Delhi District Court
State vs . Vipin Suri on 28 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. HEM RAJ, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
WEST - 09, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. VIPIN SURI
FIR No : 13/2006
U/S : 186/332/353 IPC
P.S : R.G. METRO
1. Serial No. of the Case : 1072/2
2. Unique ID of the Case : 02401R1643932008
3. Date of Commission of Offence : 07.03.2008
4. Date of institution of the case : 28.05.2008
5. Name of the complainant : Sh. Mandhata Singh
6. Name of accused, parentage & : Vipin Suri
address S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar
R/o A58, Shanker Garden,
Vikas Puri, Delhi.
7. Offence complained : U/s 186/332/353 IPC
8. Offence charged with : U/s 186/332/353 IPC
9. Plea of Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
10.Final Order : Acquitted
11.Date of Final Order : 28.06.2013
J U D G M E N T
1 This is the trial of accused Vipin Suri for commission of offences under sections 186/332/353 IPC. The facts of the case of prosecution in brief are that on 24.06.2006 at about 20.45 PM at Janak Puri West Metro Station FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO1/ 11 Control Room, accused voluntarily obstructed Sh. Mandhata Singh, Station Controller, a public servant in discharging his public function and accused voluntarily caused hurt to the above said person in discharging his duties. The criminal law machinery was sent into motion in this fashion. 2 After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed for commission of offences U/s 186/332/353 IPC. Vide order dated 03.09.2008 charge for commission of offences under sections 186/332/353 IPC was framed by my Ld. Predecessor Sh. Rakesh Kumar, the then Ld. Special Railway Magistrate, Delhi to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 In order to prove its case against accused, prosecution examined total seven witnesses in all.
4 PW1 Avdesh Kumar deposed that on 24.06.2006 he was working as a security guard at Janak Puri West Parking and on that day at about 08.30 PM, one person namely Vipin Suri came there and stated that somebody has stolen petrol from his motorcycle. He deposed that he told to station controller Mr. Mandhata Singh about the complaint and he told me that the FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO2/ 11 complaint be registered in the complaint book which is kept at the customer care and he told the same to accused Vipin Suri but he did not agree to make the complaint at customer care and he came to the room of station controller and started shouting and abusing Mandhata Singh. He further deposed that after hearing the noise, Manoj Kumar and Vinod Kumar and they all went to parking area. He further deposed that accused Vipin Suri forcibly stopped Mandhata Singh and took his photograph with his cell phone and when Mandhata Singh was going back to station controller room, accused gave him punch on his nose and Mandhata Singh fell down on the ground. He further deposed that some called the police and police reached there and recorded his statement. He further deposed that accused Vipin Suri also slapped him in the parking.
He was cross examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel.
5. PW2 HC Satish Kumar is the DO and proved the FIR Ex. PW2/A and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/B. He was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
6 PW3 Mandhata Singh is the complainant himself and he deposed that on 24.06.2006 he was posted as Station Controller at Janak Puri West Metro FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO3/ 11 Station. He deposed that on that day he was sitting in the station control room and one security guard Avdesh Kumar came to his room and stated that one passenger is complaining that petrol is taken out from his bike and he told him to take the victim and lodged the complaint in the customer care book. He deposed that after sometime accused Vipin Suri came in his room and started shouting and abusing to the metro officials and DMRC and he was in the influence of liquor. He further deposed that he try to inform at OCC but accused snatched his phone and threw it on the floor and in the meanwhile his colleague Vinod Kumar and Manoj also arrived there and Vinod Kumar informed the PCR. He further deposed that he reached at the parking area where accused Vipin Suri with one lady forced him to the bike and took his photograph from his cell phone. He further deposed that after half an hour police officials and PCR reached at the spot and they recorded his statement and in the meanwhile SI Bhan Singh reached at the spot. He further deposed that accused slapped him forcibly at the spot and he fell down and he came to the station control room. He further deposed that at the time when accused slapped him, Avdesh Kumar, Shailesh Kumar and many more persons were present there. He further deposed that he informed to his higher authority regarding this incident and he made a complaint Ex. PW3/A on the next day and he also made a complaint against Vipin Suri.
FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO4/ 11 He was crossexamined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel. 7 PW4 Vinod Kumar deposed on the lines of PW1 Avdesh Kumar.
He was not crossexamined by accused.
8 PW5 HC Raj Singh deposed that duty officer handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka and he took the same to Janak Puri West Metro Station and handed over the same to IO ASI Satbir Singh.
He was not crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
9 PW6 SI Sanjeev Dhodi deposed about the investigation conducted by him.
He was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
10 PW7 Retd. SI Mukhtiar Singh deposed about the investigation conducted by him.
He was crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
11 In his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused denied the allegations levelled against him. He claimed himself to be innocent and falsely FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO5/ 11
implicated by the police. He chose to lead defence evidence and examined two witnesses in his support.
12 DW1 HC Devender Singh deposed that he alongwith ASI Bhan Singh joined the investigation in case FIR No. 12/06, PS R.G. Metro and he reached at Janak Puri West Metro Station and there was a call about the theft of helmet and petrol from the motorcycle. He further deposed that accused Vipin Suri was the complainant in the said FIR.
He was not cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
13 DW2 Smt. Prabhleen Kaur deposed that I alongwith my husband and accused were going to see a movie at PVR, Vikas Puri. She deposed that she came back in the parking after taking tickets of the movie and saw accused Vipin Suri standing alongside his bike and he was holding one man who was stealing petrol from the bike and his helmet was also missing. She further deposed that accused made a complaint to Incharge Metro Station but no action was taken on his complaint and he lodged a FIR in PS Raja Garden Metro Station.
She was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO6/ 11 14 It has been submitted by Ld. APP that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt It has been further
stated that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt.
15 On the other hand, the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that no incriminating material has come on record against the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt.
16 I have heard rival submissions as advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have also gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record to appreciate contentions of the parties.
17 Accused in the present case has been charged with for commission of offences U/s 186/332/353 IPC.
18 I shall now proceed to discuss the oral and the documentary evidence FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO7/ 11
led by the prosecution in my quest whether the prosecution has been successful in bringing the evidence which can justify the conviction of the accused or whether the accused deserves to be acquitted in this case. 19 Ld. Counsel has attacked the prosecution case on the ground of the unexplained delay in registration of FIR. He has submitted that the FIR was registered after two days and no explanation has come forward as to why delay of two days has occurred. What would be the effect of delay in the registration of FIR, the law is well settled. In Ravinder Vs. State (2001) 7 SCC 690, it was held " The law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence, a delayed FIR is not illegal. Of course, a prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity of any possible concoction of a false version. When there is criticism on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, the court has to look into the reason for such delay." 20 In Meharaj Singh Vs. State (1994) 5 SCC 188, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt about the importance of promptness in lodging the FIR. The court observed as under:
" that the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of accused and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eye witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR by itself results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought ".
21 In Sahebrao Vs. State (2006) 9 SCC 731, it was held that delay in filing FIR can itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. However, in Budh Singh Vs. State, AIR 2006 SC 2500 and Om Prakash Vs. State, AIR 2006 SC FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO8/ 11 894, it was held that an explained delay in lodging the FIR may be fatal for the prosecution.
22 Applying the aforesaid proposition of law it is to considered as to whether the prosecution has been able to explain the delay. Prosecution case reveals that the incident had taken place in this case on 24.06.2006 at about 08.45 PM, however complaint Ex. PW3/A was dated 25.06.2006 and the FIR was registered on 26.06.2006. It is settled law that delay in registration of FIR itself is no ground to throw the prosecution case at the outset and the relevant judgments have already been mentioned by me in the earlier part of judgment. But at the same time it is also a settled law that if no plausible explanation is brought explaining the delay, then the prosecution case must be seen with extra care and circumspection. Admittedly in this case, FIR was registered after two days of incident. Careful perusal of testimony of complainant PW3 Mandhata Singh shows that within half an hour of the incident, PCR reached at the spot alongwith the police officials. SI Bhan Singh had also reached at the spot. I am failed to understand as to why when the police officials as well as the IO arrived at the spot, the statement of complainant was not recorded then and there and what prohibits the police officials to register the FIR. Why police officials waited for two days for registration of FIR, no explanation at all regarding the same has come on FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO9/ 11 record. This delay assumes more importance when the fact of FIR No. 12/06, PS R.G. Metro lodged by the accused is considered. It clearly implies that the prosecution has tried to hide the actual genesis of occurrence which raises serious doubt in the story of prosecution. Coupled with the fact that there is no explanation on record explaining the delay, the unexplained delay of two days has caused serious prejudice to the case of prosecution which raises serious doubt in their story which should be extended to the accused. 23 Further more prosecution has not proved the complaint U/s. 195 Cr.P.C., in the absence of which prosecution case cannot be proved for commission of offence U/s. 186 IPC. Section 195 Cr.P.C. provides that Court shall not take cognizance of the offence U/s. 186 IPC unless the complaint is filed by the public servant or his superior authority. Prosecution has failed to prove the complaint U/s. 195 Cr.P.C. and the offence U/s. 186 IPC could not be said to have been proved.
24 Therefore, in view of the discussions made herein above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Vipin Suri is hereby acquitted for the FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO10/ 11 offences, he has been charged with. His previous bail bonds stands cancelled. Surety is discharged. However, bail bonds furnished towards Section 437A Cr.P.C. shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (HEM RAJ)
TODAY i.e. ON 28 JUNE, 2013 MM09:WEST:THC:28.06.2013
th
FIR No. 13/2006 STATE VS VIPIN SURI PAGE NO11/ 11