Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Anil Raj on 23 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: ID No.DLSE010000392012
SC No.1354/2016
FIR No.141/2012
PS Ambedkar Nagar
State Versus 1. Anil Raj
S/o Late Sh. Salver Raj
R/o C236, Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi
2. Rohit
S/o Shri Raj Kumar
R/o KII/194, Sangam Vihar,
Gali No.5, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
3. Prashant Kumar @ Hanny
S/o Shri Praveen Kumar
R/o B/115, CSP Flats,
Near Durga Mandir,
East of Kailash,
New Delhi
SC No.1354/2016 1 of 41
4. Sunil Raj
S/o Late Shri Salver Raj
R/o C236, Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi
(He has been declared proclaimed
offender vide order dated 31.01.17)
_____________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 31.08.2012
Date of transfer of the case
to this court : 03.04.2013
Date of arguments : 19.03.2017 and 21.04.2017
Date of judgment : 23.05.2017
JUDGMENT
1. As per case of prosecution, on 17.05.2012 at 5.30 pm, HC Mahender Singh (PW2), the Duty Officer, received a call from Police Control Room (in short "PCR") regarding heavy quarrel with senior judge on road from Dakshinpuri towards Pushp Vihar near Senior Secondary School. The said information was recorded vide DD No. 38A Ex.PW2/A.
2. ACP Om Prakash (the then SHO of Police Station Ambedkar Nagar), was told about the incident by Duty Officer on 17.05.2012 at about 5.30 pm, who alongwith SI P. K. Jha (PW13), HC Sunil Gaur, his driver and operator went to the spot. There they found one official car no. DL1CJ4605 at the spot. They noticed that SC No.1354/2016 2 of 41 windscreen and driver side glass of window of the said car were damaged. Some splinters as well as bricks were found lying inside the car as well as on the road. Two motorcycles i.e. one bearing no. DL 3SBC6891 make TVS and other DL3SAY4601 make Bajaj were also found parked near that car. Meanwhile, Ct. Harender and Ct. Dharamvir also reached at spot. They noticed that a sticker of "Judge" was affixed on the car. They came to know that injured were some judicial officers, who had been taken to hospital by PCR van.
3. Thereafter, ACP Om Prakash after deputing Ct. Harender and Ct. Dharamvir to protect the spot, went to Trauma Center where he met injured Chaman Lal (PW1) and the judges namely Shri Ajay Garg (PW12), Shri Inderjeet Singh (PW14) and Shri M. K. Nagpal (PW6). He collected MLC of all the three injured. He recorded statement of Chaman Lal vide Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement on it vide Ex.PW24/A. When he was recording statement of Chaman Lal, two of the accused namely Anil Raj and Rohit also came there. Anil Raj was having injury on his head. Complainant Chaman Lal as well as above named judges identified the said accused persons as the offenders. ACP Om Prakash gave rukka to HC Sunil for registration of FIR.
4. At about 8.35 pm on 17.05.2012, HC Sunil Gaur came to the Police Station and gave rukka to HC Mahender Singh, the Duty SC No.1354/2016 3 of 41 Officer, who recorded FIR No. 141/12 vide Ex.PW2/B. He made endorsement on rukka vide Ex.PW2/C. Thereafter, he gave copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Sunil Gaur for being handed over to ACP Om Prakash, IO of the case.
5. Duty Constable Kishan of AIIMS Trauma Center handed over two pulandas sealed by seal of Trauma Center, AIIMS stated to be having shirt of injured which was seized by PW24 ACP Om Prakash vide seizure memos Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B. He also seized the wearing shirt and vest of Shri Inderjeet Singh (PW14). The said shirt was found to be torn and a button of it was broken. He kept both the clothes in a pulanda and sealed the same by seal of OP and thereafter seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C. He recorded statement of Ct. Kishan and all the above mentioned three judges.
6. Thereafter, PW24 ACP Om Prakash along with his staff and complainant Chaman Lal, the driver of the official vehicle, came back to the spot. Crime team staff i.e. SI Kishan (PW3), Incharge, HC Babu Lal (PW4), Photographer and Ct. Pawan (PW20), Finger Print Expert were called, who reached at the spot and inspected the spot of crime and took photographs there. Finger print expert picked chance prints from the car. The Investigating Officer (in short "IO") also inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW1/DA.
SC No.1354/2016 4 of 41 Meanwhile, HC Sunil came back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and asal tehrir to the IO of the case.
7. The IO seized six brickbats lying inside the car, one brickbat lying on the road near the car, glass splinters from inside and outside the car and some glass pieces lying on the windscreen of the car. He kept all the said articles in four different pullandas, sealed them by the seal of OP and thereafter, seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. He also seized the car as well as motorcycles vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/B (of car), Ex.PW1/C (of motorcycle no. DL3SBC 6891) and Ex.PW1/D (of motorcycle no. DL3SAY4601).
8. The IO interrogated accused Rohit and Anil and thereafter, formally arrested them vide memo Ex.PW13/D (of Anil) and Ex.PW1/DB (of Rohit). Their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F respectively. He recorded statement of witnesses, examined crime team staff and returned back to Police Station alongwith accused and the case property. Case property was deposited in the maalkhana. The accused persons were again interrogated and thereafter their disclosure statement Ex.PW13/G (of accused Anil Raj) and Ex.PW13/H (of Rohit) was recorded. The accused persons disclosed about their associates namely Sunil Raj and Prashant, who were involved in the commission of offence in the case.
SC No.1354/2016 5 of 41
9. Matter was investigated as per law. Accused Anil Raj, Sunil Raj, Rohit and Prashant were found involved in the commission of offence in the case. Therefore, on conclusion of investigation, they were chargesheeted to face trial.
10. Accused persons, on their appearance before the court of learned MM, were supplied copy of charge sheet and complete set of documents and thus, compliance of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") was made.
11. As the offence under section 307/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the matter was committed to the Court of Session for trial in accordance with law.
12. Prima facie, sufficient material was found to frame charge against all the four accused persons for offences punishable under section 186/353/332/307/34 IPC & section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Additionally, sufficient material was also found to frame charge for offence punishable under section 279 IPC against accused Anil Raj. Therefore, charge for the said offences was framed against accused persons on 09.11.2012 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
13. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as twenty five witnesses. The details SC No.1354/2016 6 of 41 of witnesses are as under : i. PW1 Shri Chaman Lal is the complainant, on the basis of whose statement Ex.PW1/A, FIR was registered in the case. ii. PW2 HC Mahender Singh, the duty officer, is formal witness of the prosecution. He recorded DD No.38A Ex. PW2/A and FIR No. 141/12 Ex.PW2/B. iii. PW3 SI Krishan Kumar, Incharge, PW4 HC Babu Lal, photographer and PW20 Ct. Pawan Kumar, finger print expert are the members of crime team staff, who inspected the spot and thereafter gave report Ex. PW3/A to the IO of the case. PW4 HC Babu Lal (photographer) proved photographs Ex. PW4/1A to Ex. PW4/33A and submitted that the same were the same photographs which were clicked by him at the spot. iv. PW5 Tasnimuddinsiddiqui is Mechanical Inspector, who mechanically and physically inspected three vehicles involved in the commission of offence in the case i.e. motorcycle No. DL 3SAY4601, DL3SBC6891 and Maruti Esteem Car No. DL1CJ 4605. He proved the reports Ex. PW5/A to Ex. PW5/C in respect of the vehicles examined by him.
v. PW6 Shri Manoj Nagpal, PW12 Shri Ajay Garg and PW14 Shri Inderjeet Singh are the officers, who suffered injuries in the incident.
SC No.1354/2016 7 of 41 vi. PW7 Ct. Kishan Ram is a formal witness of the prosecution. On 17.05.2012, he was posted as Duty Constable in Trauma Center, AIIMS. On the said day, CMO, Senior Medicine handed over to him two pullandas sealed by seal of JPNATC and one sample seal which he handed over to the IO of the case namely Inspector Om Prakash (PW24).
vii.PW8 Ct. Sandeep is also formal witness of the prosecution. He brought PCR Form dated 17.05.2012 about a call recorded on that day at 5.26 PM in Police Control Room. He proved the PCR Form which is Ex.PW8/A. viii.PW9 Shri K.N. Singh, is finger print expert, who examined the chance prints lifted from the spot, photographs, specimen finger and palm prints of all the four accused persons and thereafter gave his report Ex.PW9/A. ix. PW10 Shri N.C. Kanojia, Superintendent, District Courts, Saket furnished duty charts of drivers of pool car dated 17.05.2012 to police. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. He proved the Certificate Ex.PW10/B given by him to police. He attested copy of duty slips about drivers of pool car vide Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/D respectively. He obtained car bearing DL1CJ4605 on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW10/E. He is also found to be a formal witness of the prosecution.
SC No.1354/2016 8 of 41 x. PW11 Ms. Tyagita Singh is the learned MM, who conducted TIP proceedings of accused Sunil Raj and Prashant Kumar. Both the accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. She proved the TIP proceedings Ex.PW11/C. She proved the Certificate Ex.PW11/D given by her regarding the truthfulness of the proceedings.
xi. PW13 SI P.K. Jha is the witness, who accompanied Inspector Om Prakash Sharma (PW24), IO of the case, to the spot of the crime. He participated in various proceedings during the course of investigation in the case.
xii.PW15 Ct. Ajay Yadav is also a formal witness of the prosecution. On 05.06.2012, he took four sealed pullandas from maalkhana and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 79/21 and 80/21. As per the witness, he did not allow any tampering in those pulandas till the same remained in his possession. xiii.PW16 Kuldeep Negi is owner of motorcycle bearing No. DL 3SBC6891, who got the vehicle released on supardari. As per the witness, in the year 2012, he had given his motorcycle to accused Rohit and Sunil Raj.
xiv.PW17 HC Ram Niwas is a formal witness of the prosecution. On 17.07.12, he was posted as Record Moharrar in Police Station Ambedkar Nagar. On the said day, he handed over record about SC No.1354/2016 9 of 41 involvement of accused Sunil Raj and Anil Raj to HC Sunil Gaur. He proved the record which is Ex. PW17/A. xv. PW18 Dr. Harikesh Yadav brought summoned record i.e. MLCs of Anil Kumar, Inderjeet Singh, Ajay Garg and Chaman Lal Ex. PW18/A to Ex. PW18/C respectively. He identified signatures of Dr. Devender Kumar Suhag, who medically examined the aforesaid persons on MLCs Ex. PW18/A to Ex. PW18/C. He also identified signature of Dr. Saurabh Bharadwaj on MLC of Chaman Lal Ex. PW18/E. xvi.PW19 Ct. Kuldeep Sharma is also formal witness of the prosecution. He took finger prints and palm prints of the accused persons when they were brought to Dossier Cell, where he was posted on the relevant date.
xvii.PW21 Ct. Ravi Kumar is a formal witness of the prosecution. On 26.05.12, he was posted in Trauma Centre, AIIMS. As per the witness, on the said date, Inspector Sunil Sharma came to Trauma Centre alongwith Chaman Lal and Shri Ajay Garg. They were taken to doctor for taking their blood samples. He deposed that the doctor concerned took their blood samples in plastic containers, sealed them and thereafter, handed over the same alongwith sample seal to him which he subsequently handed over to the IO of the case.
SC No.1354/2016 10 of 41 xviii.PW22 Harish Shah, Record Keeper, is a formal witness of the prosecution. He brought the record pertaining to two motorcycles involved in the case. As per record, vehicle No. DL3SAY4601 was found registered in the name of Satish Raj on 07.11.06 and vehicle No. DL3SBC6891 was found registered in the name of Rajeshwari Devi. He produced photocopies of RCs of both the vehicles which are Ex. PW22/A and Ex. PW22/B. xix.PW23 HC Girdhari Lal, the MHC (M) of Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, is also a formal witness of the prosecution. He made relevant entries in Register No.19 as and when the pullandas of the case property were deposited in the Malkhana. He proved the entries which are Ex. PW23/A to Ex. PW23/D respectively. xx.PW24 ACP Om Prakash, the then SHO of Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, is the IO of the case, who conducted various stages of investigation in the matter and on conclusion of investigation, he filed challan against accused persons in the court; and xxi.PW25 Inspector S.K. Sharma is a formal witness of the prosecution. On 26.05.12, he went to Trauma Centre alongwith injured Shri Chaman and Shri Ajay Garg. The doctor took their blood sample in the hospital. Thereafter, handed over the blood samples alongwith seal of the hospital which was seized by SC No.1354/2016 11 of 41 Inspector S.K. Sharma vide seizure memos Ex. PW25/A and Ex. PW25/B.
9. In the course of trial, the accused persons through their advocates, admitted complaint under section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. dated 09.08.12 made by Shri V.K. Khanna, learned ASJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi to ACMM, SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Complaint is Ex. X1. They did not dispute the genuineness and authenticity of the complaint. Therefore, formal proof of complaint Ex. X1 was dispensed with.
10. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all incriminating material/circumstances appearing against them was put to them, to which they claimed innocence and alleged false implication.
11. Accused persons have examined four defence witnesses in their defence. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
12. In the course of trial, accused Sunil Raj stopped appearing in the court. Therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 31.01.17.
13. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, Shri Sugam Puri, learned counsel for accused Prashant, Shri Atul Gupta, SC No.1354/2016 12 of 41 learned counsel for accused Anil Raj and Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for accused Rohit and carefully perused the record of the case.
14. The main points for consideration to be decided by this court in the present case are as under :
1. Whether on 17.05.12 at about 5:15 PM near Kali Building School, Maharishi Balmiki Marg, JBlock, Dakshin Puri, accused Anil Raj came driving motorcycle bearing No. DL3SAY4601 in rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, he struck the vehicle against Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL1CJ4605, a government vehicle, belonging to the office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi?
2. Whether on 17.05.12 at about 5:15 PM near Kali Building School, Maharishi Balmiki Marg, JBlock, Dakshin Puri, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed complainant Shri Chaman Lal, a public servant, on duty, who was discharging public functions?
3. Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted complainant Shri Chaman Lal, a public servant, on duty with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty and also caused him simple hurt?
SC No.1354/2016 13 of 41
4. Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the occupants of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL1CJ4605, a government vehicle, belonging to the office of District & Sessions Judge viz. complainant Shri Chaman Lal, Shri Ajay Garg, Shri Inderjeet Singh and Shri M.K. Nagpal by indiscriminately throwing bricks on them?
5. Whether the accused persons had intention or knowledge to cause death of the occupants of Maruti Car No. DL1CJ4605 and they assaulted the occupants of the car under such circumstances that if by their act, death of occupants was caused, they would be guilty of murder?
6. Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention committed mischief by causing damage to the Maruti Esteem Car No. DL 1CJ4605, a government vehicle belonging to the office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi by indiscriminately throwing bricks on it?
15. Point of consideration No.1 : Whether on 17.05.12 at about 5:15 PM near Kali Building School, Maharishi Balmiki Marg, J Block, Dakshin Puri, accused Anil Raj came driving motorcycle bearing No. DL3SAY4601 in rash and negligent manner and while SC No.1354/2016 14 of 41 driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, he struck the vehicle against Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL1CJ4605, a government vehicle, belonging to the office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi?
16. PW1 Chaman Lal was driver of vehicle bearing No. DL1CJ 4605 Maruti Esteem Car, District Court Saket on 17.05.12. He deposed that on that day, at about 5 PM, he took the judicial officers viz. Shri Inderjeet Singh, Shri Manoj Nagpal and Shri Ajay Garg in the said car for leaving them at their residences at Faridabad. He further deposed that after crossing the BRT, he was going towards MB Road, then on the way, near Kali Building School, JBlock, Dakshin Puri, one bike bearing No. DL3SAY4601 came from his right side. On which two persons were sitting including the rider and the said motorcycle hit the rear right window of his car due to which they both fell down alongwith the motorcycle. He further deposed that after stopping the car alongwith the side, he alighted from the car and made the said two persons understand that they should drive the motorcycle carefully. On this, the said boys started abusing him and scuffling with him.
17. In his cross examination, PW1 Chaman Lal stated that Anil Raj was the driver of the motorcycle and Rohit was pillion rider. He further deposed that his car was at a speed of about 20 km/hour SC No.1354/2016 15 of 41 before the accident. There was heavy traffic at that place and hence, he could not drive his car on fast speed than 20 km/hour. He re asserted that accused Anil Raj came there driving his motorcycle from the right side. He stated that at the time of accident, he was at intersection on the road and had not crossed it. He stated that he was going straight and accused Anil Raj hit his motorcycle on rear doors of his car on the driver's side. He denied the suggestion that he was driving his car on a fast speed or that it was he, who struck his car in motorbike of accused and not the accused, who struck their motorcycle in his car. He categorically stated that name of driver of said motorcycle was Anil Raj which was disclosed to him by police and after knowing his name, he lodged complaint Ex. PW1/A. He identified accused Anil Raj during his deposition in the court.
18. Testimony of PW1 complainant, the driver of vehicle No. DL 1CJ4605, has been supported by occupants of the vehicle i.e. PW6 Shri Manoj Nagpal, PW12 Shri Ajay Garg and PW14 Shri Inderjeet Singh. PW6 Shri Manoj Nagpal in his cross examination deposed that there was heavy traffic on road at that time and it was difficult to overtake a vehicle unless the vehicle overtaking was small. He supported the testimony of PW1 Chaman Lal by deposing that the speed of their car was not more than 20 km/per hour. He stated that the motorcyclists fell on their right side after hitting their car. He SC No.1354/2016 16 of 41 categorically deposed that the motorcyclists came from wrong side.
19. PW14 Shri Inderjeet Singh, who was also occupant of Pool Car bearing No. DL1CJ4605 Maruti Esteem on the relevant date and time of incident, has deposed that when they crossed BRT and they reached near Kali Building near Dakshin Puri, one motorcycle No. DL3SAY4601 came from their right side. The driver while driving the said vehicle dashed it in their car in its right side. He deposed that there were two riders including the driver on the motorbike. He identified accused Anil Raj as the person, who was driving the said motorcycle, while accused Rohit was the person, who was on pillion seat. He deposed that after hitting their car, both the bikers alongwith their motorbike fell on the ground.
20. In his examination recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Anil Raj simply stated that it was incorrect that he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life and had hit against Maruti Car bearing No. DL1CJ4605. His answer is of plain and simple denial and is not substantiated by any evidence or material.
21. Thus, from the testimony of PW1 Chaman Lal (complainant) and occupants of Maruti Car bearing No. DL1CJ4605 i.e. PW6 Shri Manoj Nagpal, PW12 Shri Ajay Garg and PW14 Shri Inderjeet Singh, it stands proved on record that the offender of motorcycle SC No.1354/2016 17 of 41 bearing No. DL3SAY4601 was driving the vehicle on a public way. They all have identified accused Anil Raj as the person, who was driving the aforesaid vehicle on the relevant time of the accident. The offender came driving the vehicle from wrong side and hit Maruti Car bearing No.DL1CJ4605 from right side. The rash and negligent act of accused Anil Raj in driving vehicle No. DL3SAY4601 on the relevant date and time of accident stands proved on record from the deposition of aforesaid witnesses.
22. In view of foregoing reasons, in my view, prosecution has succeeded to prove its case for offence under section 279 IPC against accused Anil Raj beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Anil Raj is held guilty and convicted for committing the offence punishable under section 279 IPC. Issue No.1 is decided accordingly.
23. Point of consideration No.2 and 3 : Whether on 17.05.12 at about 5:15 PM near Kali Building School, Maharishi Balmiki Marg, JBlock, Dakshin Puri, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed complainant Shri Chaman Lal, a public servant, on duty, who was discharging public functions? And Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted complainant Shri Chaman Lal, a public servant, on duty with intent to SC No.1354/2016 18 of 41 prevent or deter him from discharging his duty and also caused him simple hurt?
24. The aforesaid two issues are taken up together as they require appreciation of same set of evidence. PW1 Chaman Lal was driver of pool car vehicle bearing No. DL1CJ4605 of District Court Saket on 17.05.2012. He deposed that on that day at about 5.00 pm, he took the judicial officers in the said car for leaving them at their residences at Faridabad. He stated that after crossing the BRT, he was going towards M.B. Road and then on the way near Kali Building School, J Block, Dakshinpuri, one bike No. DL3SAY4601 came from his right side on which two persons were sitting including the driver and the said motorcycle hit the rear right window of his car due to which they both fell down along with the motorcycle. He further deposed that after stopping the car along with the side, he alighted from the car and made the said two persons understand that they should drive the motorcycle carefully. On this, both the said boys started abusing him and scuffling with him. He deposed that the three judicial officers namely PW6 Shri Manoj Nagpal, PW12 Shri Ajay Garg and PW14 Shri Inderjeet Singh, who were in the car at the said time, also alighted from the car. They intervened and made both the boys understand. He deposed that when the matter was pacified then they all sit in the car. In the meantime, one of those boys whose name was SC No.1354/2016 19 of 41 later on revealed, came in front of his car and after seeing the sticker of "Judges" on the car became angry and asked his companion, whose name was also revealed later on as Rohit that they were judges and they will not leave them alive. In the meantime, on calling of said two boys, one other motorcycle bearing No.DL3SBC6891 reached at the spot on which two boys came there. They also joined accused Rohit and Anil Raj. They picked up bricks from the heap of bricks nearby the spot and started pelting upon them. He deposed that Anil Raj had thrown a brick upon the front glass of the car due to which the glass was broken. As per the witness, the other accused persons had also thrown bricks which hit the head and shoulder of Shri Ajay Garg.
25. Shri Chaman Lal, the complainant, deposed that on 17.05.2012, he had identified accused Anil Raj and Rohit in the Trauma Center as they had come there for treatment after inflicting self inflicted false injuries. In his crossexamination, he deposed that motorcycle being driven by accused Anil Raj struck against his car in its back right side. He deposed that sticker of "Judge" was affixed on the windscreen as well as on the rear glass. He further deposed that all the accused threw brick bats simultaneously. He stated that he had seen Anil Raj striking bricks aiming at him. In his crossexamination, he stated that driver was Anil Raj and pillion rider was Rohit.
SC No.1354/2016 20 of 41
26. PW6 Shri Manoj Nagpal, PW12 Shri Ajay Garg and PW14 Shri Inderjeet Singh have fully supported the testimony of complainant on all material particulars. There is consistency in their deposition. Nothing has come in their crossexamination to doubt their veracity. Their testimony remained uncontroverted, un challenged and unrebutted during their deposition. The aforesaid witnesses have deposed on the same lines as deposed by complainant in his testimony.
27. PW10 Shri N. C. Kanojia deposed that on 17.05.2012, he was working as Superintendent, District Courts, Saket and was having responsibility of some branches including Pool Cars. He deposed that on 21.06.2012, police came to him and seized duty charts of drivers of pool cars dated 17.05.2012. Police seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. He gave Certificate Ex.PW10/B and copy of duty slips about the drivers of pool car Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/D. He deposed that on 17.05.2012, Chaman Lal was driving Car no. DL 1CJ8605 (correct no. is 4605) as per their record.
28. Shri V. K. Khanna, learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was working in the capacity of being Officer Incharge, Pool Car in the Office of learned District Judge (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi as per office order no. 12/2012 dated 01.06.2012 made complaint Ex.X1 under section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. against the accused persons.
SC No.1354/2016 21 of 41 The complainant Chaman Lal was posted as driver in Pool Car, District Court Saket and was administratively subordinate to the Officer Incharge, Pool Car and was on official duty in pool car bearing no. DL1CJ4605 vide order no.26842686Pool Cars/Saket/ND dated 10.05.2012, therefore, the instant complaint Ex.X1 was filed by learned Officer Incharge, Pool Car in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, SouthEast District Court Saket, New Delhi. In the complaint, he mentioned that the official duty of the driver Chaman Lal included picking and dropping of Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned ADJ, Shri Manoj Kumar Nagpal, learned ASJ and Shri Ajay Garg, learned MM, all posted in Saket from their respective residences to Court and back. He further mentioned that on 17.05.2012, Chaman Lal as part of his official duties was taking the aforesaid judicial officers from Saket Court Complex to their residences when at about 5.15 pm, two boys came on motorcycle bearing No.DL3SAY4601 and while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner hit the official car bearing no. DL1CJ4605.
29. Accused Anil Raj and Rohit had noticed the sticker of "Judge" on Car No.DL1CJ4605. They came to know that the vehicle was an official vehicle and was driven by a public servant. Testimony of material witnesses of the prosecution shows that the accused became SC No.1354/2016 22 of 41 angry after seeing sticker of "Judge". They became scared that they would not be let out and therefore, called their associates to the spot.
30. From the records produced by PW10 Shri N. C. Kanojia and complaint Ex.X1, it is seen that on 17.05.2012, PW1 Chaman Lal, (complainant) was driver on vehicle no. DL1CJ4605. He was on duty at the relevant time and was going to drop the judicial officers from District Court Saket to their respective residences. The vehicle bearing No.DL1CJ4605 was owned by the office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. The complainant Chaman Lal, the driver on the aforesaid vehicle, was a public servant and was discharging public function / duty at the relevant time of accident.
31. The complainant Chaman Lal was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center and was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW18/E. He was produced before the doctor with alleged history of assault. The doctor opined nature of injury on his MLC to be simple blunt.
32. From the testimony of PW1 Chaman Lal, the complainant, PW6 Shri Manoj Nagpal, PW12 Shri Ajay Garg and PW14 Shri Inderjeet Singh, it stands proved on record that on 17.05.2012 at about 5.15 pm near Kali Building School, Mahrishi Balmiki Marg, J Block, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi, which was / is a public place, accused Anil Raj and Rohit, in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed complainant Chaman Lal, a public servant on duty, in SC No.1354/2016 23 of 41 discharge of his public functions and they assaulted complainant Chaman Lal with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty and also caused him simple hurt. Thus, the prosecution succeeded to prove its case for offences punishable under section 186/353/332/34 IPC against accused Anil Raj and Rohit beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused Anil Raj and Rohit are hereby held guilty and convicted for having committed the offences punishable under section 186/353/332/34 IPC. Issue No.2 and 3 are decided accordingly.
33. Point for consideration no. 4 and 5 : Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the occupants of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL1CJ4605, a government vehicle, belonging to the office of District & Sessions Judge viz. complainant Shri Chaman Lal, Shri Ajay Garg, Shri Inderjeet Singh and Shri M.K. Nagpal by indiscriminately throwing bricks on them? And Whether the accused persons had intention or knowledge to cause death of the occupants of Maruti Car No. DL1CJ4605 and they assaulted the occupants of the car under such circumstances that if by their act, death of occupants was caused, they would be guilty of murder?
34. The aforesaid two issues are taken up together as they require appreciation of same set of facts and evidence. PW1 Chaman Lal SC No.1354/2016 24 of 41 deposed that on 17.05.2012 at about 5.00 pm, after the accident caused by motorcyclists of motorcycle No.DL3SAY4601 to his Maruti Car No.DL1CJ4605, they fell down alongwith the motorcycle. He stopped the car alongwith the side and alighted from the car to make the said boys understand that they should drive the motorcycle carefully. He deposed that the said boys started abusing and scuffling with him. The judicial officers, who were in the car also alighted from the car. They intervened and made both the boys understand. The matter was pacified and all of them sat in the car.
35. As per complainant Shri Chaman Lal (PW1), one of the boys came in front of his car and after seeing the sticker of "Judge" on the car, he became angry and asked his companion whose name was revealed later on as Rohit that they were the "Judges" and they will not leave them alive. The said boys called their associates, who came on motorcycle bearing No. DL3SBC6891 at the spot. They joined accused Rohit and Anil Raj, picked up bricks from the heap of bricks nearby the spot and started pelting upon them. He deposed that accused Anil Raj had thrown a brick upon the front glass (windscreen) of the car due to which glass was broken. The other accused persons had also thrown bricks which hit head and shoulder of Shri Ajay Garg due to which blood started oozing from his head. Thereafter, the accused persons came towards his window. As per the SC No.1354/2016 25 of 41 witness, accused Anil Raj broke the glass of window by throwing the brick. He deposed that one brick struck on his head due to which blood started oozing from his head. He further deposed that the judicial officers, who were sitting on the rear seat just behind him saved himself by bowing down their head. He further deposed that accused persons opened the right side rear window and they caught hold the collar of Shri Inderjeet Singh, pulled him outside the car due to which his shirt and baniyan was torn and somehow he escaped himself from the accused persons. He deposed that the accused persons ran away from the spot when public persons gathered. The name of other two persons, who reached later on was revealed as Sunil Raj and Prashant.
36. Shri Manoj Nagpal (PW6), one of the occupants of the official car, called police at number 100. PCR van reached at the spot and they took injured to AIIMS Trauma Center. The witness deposed that he and Shri Ajay Garg (PW12) sustained injuries in the incident and Shri Manoj Nagpal and Shri Inderjeet Singh somehow saved themselves. The police came in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A.
37. The complainant identified all the accused persons in the court. He stated that on 17.05.2012, he had also identified accused Anil Raj and Rohit in the Trauma Center as they had come there for treatment SC No.1354/2016 26 of 41 after inflicting self inflicted false injuries. He identified the bricks Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 which was used by accused persons for attacking upon him and others. He also identified the broken glasses of the car Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 in the court.
38. The complainant was cross examined by learned counsel for accused persons at length. In his crossexamination, the complainant stated that accused persons threw sixseven brickbats on his car. He deposed that all the accused threw brickbats simultaneously. He stated that Rohit threw bricks on windscreen of the car. He re asserted that he had seen Anil Raj striking brick aiming at him. He deposed that as the accused persons were hitting him with bricks, therefore, he thought that they intended to kill him. He further deposed that the brickbats fell on the front seat being hit by accused. He denied the suggestion that accused Rohit did not throw any brick on his car or that he had falsely implicated him in this case. He also stated that brickbats were lying near their car at a distance of two three steps. Accused Anil Raj and Rohit were having brickbats in their hands. He deposed that all the four accused picked up brickbats from there and hit upon them.
39. The complainant remained firm and consistent throughout his deposition. His testimony could not be assailed during his cross examination. Nothing has come in his crossexamination to doubt his SC No.1354/2016 27 of 41 veracity. Thus, there is no reason to discard or disbelieve the testimony of complainant.
40. PW12 Shri Ajay Garg is victim and injured in the case. He deposed that after the matter was pacified, all of them took their seats inside the car. He deposed that when the driver of the car was likely to go ahead, both of said motorcyclists way laid them coming in front of their car and due to the said reason, their car could not move. He deposed that on roadside, there was heap of bricks. Accused Anil Raj asked his associate Rohit to call their friends. As per the witness, accused Anil Raj and Rohit started pelting brickbats upon them. Two three brickbats fell on the windscreen of their car. Meanwhile, he noticed that windscreen of their car was broken. Suddenly, two persons came on motorcycle from same direction from where other accused persons had come. He pointed out towards accused Prashant, who was one of those two persons. He deposed that all four of them started pelting bricks upon them indiscriminately. He stated that he had taken a seat beside the driver. As per the witness, three four bricks hit him over his head, shoulder and other parts of body. The driver of the car was also hit by bricks. He deposed that window pane of the car was broken by hitting of a brick. One of the four assailants went near Shri Inderjeet Singh, who was sitting behind the driver's seat and dragged him outside the car.
SC No.1354/2016 28 of 41
41. Shri Ajay Garg has fully supported the incident. He deposed on the same line as deposed by complainant. Nothing has come in his deposition that he was not hit by the accused persons. He is victim and injured in the case. He deposed about the facts and the incident which happened with him. He was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre in PCR vehicle and was treated vide MLC Ex. PW18/C. He was produced before the doctor with alleged history of assault. He suffered head injury in the incident. As per opinion of doctor, he suffered simple blunt injury in the incident.
42. PW6 Shri Manoj Nagpal and PW14 Shri Inderjeet Singh were occupants of Maruti Car No. DL1CJ4605. They witnessed the incident with their own eyes. They were sitting on the back seat of driver's seat. They did not sustain injuries in the incident. They saved themselves from being attacked by bowing their head in the car. They correctly identified the accused persons as the persons, who pelted bricks on Maruti Car No. DL1CJ4605 and assaulted the complainant Chaman Lal and injured Shri Ajay Garg. They have fully supported the case of the prosecution on all material points. Shri Inderjeet Singh categorically deposed that Anil Raj and one of his associates grabbed him and dragged outside the car. However, he succeeded in saving himself from fall outside the car. Both of them i.e. the aforesaid witnesses have categorically stated that the accused SC No.1354/2016 29 of 41 persons picked brickbats from near the spot and started pelting the same on the front side of their car aiming front side passengers. Both of them have deposed that windscreen of their car was broken being hit by brickbats. They correctly identified accused persons as the assailants involved in the commission of offence in the case.
43. PW6 Shri Manoj Nagpal and PW14 Shri Inderjeet Singh are eye witnesses of the incident. They are also the sufferers at the hands of accused persons. They have deposed about the facts whatever they saw with their naked eyes. There is consistency in their deposition. Their testimony remained unchallenged, unassailed and un controverted during their crossexamination. The victims do not have any grudge or ill will with the accused persons. The accused persons have failed to bring any previous enmity on record with them. They are the public servants and responsible members of the society. There is no reason as to why they will falsely name and identify them for no apparent oblique reason. From the testimony of complainant Chaman Lal, injured Shri Ajay Garg and the eye witnesses, the identification of the accused persons as the assailants stands proved on record beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt.
44. It is seen from the testimony of complainant Chaman Lal (PW
1), Shri Ajay Garg (PW12), Shri Manoj Nagpal (PW6) and Shri Inderjeet Singh (PW14) that the accused persons indiscriminately SC No.1354/2016 30 of 41 pelted bricks pointing towards front seat passengers of the car. The windscreen of the car was broken. The brickbats hit the head and shoulder of injured Shri Ajay Garg (PW12), who suffered simple blunt injuries. The complainant also suffered injuries in the incident due to bricks thrown by the accused persons. Continuous pelting of bricks by the accused persons pointing towards victims shows that they had intention to cause their death or they had requisite knowledge under such circumstances that if by their act, they caused death of the victims, they would have been guilty of murder.
45. For the aforesaid reasons, in my considered view, prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt for offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC against accused persons. Prosecution has proved its case against them beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Anil Raj, Rohit and Prashant are hereby held guilty and convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC. Issue No.4 and 5 are decided accordingly.
46. Point for consideration no. 6 :Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention committed mischief by causing damage to the Maruti Esteem Car No. DL1CJ4605, a government vehicle belonging to the office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi by indiscriminately throwing bricks on it?
SC No.1354/2016 31 of 41
47. The complaint Ex. X1 made by Shri Vinay Khanna, learned Officer InCharge, Pool Car, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi to the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, SouthEast District, Saket and the documents produced by PW10 N.C. Kanojia shows that Maruti Esteem Car No. DL1CJ4605 was a government vehicle which was in the name of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. The sticker of "Judge" was affixed on front and rear glass of the vehicle. The vehicle was used for official purpose at the time of incident. The testimony of Chaman Lal (PW1), Shri Ajay Garg (PW
12), Shri Manoj Nagpal (PW6) and Shri Inderjeet Singh (PW14) suggests that the accused persons indiscriminately hurled bricks on the official car and caused damage to the same. Due to continuous pelting of brickbats by the accused persons, the front window pane of the official car was broken. Thus, the accused persons caused damage to the government vehicle and thereby committed an offfence punishable under section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 read with section 34 IPC. Issue No.6 is decided accordingly.
48. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused Prashant @ Hanny submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no connection whatsoever in the present case. He further submitted that the investigating agency SC No.1354/2016 32 of 41 implicated the present accused with the sole motive to please their higher ups as this is a media highlighted case and victims are respectable members of the society and the investigating agency needed scapegoat for the same.
49. There is no merit in the aforesaid contention of the accused. No reason for false implication has been furnished by accused in the case. The victims were unfamiliar with accused persons. They were going to their respective houses when the accused persons obstructed their way and pelted bricks on their vehicle which caused injuries to complainant Shri Chaman Lal and injured Shri Ajay Garg. All the victims, who were occupants of Maruti Esteem Car No. DL1CJ 4605 have categorically deposed that the present accused namely Prashant @ Hanny was one of the assailants, who pelted bricks on the vehicle and caused injuries to them. The ocular testimony of victims is supported with the medical evidence. The matter was immediately reported to police. The victims were produced before the doctor at AIIMS Trauma Centre with alleged history of assault. Visible injuries were also noticed on the body of Shri Ajay Garg as is clear from his MLC Ex. PW18/C.
50. Learned counsel for accused Prashant further argued that the accused has been arrested in the case on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused persons. The accused was not named in the SC No.1354/2016 33 of 41 FIR. He further submitted that no finger print of accused was found on the car No. DL1CJ4605. He further submitted that accused was not present at the spot at the time of commission of offence in the case, he has no connection with the present case and has been falsely and maliciously implicated in the case. He further submitted that the accused has been shown arrested from Asian Market. However, despite availability of public persons, they were not joined in the investigation of the case. He further argued that the present case is case of sudden fight between two parties at the spot and the entire defence of the accused persons is that the public persons gathered at the spot, who when came to know that the accused persons were victims, due to their mob mentality, they pelted bricks on the vehicle No. DL1CJ4605 and it was not the act of accused persons.
51. So far as naming of accused in the FIR is concerned, as complainant / victim Shri Chaman Lal did not know any of the accused persons prior to the date of incident. Therefore, there was no question for lodging the FIR by name against them.
52. The plea of accused Prashant @ Hanny is that he was not present at the spot at the time of commission of offence in the case and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. To prove the aforesaid plea, the accused examined his mother Mrs. Veena as DW1 in his defence. The mother of accused stated that on 17.05.12 i.e. on SC No.1354/2016 34 of 41 the date of incident, the accused was at home. As per her deposition, on 18.05.12, the police officials came at her house in civil uniform, inquired about her son, she called her son on phone, who came there. Thereafter, the said officials grabbed her son and took him away in a white car parked downstairs.
53. DW1 Mrs. Veena, the mother of accused Prashant, is an interested witness. She has deposed just to favour her son. Admittedly, she did not call the police at 100 number when the police officials took away her son from her house. Neither she nor her husband lodged any complaint against the said police officials before any competent authority for taking her son from their house without any reason. Even when the accused was produced in the court, no application for false implication of accused was made before the court of learned MM. Thus, the deposition of DW1 is found to be after thought and her testimony does not inspire any confidence.
54. DW2 Bhola deposed that on the relevant date of incident, he had gone to meet his brother Ali Sheikh at Madangir. It was about 5:30 PM or 5:45 PM. He was going to take a TSR. He deposed that at the crossing, one big car and two persons were going on the motorcycle. The car hit motorcycle and motorcycle fell down. The driver of car came out of the car and slapped twothree times to the motorcyclists. Some persons gathered and after some time, stone SC No.1354/2016 35 of 41 pelting took place by public persons. He deposed that seeing the stone pelting, he rushed away from the spot. He deposed that accused Rohit was not present at the spot.
55. The aforesaid witness i.e. DW2 Bhola has deposed a blatant lie. As per him, Rohit, who is accused in this case, is not the Rohit who was present at the spot. All the material witnesses of the prosecution namely Chaman Lal (PW1), Shri Ajay Garg (PW12), Shri Inderjeet Singh (PW14) and Shri M. K. Nagpal (PW6) have categorically deposed that accused Anil Raj and Rohit were the persons, who came on motorcycle No. DL3SAY4601 from right side of the car and they hit the rear side window of the car. They identified accused Anil Raj as the person, who was driving the aforesaid motorcycle and Rohit as the person, who was pillion rider. Their oral testimony is supported with the medical evidence. Finger prints of accused Rohit has matched with the chance finger print lifted from the car. Thus, the presence of accused Rohit at the spot of crime has been established beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. The deposition of DW2 Bhola that accused present in the court was not the Rohit, who was present at the spot is found to be without any basis and substance.
56. DW4 Gilbert Benjamin deposed that on 17.05.12 at about 5 or 5:30 PM, he went to purchase vegetables from the Sabzi Market near SC No.1354/2016 36 of 41 Kali Building School at Dakshin Puri. He saw a white colour car coming from Khanpur towards Badarpur in a high speed and one motorcycle in front of said car was turning towards left in the vegetables market and the said car hit the said motorcycle. As per the witness, there was a rider and pillion on the motorcycle and both of them fell down. On which, the driver got down from the car, came towards the bike and started abusing. He suddenly slapped the driver of motorcycle. He further deposed that he saw two three persons sitting in the car, also got down from the car and the said persons came towards the bike. By the said time, public persons gathered over there. All persons, who came out of the car sat back in the car. He deposed that the persons gathered over there thought that the persons, who had come out of the car, gave beatings to the biker and pillion and going to run away from the spot. Therefore, the persons gathered over there picked up the bricks which were lying there and started throwing towards the car and the persons, who were in the car. He stated that due to the aforesaid reason, the persons, who were in the car got injured and called the police. The police officers came at the spot. He came back to his house after buying vegetables.
57. In his crossexamination, DW4 Gilbert Benjamin stated that the driver of the said car and the occupants had sustained injuries in the incident of stone pelting. He admitted that till the police arrived at SC No.1354/2016 37 of 41 the spot, the said car and its occupants including the driver remained at the spot. He further admitted that he had seen accused Anil on the motorcycle at the time of accident. He admitted that he had never gone to Police Station to inform that he was the witness of the incident nor he was requested by the family members of those boys, who were apprehended by the police.
58. The theory of stone pelting by public on Maruti Car bearing No. DL1CJ4605 and its occupants as projected by DW4 Gilbert Benjamin is highly unbelievable. The material witnesses of the prosecution i.e. complainant Chaman Lal (PW1), Shri Ajay Garg (PW12), Shri Inderjeet Singh (PW14) and Shri M. K. Nagpal (PW
6) have categorically deposed that the public gathered at the spot after the accused persons had already hurled bricks at the car, which injured complainant Chaman Lal and Shri Ajay Garg. They deposed that when the public persons gathered at the spot, the accused persons after seeing them ran away from there. Had the accused persons been innocent, there was no reason for them to run away from the spot.
59. DW4 Gilbert Benjamin claims to be an eye of the incident. He ought to have told the police regarding the incident. He himself admitted that he did not go to police station to inform that he was witness of the incident. He came to depose in the court only on the request of accused Anil. Thus, he has deposed in his favour to save SC No.1354/2016 38 of 41 him. His testimony does not inspire confidence. He appears to be an interested witness. The testimony of this interested witness cannot be relied upon in the face of testimony of complainant and other victims, who are government servants and responsible members of the society. This court finds the testimony of DW4 Gilbert Benjamin to be unworthy of credit.
60. Lastly, it was submitted by learned counsel for accused Prashant @ Hanny that the present accused has been charged / implicated in the case by virtue of section 34 IPC. He submitted that the accused as per case of prosecution itself, came at the spot at later stage and thus, he did not share any common intention with other co accused persons. He submitted that the prosecution in order to achieve conviction under the charge of section 34 IPC has to prove unequivocal intention or knowledge of the accused to commit any of the offence with which he was charged. In support of his submissions, he relied upon judgments tilted as Sachin Jana Vs. State of West Bengal, 2008 (1) JCC 572, Girija Shankar Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (4) SCC 793 and thereafter, submitted that no offence charged is made out qua accused Prashant @ Hanny. He drew the attention of the court to the various parts of testimony of prosecution witnesses and thereafter, he argued that accused reached at the spot SC No.1354/2016 39 of 41 after the incident had already taken place.
61. As per the deposition of material witnesses of the prosecution, the present accused alongwith one of his associates came to the spot after they were called by accused Rohit. They joined accused Anil Raj and Rohit, picked up bricks from the heap of bricks nearby the spot and started pelting upon the victims. All the accused persons have reportedly thrown bricks on Maruti Car No. DL1CJ4605 due to which front side glass of the car (windscreen) was broken. The front seat passenger i.e. Shri Ajay Garg and the complainant Shri Chaman Lal sustained injuries. Accused Prashant having picked up bricks from the heap of bricks and throwing the same at the car alongwith his associates itself shows that he shared common intention with other coaccused persons. The prosecution has succeeded to prove on record the actual participation of all the accused persons including the present accused in the commission of criminal act i.e. pelting of bricks on Maruti Car No. DL1CJ4605 and causing injuries to front seat passengers of the car. The said act was done by accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. Common intention may develop at the spur of moment also. There need not be a prior conspiracy or premeditation, common intention may be formed in the course of occurrence also. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is not convinced with the SC No.1354/2016 40 of 41 submissions of learned counsel for accused that accused cannot be charged and held guilty with the aid of section 34 IPC. No merit is found in the submissions of accused.
62. For the reasons discussed above, in my view, prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused persons against them. Prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against accused persons beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Anil Raj is hereby held guilty and convicted for committing the offence punishable under section 279 IPC. Accused Anil Raj and Rohit are held guilty and convicted for having committed the offences punishable under section 186/353/332/34 IPC. Accused Anil Raj, Rohit and Prashant are held guilty and convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC and also for offfence punishable under section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 read with section 34 IPC.
63. Let the accused persons be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 23.05.2017 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No.1354/2016 41 of 41