibited the complaint u/s 195 of the Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW14/A. PW14 has further stated that IO of the case prepared a supplementary charge sheet and at that time, he again obtained from him a complaint u/s 195 of the Cr.P.C. dated 31.12.2018 together with the list of witnesses which was exhibited as Ex. PW14/B. In the cross-examination, PW14 has stated that he did not see any CCTV footage of the day of the incident at any metro station. PW14 does not remember from which metro station, Ct. Naveen and the accused boarded and deboarded.
22. PW15 is Dr. Monika Chakravarty, Senior Scientific Officer(Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi and this witness has deposed that on 11.10.2018, three parcels in sealed condition were received in FSL Rohini and the same were marked to her for DNA examination. Parcel no. 1 was containing blood sample of the victim, parcel no. 2 was having one police uniform shirt together with handkerchief and parcel no. 3 was having a surgical blade. Blood was detected on all the above said exhibits. The FSL report 2018/B-9606/27227 dated 30.11.2018 was exhibited as Ex. PW15/A by this witness. PW15 has further stated that the Allelic Data was also prepared and the same was attached with the above mentioned report vide data Ex. PW15/B. This witness has also exhibited the forwarding letter to the SHO of the PS SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 19 of 33 concerned through which the report was sent to the SHO PS concerned as Ex. PW15/C. In the cross-examination, PW15 has denied the suggestion that the above mentioned reports were prepared at the instance of the IO.
23. The last witness examined by the prosecution PW16 SI Naveen, the IO of the case and this witness has deposed on the lines of the investigation carried out by him. The material aspects of the charge sheet have already been narrated hereinabove. This witness has exhibited the attested copy of DD no. 32A as Ex. PW16/A, through which, information was received from AAA hospital regarding the admission of the injured Ct. Naveen. PW16 has relied upon the seizure memo of the exhibits handed over to him by the concerned doctor, which has already been exhibited as Ex. PW7/A and the statement of Ct. Naveen which has already been exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. This witness has exhibited his endorsement on the statement of the complainant as Ex. PW16/B. PW16 has relied upon the sketch of the surgical blade which has already been exhibited as Ex. PW2/A and the seizure memo of the above said blade which has already been exhibited as Ex. PW3/C. PW16 has also relied upon the site plan of the place of occurrence exhibited as Ex. PW3/B. PW16 has stated that no witness was found on the spot on the date of the accident and even on the next day.
PW16 has exhibited the applications for collection of the CCTV footage of the day of incident which have been exhibited as Ex.
SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 20 of 33 PW16/C and Ex. PW16/D. PW16 has further stated that on 18.08.2018, he moved an application for issuing production warrants against the accused Sanjay vide Ex. PW16/E. The application for interrogation and arrest of the accused has been exhibited as Ex. PW16/F. PW16 has relied upon the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW9/B and the arrest memo which has already been exhibited as Ex. PW9/A. The notice u/s 91 of the Cr.P.C. served upon W/ SI Anju Tyagi for providing relevant documents has been exhibited as Ex. PW16/G. PW16 has relied upon the two CDs which have already been exhibited as Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 and the surgical blade already exhibited as Ex. P-1. In the cross-examination, IO of the case has stated that the accused was taken by Ct. Naveen and HC Manoj to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi but he did not verify regarding the metro tickets of the accused and Ct. Naveen. PW16 has further stated that there was only token issued by the metro authorities regarding the travelling via metro. PW16 has admitted it to be correct there was heavy public movement at the stairs of the metro at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and that there were hawkers/ vendors near the stairs of Tis Hazari Court metro station. PW16 has stated that he did not check the CCTV camera of the metro gate of Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi of the day of incident. PW16 has admitted it to be correct that two CDs have already been exhibited as Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 but in both the CDs, the accused is not seen committing the offence or giving injury to the injured. PW16 has further stated that he did not send the surgical blade to the finger print SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 21 of 33 expert regarding the matching of the finger print of the accused. PW16 did not take the clothes of the accused which were worn by the accused on the date of the incident. PW16 did not ask for a scientific analysis of the clothes of the accused.
24.After the conclusion of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the statement of the accused Sanjay was recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C.. The accused, in his statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case; that he did not inflict any injury upon the person of the complainant and a false case has been prepared against him by planting the weapon of offence i.e. the surgical blade upon him.
25.After the conclusion of the statement of the accused, the accused led his own evidence in defence.
26.The accused has examined himself as DW1. The examination-in- chief and the cross-examination of DW1 is being reproduced herein as under:-
" On 08.08.2018, I had to be produced by the police before Tis Hazari Courts. From PS Mayapuri, I was brought to Madipur Metro Station by a private Wagon-R car of HC Manoj. From Madipur Metro Station, the metro was boarded by me with police and we alighted from the said metro at Tis Hazari Metro Station. I had already been handcuffed with shackles by police at PS Mayapuri. At the time when I was stepping down from the stairs at Over bridge of Tis Hazari Metro Station, I was talking with Ct. Naveen. In the meanwhile, someone came there from back of Ct. Naveen and hit some sharp pointed object on the neck of Ct. Naveen. After hitting upon the neck, the said person fled away from there with fast pace. I was in the custody of Ct. Naveen. The blood started oozing out from wound of Ct. Naveen and he called HC Manoj with high pitch. At that time, HC Manoj SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 22 of 33 was ahead of us and he was also stepping down from the stairs.
On hearing the screaming noise of Ct. Naveen, HC Manoj turned his head towards Ct. Naveen and then Ct. Naveen pointed out towards above mentioned assailant while stating that he was the person who had attacked him and also asked to HC Manoj to catch the said person. By that time, the above mentioned assailant had fled away upto the distance of redlight near Metro Station. HC Manoj could not chase the said assailant as by that time, the said assailant vanished from there by running away.
HC Manoj came towards us and then, Ct. Naveen showed his injury to HC Manoj. HC Manoj on seeing the said injury stated to Ct. Naveen that he had been attacked with some sharp pointed object as there was small cut on his neck. Ct. Naveen raised suspicion against me while stating that "
mai sab samajhta hoon, wo tujhe chhudane ke chakkar me aya tha aur isliye usne mere upar hamla kiya hai". Ct. Naveen started beating me with fist and leg blows while so saying. I made request to Ct. Naveen for not beating me while saying that the assailant was not known to me.
I retorted to Ct. Naveen that " mujhe nahi pata wo kaun tha tumhara hi koi dusman hoga". On hearing the same, Ct. Naveen enraged and again started brutally beating me. Ct. Naveen handed over the lock of the shackles to HC Manoj by removing his belt. Then Ct. Naveen took out a handkerchief from the pocket of his wearing pant and put the same over his wound while stating tht "ab dekh mai tere sath kya karta hu, ab mai tere ko sidha court me le jaunga aur woha jakar judge ko bolunga ki ye sab tune kiya hai". Ct. Naveen also asked to HC Manoj to say the same things before the Court when I would be produced there and HC Manoj gave reply in affirmative. Thereafter, HC Manoj was asked by Ct. Naveen for taking me before the Court.
The IO of the case FIR No. 126/2018, Ms. Anju Tyagi had already reached at Court and she was waiting for us. HC Manoj and Ct. Naveen both stated to Ms. Anju Tyagi that Ct. Naveen had been attacked by me in attempt to flee away from their custody. Thereafter, I was produced before the Ld. MM and Ms. Anju Tyagi stated before the Court that I had attacked Ct. Naveen. Ct. Naveen showed his injury to Ld. MM while stating that said injury had been inflicted by me with some object. HC Manoj also told the same fact before the Court. Ct. Naveen was asked by the Court to immediately go to the hospital for his treatment. In the absence of Ct. Naveen, I stated before the Court that injury had not been SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 23 of 33 inflicted by me upon Ct. Naveen. Thereafter, I was sent to J/C remand. The present case is false and fabricated against me.
XXXXX by Sh. Parvesh Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State. The assailant was of the age around 25-30 years. He was of wheatish complextion. I do not know as to by which weapon, Ct. Naveen was attacked. The said assailant was wearing a cap. He was not in muffled face. The counsel from legal aid was provided to me in the present case after 3-4 months of submitting the charge-sheet by the IO before the Court. For the first time, I stated the aforesaid fact to my counsel when he was provided to me. No complaint against Ct. Naveen and HC Manoj was ever lodged either before Senior Police Authority or before the Court after providing me the counsel. Vol. Mujhe kuchh pata hi nahi tha is bare me.
My family members never visited the jail to meet me. Therefore, I could not get any opportunity to tell the aforesaid fact to my family members. I am 9th class pass. As and when, I was produced before the Court to extend my JC remand, even at that time, I could not tell the aforesaid facts before the Court as always was produced in shackles.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to save myself from clutches of law or that I have inflicted injury upon Ct. Naveen. "
27.I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record and heard the submissions of the ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the submissions of the ld. Counsels for the accused.
FINDINGS
28. The gist of the allegations against the accused Sanjay is that on 08.08.2018, at about 03:00 or 03:30 PM, on the staircase of footover bridge, outside Tis Hazari metro station near gate no. 2, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, he intentionally offered resistance and illegal obstruction to the complainant Ct. Naveen Kumar, who was producing him in court room no. 268, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR no. 126/18 dated 11.07.2019 u/s 366/376/365 IPC PS Mayapuri by attacking Ct. Naveen Kumar with a surgical blade on the neck of the complainant. As per the case of the SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 24 of 33 prosecution, the accused attempted to escape from the custody of Ct. Naveen Kumar.
29. During the course of arguments, ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused by the testimony of the complainant Ct. Naveen(who has been examined as PW3) coupled with the testimony of HC Manoj(who has been examined as PW2). It has been further argued that there is no motive to falsely implicate the accused on the part of the complainant. It has been further argued that though the nature of the injury has been opined to be simple on the MLC of the injured but the weapon of offence was a surgical blade and the attack was on the vital part of the body of the complainant i.e. on the neck of the complainant. It has been further argued that the FSL report has been proved by PW15 Dr. Monika Chakravarty. It has been further argued by the ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused Sanjay u/s 224/186/353/332/307 of the IPC.
30. Whereas, on the other hand, ld. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that there are vital contradictions in the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 and as such, their testimonies cannot be relied upon at all. It has been further argued that even the recovery of the surgical blade has not been proved by the prosecution from the possession of the accused and the surgical blade was planted upon the accused subsequently. It has been further argued that despite the availability of the public witnesses, the prosecution failed to examine any of the public witnesses and SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 25 of 33 as such, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. It has been further argued that neither by way of ocular evidence nor by way of circumstantial evidence, the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt has been proved by the prosecution and as such, the accused is liable to be exonerated.
31. As per the settled law, the guilt of the accused could have been proved by the prosecution either by way of ocular evidence or by way of circumstantial evidence. Now, let us examine the ocular evidence as well as the circumstantial/ medical/ forensic evidence led by the prosecution in the present matter.
32. Coming to the ocular evidence, the complainant himself, who has been examined as PW3 and HC Manoj, who has been examined as PW2 and who was accompanying the complainant Ct. Naveen and the accused as well on the date and time of the incident, are the two main and star witnesses of the prosecution.
33. The weight to be attached to the testimony of the injured himself has been discussed in a number of cases such as in the matter titled as Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh cited as (2010)10SCC259. The testimony of the victim of an offence stands on a higher footing, as is the settled law. It is also true that in the case in hand, the injured has examined himself as PW3 and testified that it was the accused Sanjay who had inflicted injury upon his neck by a surgical blade, while he was producing the accused in the court, but to my mind, in the case in hand, the testimony of PW2, HC Manoj is in stark contravention and SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 26 of 33 diametrically opposite to the testimony of the complainant Ct. Naveen.
34. Needless to mention that as per the case of the prosecution, PW2 HC Manoj was accompanying the complainant Ct. Naveen on the date and time of the incident and the accused was in the custody of Ct. Naveen who was holding the hand of the accused. However, it has to be seen that PW3 in the cross-examination states that he had met HC Manoj at PS Mayapuri and they went to Madipur Chowki from PS Mayapuri by an autorickshaw. PW3 further states that they did not come to Tis Hazari by an autorickshaw on that day and from police post Madipur, they went to Madipur metro station by another autorickshaw. PW3 further states that DD entry was made at Police Post Madipur but he does not remember the DD number. Whereas, PW2 HC Manoj, in the cross-examination, states that they came to Tis Hazari Courts by a TSR. By way of volunteer, PW2 states that from the police station, they went to the dossier cell and then went to Tis Hazari Courts. PW2 further states that he had boarded the metro train at Inderlok Metro Station. PW2 further states that he does not know by which hand, Constable Naveen was holding the hand of the accused. PW2 further states that he was ahead of the accused and Ct. Naveen but he again states that he was 4 or 5 steps behind them.
35. Keeping in view the above said discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the testimony of PW2 is in stark contravention to the testimony of PW3, so far as the station from which the metro SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 27 of 33 train was boarded by them is concerned and so far as the route which was taken by them in coming to Tis Hazari Courts. PW2, in the light of his cross-examination and in the opinion of this court, has also not seen the incident of committing the assault by the accused with the surgical blade because at one point of time, PW2 states that he was ahead of the accused and Ct. Naveen but again in the same breathe, he states that he was 4 or 5 steps behind them.
36. Furthermore, it has to be seen that PW2 states that he does not remember from where the accused had taken out the surgical blade and he does not know by which hand, the accused had lifted the blade but in his statement u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C., HC Manoj had stated that the surgical blade was lying on the staircase of the footover bridge and the same was lifted by him. The complainant PW3 Ct. Naveen also states in his cross- examination that he does not remember from where the accused had taken out the surgical blade and he does not know by which hand the accused had lifted the blade. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are major contradictions in the testimony of PW2 and PW3 rendering their testimonies as unreliable and untrustworthy.
37. The case of the prosecution is squarely based on the premise that the accused tried to free himself from the custody of Ct. Naveen and flee away but PW2, in his examination-in-chief, has not uttered even a single word on this aspect of the matter. There is SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 28 of 33 no evidence on record to show that the accused tried to free himself from the custody of Ct. Naveen and flee away.
38. As per the case of the prosecution and as per the testimony of PW3 Ct. Naveen, the accused was brought in handcuffs but PW3, in his cross-examination, states that the handcuffs of the accused were opened after reaching Tis Hazari metro station and he did not take the permission from the investigating officer to open the handcuffs. This court fails to understand as to why, the handcuffs of the accused were opened by PW3 Ct. Naveen after reaching Tis Hazari metro station and as such, I am of the opinion that the testimonies of PW3 and PW2 do not inspire the confidence of the court.
39. Besides PW2 and PW3, there is no other eye-witness to the incident in question. PW5 Sh. Monu has been examined by the prosecution and the said witness was a clerk with Sh. Nishant Sharma, advocate whose chamber was situated near gate no. 2, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi but this witness has categorically stated that no incident has taken place in his presence. PW5 has further stated that he did not see any person running on the metro bridge. PW8 is ASI Ashim Beg but this witness has also stated that he was not an eye-witness to the incident in question. PW11 ASI Ashok Kumar has also stated in the cross-examination that the incident did not take place in his presence. PW13 SI Anand Kumar also admits in the cross-examination that he does not have any knowledge as to how Ct. Naveen had received injuries.
SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 29 of 33
40. PW4 ASI Jaswant Singh is the duty officer who recorded the FIR. PW6 SI Anju Tyagi, the IO of the case, FIR no. 126/18 PS Mayapuri, Delhi in which the accused was being produced before the ld. MM in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is also not an eye-witness to the incident in question. PW7 ASI Harswaroop is the investigating witness who joined the investigation with SI Naveen. PW9 is HC Vikram Singh to whom the rukka was sent for recording of the FIR by the IO. PW16 SI Naveen is the IO of the case but he is not a witness to the incident in question.
41. Going by the above said discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that there is no ocular evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. In the absence of the ocular evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, the only material evidence is in the form of PW10 Retd. SI Sushil Kumar who has proved on record the CDs in the form of Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 respectively. The question is as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused with the aid of the above said two CDs Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 respectively and the answer, in the considered opinion of this court, is in the negative. PW10, in the cross-examination, states that he does not remember if he had seen in the footage, the accused while inflicting the injuries upon the complainant. PW16, the IO of the case categorically states in the cross- examination that the two CDs Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4 does not contain any CCTV footage to show that the accused was committing the offence or giving the injury to the victim. In the SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 30 of 33 charge sheet filed on record by the IO, it has been mentioned that Ct. Naveen and HC Manoj are seen taking the accused in their custody and Ct. Naveen is seen having a handkerchief on his neck but there is no CCTV footage to show that it was the accused who had inflicted the injury upon the neck of the complainant with a surgical blade. As such, there is no scientific evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in the opinion of this court.
42. Now coming to the forensic evidence, it is true that Dr. Monika Chakravarty has proved on record the FSL report Ex. PW15/A which states that the DNA profile generated from the gauge cloth piece of victim was found to be matching with the DNA profile generated from the shirt, handkerchief of the victim and that of the surgical blade but it has to be seen that there is nothing on record to connected the accused with the surgical blade Ex. P-1 on record. PW16, IO of the case, in the cross-examination, categorically states that he did not send the surgical blade to the finger print expert regarding the matching of the fingerprint of the accused and he did not take the clothes of the accused into possession which were worn by the accused on the date of the incident. As such, I am of the opinion that the FSL report Ex. PW15/A is not sufficient in itself to link the accused with the crime. Furthermore, it has to be seen that PW2 HC Manoj, PW3 Ct. Naveen, PW16 IO of the case and the rest of the police officials as well have categorically admitted in their cross- examination that the place of incident was a thickly populated SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 31 of 33 area and a number of public persons were available including the vendors and hawkers but none of the public persons has either been cited or examined as a witness by the prosecution. Non- examination of the public witnesses despite the availability of the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution as has been held in case titled as "Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana" reported as CC Cases 3 (HC),wherein it was held that where the police has failed to join independent witnesses in the investigation despite their availability and further failed to take action against those who refused to take part in investigation nor their names were noted down by the police, the explanation of the police for not joining independent witnesses is an afterthought and liable to be rejected.
43. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused person has a right to maintain silence in a criminal trial. Every accused person is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof from the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond any reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take place of proof. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused persons.
44. In the light of the above said discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Sanjay by leading cogent and convincing evidence and SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 32 of 33 thus, it has failed to discharge the burden placed upon him and therefore, the accused Sanjay is entitled to be exonerated.
45. Resultantly, the Accused Sanjay is hereby acquitted of the charges u/s 224/186/353/332/307 of the IPC .
46. Bail bonds u/s 437A of the Cr.P.C. have already been furnished and accepted which shall remain in force for a period of six months.
47. File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary formalities.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the Open Court RAJ by RAJ KUMAR
Date:
(Order contains 33 pages) KUMAR 2024.10.16
16:18:31 +0530
(Raj Kumar)
ASJ-05, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
16.10.2024
SC 992/2018 State Vs. Sanjay FIR no. 230/2018 PS Subzi Mandi Page no. 33 of 33