Delhi District Court
State vs Basti Ram Etc on 5 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 05, ROOM NO. 513,
DWARKA, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
BASTI RAM ETC
FIR No. 542/97
P.S.: INDERPURI
U/S: 61/1/14 Excise Act &
471 IPC & 3/181/39/192 MV
Act
1. Serial No. of the case : 02405R0260942010
2. Date of commission of offence : 29.11.1997
3. Name of the Complainant : SI Sunil Kumar
PS Naraina, New Delhi.
4. Name of the accused, and
his parentage and residence : (1) Basti Ram
S/o Ramdhan,
R/o VPO Sarhol, Sec18,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
(2) Babulal
S/o Banwari Lal,
R/o 198A, Shyam Vihar,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
6. Date when judgment : 05.03.2012
was reserved
7. Date when Judgment : 05.03.2012
was pronounced
8. Offence Complained of : U/s 61/1/14 Excise Act &
or proved 471 IPC & 3/181/39/192 MV
Act
9. Plea of accused persons : Both Pleaded not guilty
10. Final Judgment : Both acquitted for the offence
U/s 61/1/14 Excise Act & 471
IPC & 3/181/39/192 MV Act
FIR No. 542/97
State Vs. Basti Ram Etc Page 1/8
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. The charge against the accused person was that they were transporting liquor for the purpose of sale in Maruti Car Number DL2CC3652 by using fake number plate DL2CB6520. Charge sheet filed before the court on 03.08.1998.
2. On 05.04.2002, separate charge was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution have examined six witnesses namely PW1 Ct. Satinder, PW2 HC Manmohan, PW3 Ct Ved Prakash, PW4 Pankaj Narang, PW5 Mahender and PW6 Inspector Sunil Kumar. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places.
4. After prosecution evidence was closed . Statement of accused persons was recorded and final arguments were heard.
5. Ld. APP has argued that all the witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution and prays for conviction of the accused persons.
6. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that accused has been falsely implicated and the public persons who are made witnesses are stock witnesses of the police and therefore, there testimony can not be relied upon. Ld. Counsel prays for acquittal.
7. Prosecution Evidence 7.1 PW1 is the member of police party who allegedly apprehended the FIR No. 542/97 State Vs. Basti Ram Etc Page 2/8 accused persons. He stated that on 29.11.1997, on receipt of one secret information vide DD NO. 26A he alongwith HC Sumair Singh and SI Sunil Kumar reached the spot and on request of IO two public persons namely Iqbal Khan and Mahender Singh joined the raiding party and at about 7.30 PM, the Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2CB6520 coming from the side of Punjabi Bagh was stopped and one person was apprehended and other succeeded in escaping from the spot. He further stated that the person apprehended revealed his name is Basti Ram and on checking Maruti Car , IO found 9 petties containing 12 bottles each of pure gold whiskey. He also stated his presence at the time of sealing and seizure of case property i.e. liquor vide Ex.PW1/A and Car vide Ex.PW1/C and at the time of arrest personal search of Basti Ram vide Ex.PW1/B. He also stated that on the mirror of car number DL2CC3652 was engraved and therefore the number plate was also taken into possession vide Ex.PW1/D. PW 1 also correctly identified the accused Basti Ram as well as the case property when produced in the court. During his cross examination, he admitted that the vegetable vendors near the spot were not asked to join the raiding party. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from the accused and number plate produced in the court was prepared in the PS itself or it can not be affixed in the vehicle. He also stated that the public witnesses were purchasing the vegetable but IO did not make enquiry regarding the addresses of the witnesses. He also stated that as soon as the car stopped , it was surrounded by the raiding party and accused Babu Ram run towards cantonment area. He fails to state whether the rear number plate was also seized or not . He also denied the suggestion that accused Babu Lal was not at all present. 7.2 PW2 is the DO and he proved the registration of FIR vide Ex.PW2/A. FIR No. 542/97 State Vs. Basti Ram Etc Page 3/8 7.3 PW3 is the police official who had taken the sample to the Excise Lab of liquor seized. He stated that on 07.01.1998, he had taken the duly sealed sample vide RC No. 1/21 to excise laboratory. During his cross examination, he fails to state the time of departure from PS. He also fails to state the size of parcel taken to excise office. He denied the suggestion that he had not taken the sample to the excise office on given date and time.
7.4 PW4 is the Motor Licensing Officer. He stated that the vehicle No. DL2CB6520 is registered in the name of Oriental Insurance which was originally registered in the name of Navtej Alag and later on transfer to R.S.Beruwal and thereafter on 12.02.1998 transfer in the name of insurance company. He categorically stated that vehicle was never in the name of Meena Singh Gill.
7.5 PW5 is the public witness. He stated that SI Sunil shared with him a secret information regarding a Maruti car coming with liquor in it. He further stated a he join the raiding party and car No. 6520 was stopped and accused Basti Ram apprehended alongwith 9 carton of liquor. He also stated his presence at the time of seizure, personal search, arrest as well as preparation of site plan. He correctly identified accused Babu Lal and Basti Ram and the case property. During his cross examination , he admitted that samples were not separated from the remaining bottles and therefore , it could not be ascertained whether there was liquor or similar type liquid in remaining case property. He also stated that he do not know whether IO interrogated the registered owner of the car or prepared any handing over memo of the seal. He stated that he alongwith Iqbal remaining at the spot till 9.00 PM. He also admitted that he know SI Sunil Kumar prior to incident and stated that case property was not sealed in his FIR No. 542/97 State Vs. Basti Ram Etc Page 4/8 presence and his statement was recorded in the police station. In his examination in chief he stated to be present during seizure but in the cross examination, he denied having participated in the seizure. He also stated that except Iqbal, no other public persons was present and he had not disclosed the description and built up of Babu to the IO. He also stated his signatures were taken in PS on 56 papers including seizure memo and site plan. During his further cross examination, he stated that he went to place of occurrence at 5.30 PM where two accused persons had been detained by the police, one was Basti Ram and another was Babu Lal. At this point it is to be noted that in his earlier testimony, PW5 has stated that only one accused was apprehended and another ran away. He also admitted that the personal search memo was not prepared in his presence and whole proceedings was conducted in PS including the seizure memo. He also admitted that he and Iqbal Khan live at one place. He also stated that his statement was recorded at the police station but the same was not read over to him. He also stated that he and his friend remained police station till 9.30 PM and he was again called in the PS after couple of days for signing some papers.
7.6 PW6 is the IO. In his examination in chief he stated on the lines of prosecution story. During his cross examination, he stated that both the number plates were dismantled with the help screw driver but denied his suggestion that mounting holes of both the number plates are not matching with the holes of bumper and rear side and number plates were prepared in the PS itself. He also stated that all the documents were prepared at the spot itself which is in stark contrast with the testimony of PW5 who stated that all proceedings were carried out in the PS. He denied the suggestion that he requested accused Basti Ram who was attending FIR No. 542/97 State Vs. Basti Ram Etc Page 5/8 Jagran in R.K.Puram to carry the vehicle to PS and was arrested and falsely implicated. He further stated that after completion of investigation they reached the PS at 11.00 PM. He denied the suggestion that the ownership of car is not the name of Mewa Singh but it was some Beniwal. He also denied the suggestion that all the paper work done in the PS itself and no work was carried out at the spot. He also denied the suggestion that Mahinder Singh and Iqbal Khan are stock witnesses of the police.
8. Seizure of case property: Even though, 108 bottles were allegedly recovered from the car but only two bottles from each petty i.e. totaling 18 bottles were taken as a sample. Even though as per the report of excise lab , the sample tested positive for Ethyl Alcohol but what was there in remaining case property is still mystery. The IO has not followed the standard procedure of taking sample from each of the bottle.
9. Public Witnesses: Even though the IO has tried his best to rope two public witnesses but the other public witness Iqbal khan was never produced before the court and even summons sent to his address were received back with the remarks that he is not residing at the given address. The other public witness Mahinder Singh examined in the court and he gave contradictory testimony as in his examination in chief he stated his presence at the time of seizure of case property and personal search of the accused but in his cross examination, he categorically stated that both accused were already detained and neither case property was seized in his presence nor personal search of the accused was carried out in his presence. He stated that at about 9.30, PM they all went to PS but IO stated that they remained at the spot till 11.00 PM. PW5 also stated that FIR No. 542/97 State Vs. Basti Ram Etc Page 6/8 he reached the spot at 5.30 PM but IO as well as PW1 stated the time of reaching the spot at about 7.30 PM. The difference in the time spent at the spot was not explained. The gap of two hours in the time of incident casts a doubt on the story of the prosecution.
10. Whether forgery of number place was committed by the accused persons: The Car No. DL2CC3652 as per record of Tilak Marg Authority is registered in the name of Babu Lal Sharma S/o B.N.Sharma i.e. the coaccused and car No. DL2CB6520 was registered in the name of Mewa Singh S/o Munshi Singh. But as per the testimony of PW4, the vehicle No. DL2CB6520 was registered in the name of R.S Beruwal before it was transfered in the name of issuance company. He categorical stated that the vehicle No. DL2CB6520 was never registered in the name of Mewa Singh. But PW6 stated that the number plate seized i.e. DL2CB6520 was verified and found that this number is registered in favour of Mewa Singh. It was admitted fact that vehicle No. DL2CC3652 is registered in the name of accused Babu Lal. There is no reason why a person will put fake number plate on his own vehicle.
11. Procedural Lapses during investigation: PW6 is the IO and he was the recipient of DD NO. 26A about the secret information. There is no explanation as to why investigation of the case was not handed over to some other police officer after the apprehending of the accused. It has been stated time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the complainant should not investigate the case and investigation should be handed over to some other official to negate the allegations of false implication. But in the present case, SI Sunil Kumar himself carried out the FIR No. 542/97 State Vs. Basti Ram Etc Page 7/8 whole investigation which again creates doubt upon the prosecution case.
12. There are no photographs either of the spot or of the case property. The timing of the incident does not exclude the presence of huge number of public persons and no explanation is given as how the other accused manged to slip away despite 5 members of police party and why only one HC chased the absconder and what the other member were doing. There is no allegations that Basti Ram also tried to ran away. Why other members of raiding party or other public persons did not gave a chase to the absconder.
The golden rule of criminal jurisprudence is that even at the cost of 100 criminals, an innocent should not be punished. The prosecution has to proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. But in the present case, eventhouhg, PW1, PW5 and PW6 have correctly identified the accused and case property, but their are doubts which have not been explained satisfactorily. The prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubts.
13. Hence, accused Basti Ram and Babulal are acquitted for the offence U/s 61/1/14 Excise Act & 471 IPC & 3/181/39/192 MV Act with full honors.
BB stands cancelled. Sureties stands discharged. Documents if any be cancelled. Superdarginama stands cancelled. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
COURT ON 05.03.2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 542/97
State Vs. Basti Ram Etc Page 8/8
FIR No. 542/97
State Vs. Basti Ram Etc Page 9/8