Delhi District Court
State vs . Tara Chand Singhal on 13 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 37/2011
Unique Case ID No.: 02401R0461182007
State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal
S/o Shyam Lal
R/o F29, Ashok Vihar,
PhaseI, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 534/2006
Under Section : 307/186/353/332 Indian penal Code
Police Station : Ashok Vihar
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 6.8.2011
Judgment reserved on : 9.1.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 12.1.2012
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
As per the allegations on 8.7.2006 at 10:15 PM at Ring Road, Tpoint, Ashok Vihar, Wazirpur Insutrial Area the accused Tara Chand Singhal came in a Satro Car bearing No. DL 8C L 1025 in a very fast speed and was under the influence of liquor. He was indicated to stop the vehicle by Ct. Sudesh Kumar who was on official duty at the spot and was controlling the traffic, but the accused instead of stopping the vehicle, hit Ct. Sudesh Kumar and State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 1 of 38 thereafter got down and asked the constable why he tried to stop the vehicle. It is further alleged that thereafter the accused again sat in the car and drove towards Ct. Sudesh as a result of which Ct. Sudesh Kumar fell on the bonnet of the car and was dragged by the accused in that condition for about 500 yards in an attempt to kill him and was compelled to stop only when another public person stopped him by putting his car in front of his vehicle. It is also alleged that by the aforementioned act, the accused has obstructed and used criminal force upon Ct. Sudesh Kumar, a public servant who was discharging public functions being and was regulating the traffic at the spot i.e. T Point Ashok Vihar.
Case of prosecution in brief:
As per the case of the prosecution on 8.7.2006 on the receipt of DD No.35, ASI Madan Singh along with Ct. Rajender reached at T Point near Marry Maker Banquet Hall, Ring Road, Ashok Vihar Delhi, where Ct. Sudesh Kumar and accused Tara Chand who was under the influence of liquor were found along with the Santro Car bearing No. DL 8C L 1025 belong to Tara Chand. ASI Madan Singh recorded the statement of Ct. Sudesh who stated in his statement that on 08.07.2006 he was on duty at T point, Ashok Vihar and since at that time there was no light at the spot and therefore he started controlling traffic manually. He further stated State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 2 of 38 that one vehicle bearing No. DL8CL1025 came from Richi Rich Banquet Hall side which he signaled to stop but the driver did not stop and the vehicle touched his leg. On this he asked the driver to remove the vehicle but the driver put the vehicle in gear and ran over him (Complainant) but he managed to removed himself from beneath the car and came on the bonnet and caught the wiper of the car and started crying. Ct. Sudesh has further stated that on hearing his cries, public persons gathered at the spot and some person put his own vehicle in front of the car of accused as a result the driver of the vehicle Tara Chand was compelled to stop his vehicle and it was then observed that Tara Chand was under the influence of liquor. He thereafter made a call at 100 number and the PCR reached the spot and local police also reached there which took him to BJRM hospital. Thereafter, a rukka was prepared and present case was got registered. Both the injured i.e. Ct. Sudesh and the accused Tara Chand Singhal were taken to BJRM hospital for medical examination. After completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court. CHARGE:
Charges under Section 307/186/353/332 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Tara Chand Singhal to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 3 of 38 EVIDENCE:
In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses.
Victim / Complainant:
PW7 Ct. Sudesh has deposed that on 08.07.2006 he was on duty at T point, Ashok Vihar and on that day in the night as there was no light, he started controlling traffic manually when one vehicle bearing No. DL8CL1025 came from Richi Rich banquet hall side and he made a signal to stop the same but the driver did not stop and vehicle touched his leg. He has deposed that thereafter he asked the driver to remove the vehicle but the driver put the vehicle in gear and ran over him when he removed himself from beneath the car and came on the bonnet and caught the wiper of the said car and started crying when public persons gathered at the spot. Thereafter, some unknown person put his own vehicle in front of the aforesaid car as a result the said driver was compelled to stop the vehicle. According to the witness, he made a call at 100 number when PCR came to the spot and local police also reached there and he was taken to BJRM hospital. Thereafter, he came back to the spot where his statement was recorded by the IO which is Ex.PW7/A bearing his signatures at point A. State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 4 of 38 On the leading question put to the witness with the permission of the Court, the witness has admitted that the name of accused, his father name and address were known to him at the spot itself which details he had given in his statement Ex.PW7/A. The witness has deposed that the accused had brought car at a very fast speed and did not stop despite giving the whistle. He admits that the accused got down from his car and at that time he was under the influence of liquor, which fact was also given by him (witness) in his statement Ex.PW7/A. The witness has admitted that the accused Tara Chand had asked him as to why he had stopped his vehicle on which he had also requested him to remove his car so that he may clear the traffic of the other side. The witness has further admitted that he had stated in his statement that the accused Tara Chand went inside his car and negligently drove his car towards him and hit him (witness) with intent to kill. Witness has further admitted that his signatures were taken on the arrest memo Ex.PW6/B and personal search memo Ex.PW6/C at point B and ASI Ram Bahu prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex.PW7/B after which the car was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point C. The witness has deposed that due to lapse of time he has forgotten the aforesaid facts. He has correctly identified the accused Tara Chand in the court.
State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 5 of 38
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, this witness has deposed that there was no rush at T point between 10 PM and 10:30 PM. He admits that it was dark due to failure of light and further states that at the relevant time, he was alone at T point but the traffic was smooth. He has denied that the traffic was not going smoothly due to failure of street light/signal light. He is unable to give the speed in kilometers while the accused was coming in his Santro car nor he is able to tell whether it was fast or slow. He has denied the suggestion that he did not sustain any injury on his body. According to him when the accused stopped his car there was distance of about 34 feet between him (witness) and the vehicle of accused and has voluntarily added that after touching the vehicle he moved behind for about 34 feet. The witness has further deposed that he did not sustain injury of such a nature that he required medical rest for 34 days or admission in the hospital. He admits that initially the information was given to the control room regarding the accident but not to the effect of hitting him with the intent to kill him. He states that he did not have any talk with the accused after making a call at 100 number nor he noticed any land mark building at the spot except that there was a petrol pump at one side of the road. The witness is not aware about the Marry Maker banquet hall as he was new in the area at that time and states that he had not noticed the said banquet hall. According to him the distance between T point Ring State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 6 of 38 Road and the railway bridge is about one kilometer. He has denied that the said distance is about 200300 yards. According to him he did not see any mark of injury on the face of accused Tara Chand. He admits that a large number of public persons gathered at the spot but in his presence the IO did not record any statement of any public person from them. He has deposed that he could not find out about the vehicle or the details of the person who stopped the vehicle of the accused and also did not ask the accused to keep his car on one side of the road. Witness has denied the suggestion that he became annoyed when the accused refused to keep his car on one side of the road and thereafter he and his other colleague police officials had beaten the accused Tara Chand and due to this reason the accused Tara Chand sustained injuries. Witness has denied that he snatched Rs.14 thousand from the pocket of accused Tara Chand. He admits that ZO SI RC Meena was on patrolling duty in the area at that time and that SI R.C. Meena had come to the spot but states that it was after his medical examination. Witness has denied the suggestion that he caught the accused Tara Chand from his neck and dragged him from his car and had beaten him by him along with SI R.C. Meena. He is not aware if there is any shop in the name of Kitchen King at T point. He has denied that one Dinesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Davesh Kumar were present at the spot when the accused Tara Chand was being given beatings by him and by SI R.C. Meena. State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 7 of 38 Witness has deposed that he was never called by the vigilance of Delhi Police in connection with this case. According to the witness he did not inform RC Meena about this incident and has voluntarily added that he only made a call to PCR. He has denied that he knowingly damaged the car of the accused Tara Chand or that he made a false statement to the IO.
Medical Evidence:
PW3 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has deposed that on 08.07.2006 he was working as CMO at BJRM hospital and Dr. Abhay was working as JR under his supervision at the aforesaid hospital. He examined the patient Ct. Sudesh Kumar aged 39 years male brought to him with an alleged history of road traffic accident vide ME Ex.PW3/A bearing the signatures of Dr. Abhay at point A and bearing his (witness's) name at point B. The witness has further deposed that on the same day Dr. Abhay examined the patient Tara Chand Singhal with alleged history of physical assault vide ME Ex.PW3/B bearing signatures of Dr. Abhay at point A and bearing his (witness) name at point B whose signatures he has identified being well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Abhay as he has seen him while writing and signing during the course of his official duties. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 8 of 38 and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Police / Official Witnesses:
PW1 HC Kulwant Singh has been examined by way of affidavits which is Ex.PW1/1. He was posted as DD writer and has proved the recording of DD No. 35 copy of which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has denied the suggestion that he did not record the aforesaid DD or that the said DD was manipulated later on.
PW2 ASI Jawahar Singh has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1. He has deposed that on 8.7.2006 he was working as record clerk at Ashok Vihar Traffic Circle and on that day Ct. Sudesh Kumar was on duty. The witness has placed on record the copy of the duty roaster of Ct. Sudesh Kumar which is Ex.PW2/A and the relevant entry is at point X. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
PW4 Sh. J. S. Pawar, (Engineer) has deposed that on 09.07.2006 he was called at police station Ashok Vihar by the investigating officer and he examined the Santro Car bearing No. DL8CL1025 in the premises of police station Ashok Vihar on the request of ASI Ram Bahu and gave his detailed mechanical State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 9 of 38 inspection report vide Ex.PW4/A bearing his signatures at point A. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that he is not authorized to conduct the mechanical inspection in police cases. He has also denied that he is not having a degree of auto mechanic from any University and has voluntarily added that he is having diploma in auto mobile engineering. He deposed that he did not hand over the copy of his said diploma to the investigating officer. According to him he received the conveyance of Rs 200/ only from the Investigating Officer in this case. The witness admits that car was fit for road test but has denied that suggestion that he did not conduct the mechanical inspection of the aforesaid car or that he had submitted the aforesaid report falsely later on at the instance of the investigating officer.
According to the witness he received the call of investigating officer at about 3 PM and thereafter he went to the police station at about 6 PM. Witness has admitted that if one give the impact on the bonnet of the car forcefully the dent can occurred.
PW5 Sh. Dal Chand (Photographer) has deposed that is he having photo studio in the form of thiya at A Block, Wazirpur Industrial area, near police chowki. According to him, he was called by the Investigating Officer to the police station on 31.07.2006 and on the request of IO he took four photographs of the Santro Car bearing No. DL8CL1025 and handed over the photographs to the State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 10 of 38 IO which are Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A4 whose negatives are Ex.PW5/B (collectively).
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has denied the suggestion that he has not taken any photographs Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A4. According to him he has not given any receipt for charging the amount of photographs.
PW6 Ct. Rajender Singh has deposed that on 08.07.2006 he was posted at Police Post Wazirpur Industrial area. On that day on receipt of DD No. 35, he along with HC Madan Singh reached at T Point, Ashok Vihar where they found one Santro car bearing No. DL8CL1025. They also met one Tara Chand and Sudesh, a traffic police official. According to the witness, he was handed over a form by HC Madan for medical examination of both the aforesaid persons. He took both Ct. Sudesh and Tara Chand to BJRM hospital where both were got medically examined. The witness has deposed that he brought both the aforesaid persons to the spot along with Medical examination sheets and handed over the Medical Examination sheets of Tara Chand and Ct. Sudesh to HC Madan Singh. The witness has deposed that HC Madan Singh recorded the statement of Ct. Sudesh and prepared rukka. He took the same to the police station and got the case registered and thereafter he along with ASI Ram Bahu came to the spot along with the copy of FIR and original rukka and the same were handed over to State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 11 of 38 ASI Ram Bahu. According to him ASI Ram Bahu prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Sudesh. His signatures were taken on certain documents details of which documents he does not remember. The witness has deposed that the aforesaid vehicle was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A after which Tara Chand was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW6/B bearing his signatures at point A and he was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW6/C bearing his signatures at point A. The accused has correctly identified the accused Tara Chand in the court.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he received a call at about 10:4010:42 PM on 08.07.2006. According to him they reached at the spot within 56 minutes and he found the vehicle stationed on the opposite of the petrol pump. He has deposed that the site plan Ex.PW7/B was prepared in is presence. He admits that there is a T point after passing the railway crossing while going towards Ashok Vihar from ring road. Witness has denied the suggestion that the distance between railway crossing and T point at ring road is about 200 yards. According to him the medical examination of the accused Tara Chand was got done at about 12 night and the statement of Ct. Sudesh was recorded after the medical examination of Ct. Sudesh and Tara Chand was done. He has deposed that he took the accused State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 12 of 38 and Ct. Sudesh to BJRM hospital in a TSR and we came back to the spot in the same TSR and left the hospital at about 12:3012:45 AM and reached the spot within 2025 minutes. He has deposed that he left the spot at about 3 AM and reached at the police station within 15 minutes where the DO took 45 minutes in reducing the contents of rukka into FIR after which he left the police station with FIR at about 4 AM and reached at the spot within 1520 minutes and left the spot finally at about 66:30 AM and his statement was recorded at the spot at about 5 AM. He has denied the suggestion that he did not participate in the investigations of this case or that his name has been cited as a witness in this case only to complete the chain of the investigations.
PW8 HC Mukesh Kumar has deposed that on 09.07.2006 he was posted at DAP 6th Bn. and in the month of November, 2007 he was transferred to PS Ashok Vihar. On that day HC Rajesh was posted at police station Ashok Vihar and he had worked with him in the police station and he is well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of HC Rajesh as he has seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties. The witness has brought the Register No. 19 and as per record on 09.07.2006 ASI Ram Bahu had deposited one Santro car bearing No. DL8CL1025 with MHC (M) which he received vide entry No. 3476. The witness has further deposed that on 31.07.2006 the said State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 13 of 38 vehicle was released on superdari to one Nirmala. The copy of the relevant entry is Ex.PW8/A bearing the signatures of HC Rajesh the then MHC(M) at point A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
PW9 ASI Madan Singh has deposed that on 08.07.2006 he was posted at Police Post Wazirpur Industrial Area of Police Station Ashok Vihar and on that day. According to him on the receipt of DD No. 35 he along with Ct. Rajender reached at T point near Marry Maker Banquet Hall, ring road, Ashok Vihar, Delhi where Ct. Sudesh Kumar and driver of Santro car Tara Chand met them and Tara Chand was found under influence of liquor. He has deposed that the Ct. Sudesh has already stopped the Santro Car bearing No. DL1CL1025. He thereafter prepared naksha mazrubi and the accused Tara Chand and Ct. Sudesh were sent to BJRM hospital through Ct. Rajender. The witness has deposed that after their medical examination, Ct. Rajender brought the medical examination sheets which are Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B and recorded the statement of Ct. Sudesh Kumar which is Ex.PW7/A and prepared the rukka Ex.PW9/A bearing his signatures at point B. He thereafter seized the Santro Car vide memo Ex.PW6/A. The witness has deposed that in the meanwhile the constable came back to the spot with copy of FIR Ex.PW9/B and original rukka and same were handed over to ASI Ram Bahu who came to the spot with Ct. State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 14 of 38 Rajender as he was called at the spot and further investigations of this case was handed over to him. The witness has identified the accused Tara Chand in the court.
Leading questions were put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for the State with due permission of the court wherein the witness has admitted that the number of Santro car is DL8CL1025 and states that due to lapse of time he had forgotten the said number.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he received the DD No. 35 at about 10:42 PM and thereafter he and Ct. Rajender reached at the spot within ten minutes and found the Santro car parked on one side. According to the witness the complainant Ct. Sudesh was found having caught hold of the accused Tara Chand and at that time he did not find any mark of injury or beating on the body of the accused Tara Chand when they reached there. He has deposed that Ct. Sudesh informed him that he has suffered internal injuries. The witness has denied that suggestion that Ct. Sudesh did not receive any injury. According to the witness, firstly the medical examination of Ct. Sudesh and accused Tara Chand was got done and thereafter he recorded the statement of Ct. Sudesh. Witness admits that the fact that one traffic constable namely Sudesh was hit by the driver of the Santro Car with the intent to kill him is not mentioned in the DD No. 35. The witness has denied that the rukka was not prepared at the spot and State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 15 of 38 that the total length of the road from T Point and railway under bridge is about 500 meters in total and has voluntarily added that it is more than one kilometer. The witness has deposed that there is no traffic signal from railway crossing to T point on that road and has admitted that there is a petrol pump in between the T point and railway under bridge. He deposed that when they reached at the spot Ct. Sudesh and accused Tara Chand met him at point A already marked by the IO ASI Ram Bahu on the site plan Ex.PW7/B. The witness has denied the suggestion that the said car was found stationed at point A mentioned on the site plan Ex.PW7/B. He admits that the Marry Maker Banquet Hall is not shown in the site plan and that the Marry Maket Banquet Hall is situated in a street leading to the ring road. He has denied the suggestion that he did not record the statement of Ct. Sudesh at the spot or that same has been recorded by him later on that too not on the dictation of Ct. Sudesh.
PW10 HC Randhir has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW10/1 and bearing his signatures at points A and B. According to the witness, he had recorded the present FIR copy of which is Ex.PW9/B bearing his signatures at point A. He has also made endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW10/A bearing his signatures at point C. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he received the rukka at about 3:15 AM and State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 16 of 38 took about one hour in reducing the FIR into writing. According to him he also recorded kyami DD but he does not remember the DD entry. The witness has deposed that he prepared four copies of FIR but he does not remember the name of the rider who circulated the copy of FIR to the senior officers. The witness has denied the suggestion that he did not sent copy of the said FIR to any illaqa magistrate or commissioner of police therefore he is unable to tell the name of rider.
PW11 SI Ram Bahu has deposed that on 09.07.2006 he was posted at Police Station Ashok Vihar as ASI and on that day he was asked by the then Duty Officer to reach the spot along with Ct. Rajender as further investigations of this case were handed over to him. The witness has deposed that at about 4 AM, he along with Ct. Rajender reached the spot. He received the copy of the FIR which is Ex.PW9/B and the original rukka Ex.PW9/A from Ct. Rajender. He has deposed that HC Madan, complainant Ct. Sudesh and accused Tara Chand met them at the spot where one Santro car was also found stationed on one side of the road. According to the witness, HC Madan handed over the documents of the Santro Car bearing No. DL18CL1025. The witness has deposed that he received the seizure memo of the said vehicle from HC Madan and thereafter he prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW7/B at the instance of complainant Ct. Sudesh which bears his signatures at point D. The witness has State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 17 of 38 deposed that he collected the medical examination sheets of Ct. Sudesh and Tara Chand and thereafter the accused Tara Chand was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW6/B and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW6/C both bear his signatures at point C. According to the witness, he recorded the statement of the witnesses and deposited the Santro Car in the malkhana after which he called Sh. J.S. Pawar, Mechanical Expert and got the mechanical inspection of the said car conducted whose report vide Ex.PW4/A. The witness has deposed that he also obtained the complaint U/S 195 Cr. P.C. from Traffic Inspector Ranvir Singh Gahlot which is Ex.PW11/A bearing the signatures of Insp. Ranvir Singh Gahlot at point A. The witness has deposed that the list of witnesses was also collected along with the said complaint which is Ex.PW11/B. He also collected the duty roaster of Ct. Sudesh Kumar showing his duty at T point, ring road on 08.07.2006 which is Ex.PW2/A. The witness has deposed that the Santro car was released on superdarinama and he got the photographs of the said car which are Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A4 along with their negatives Ex.PW5/B (collectively). Thereafter, he recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared challan. The witness has correctly identified the accused in the court.
Leading question were put to the witness by Addl. PP for the State regarding number of the vehicle and the witness has State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 18 of 38 admitted that number of the Santro Car involved in this case is DL8CL1025 and not DL18CL1025.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that he did not collect the PCR form. He further admits that the information was received with regard to the accident at T point by Santro Car and not to the effect of attempt to kill Ct. Sudesh. He does not know as to who had given the information on 100 number. According to him, he did not find any apparent injury on the body of Ct. Sudesh. The witness has deposed that when they reached at the spot the aforesaid Santro car was found stationed at point B already marked by him in the site plan Ex.PW7/B. The witness has deposed that railway bridge is situated at a distance of about one kilometer from T Point at Ring Road. The witness has admitted that at present there is a traffic signal in between railway bridge and the T point at ring road. He has admitted that there is a traffic signal after crossing railway bridge while going towards Ashok Vihar. According to the witness the traffic signal which is in between railway bridge and T point ring road is situated at a distance of about 300400 yards from bridge. He has no idea about the distance between traffic signal and railway bridge while going towards Ashok Vihar. According to the witness the Santro car was found stationed at a distance of about 400500 yards from the Marry Maker Banquet hall. He does not remember whether the State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 19 of 38 accused Tara Chand was having injuries on his body or not. He deposed that he had seen the medical examination sheet of accused and the complainant Ct. Sudesh. According to the witness as per ME Ex.PW3/B there was swelling just above the left eye of accused Tara Chand. Witness has deposed that there was no public witness at the spot therefore he could not join them during the investigations. He recorded the statement of Rajender after arrest of accused at the spot at about 6:30 AM and the arrest was made at about 6 AM. He has also deposed that one Diwediji had come to the spot to whom the information of arrest was given who was already present there before his arrival to the spot. According to him, the shift of the other police official deployed at T point is not mentioned in the duty slip Ex.PW2/A at Point X. According to the witness the other police official namely HC Lali Ram, Ct. Naresh, Ct. Satender and Ct. Ravinder were not present at the spot but the duty roaster shows their duty at T point. He states that the distance between Richi Rich restaurant and T point Ring Road is about half kilometer as per duty roaster Ex.PW2/A his duty was at Richi Rich restaurant light. The witness has denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigations properly.
Statement of Accused and Defence Evidence:
After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 20 of 38 in which all the incriminating evidence / material was put to him which he has denied.
The accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely and wrongly implicated in this case. He has further stated that he was coming from the party at RichiRich and when he reached at Ashok Vihar T Point red light, one police official showed him his hand to stop the vehicle. According to the accused the signal was not working at that time and there was heavy rush of vehicle on the road and he immediately stopped the vehicle at one side of the road after which the said police official used very abusive language and used physical violence with him and in support of aforesaid police officer, 45 other persons who were not in the uniform also started beating him and they also snatched Rs.14,000/ from his pocket and also damaged his car. The accused has further stated that thereafter a PCR came at the spot and he was sent to the BJRM hospital for medical checkup and he was then brought to the Wazirpur Police Chwoki where he was told that he had been arrested in the present FIR in the morning at about 8 AM dated 9.7.2006. The accused has also stated that no police officer informed his family members about the aforesaid incident and only at 9:30 AM when he was shifted to Police Station Ashok Vihar, his family members came in his search there and thereafter he explained about the aforesaid incident to his wife who later on made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 21 of 38 on 21.7.2006 which was sent by courier, registered AD and speed post all are dated 21.7.2006 which are Ex.DX1 and Ex.DX2. In support of his contentions, the accused has examined two witnesses.
DW1 HC Vinod has deposed that the record of vigilance branch upto the year 2007 has been destroyed vide order dated 28.7.2001 and therefore the record with regard to complainant dated 21.7.2006 made by the wife of accused could not be produced.
DW2 Divesh Kumar has stated that he does not know the accused Tara Chand Singhal. In in cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he has admitted his signatures on arrest memo Ex.PW6/B at point D but states that he does not know the details of that document. He has admitted that mobile no. 9818006810 belongs to him which is mentioned at Column No. 9 of the arrest memo Ex.PW6/B. According to the witness, he is not the uncle / chacha of accused.
FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused.
State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 22 of 38 Identity of the Accused:
The accused does not dispute his identity as he was apprehended at the spot of incident itself. He has been correctly identified by the complainant Ct. Sudesh (PW7) as the person who was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed and despite indication did not spot and ran over him.
Complainant Ct. Sudesh on Official Duty being Public Servant:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 8.7.2006 Ct. Sudesh Kumar (PW7) was on official duty at Ring Road, Tpoint, Ashok Vihar, Wazirpur Industrial Area and was controlling the traffic when the accused Tara Chand Singhal came in a Satro Car bearing No. DL 8C L 1025 at a very fast speed under the influence of liquor and when Ct. Sudesh tried to stop the vehicle the said vehicle touched his leg and the driver put the vehicle in gear and ran away. PW6 Ct. Rajender Singh has also substantiated the testimony of PW7 Ct. Sudesh to the extent that when he along with HC Madan Singh reached at the spot he found Ct. Sudesh and accused Tara Chand along with Santro Car bearing No. DL8CL1025 and he took the both the accused as well as complainant Ct. Sudesh to BJRM hospital for their medical examination. Further, PW11 SI Ram Bhau has proved the complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC from Traffic Inspector Ranvir Singh Gahlot vide Ex.PW11/A and the Duty State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 23 of 38 Roaster dated 8.7.2006 which is Ex.PW2/A showing that Ct. Sudesh was on duty at the spot of incident, which has not been disputed by the accused. This being the background, I hereby hold that the Ct. Sudesh Kumar being public servant was on official duty at the time of incident.
Medical Evidence:
PW3 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary has proved the ME Ex.PW3/A of injured Ct. Sudesh Kumar who was brought to the hospital with alleged history of road traffic accident. He has also proved the ME of the accused Tara Chand SInghal vide Ex.PW3/B who was brought to the hospital with history of physical assault. I have gone through both the MEs and it is evident that there was swelling and tenderness on right ankle of Ct. Sudesh Kumar who had also been referred for Xray of right ankle and as per the observations made by Dr. Shipra Rampal, Radiologist, the Xray was found to be normal. Though, Ct. Sudesh had been referred to Trauma Centre for fracture Xray of the toes and for CT Scan for purposes of confirmation with regard to the fracture of toe and head injury, but there is no record to show that he had suffered any bony injury as there is no Xray placed on record showing any bony injury.
In so far as the ME of accused Tara Chand Singhal is concerned, it shows that at the time when he was brought to the State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 24 of 38 hospital, alcohol smell was present and there was swelling on the left eye proving that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident while driving the vehicle, an aspect which stands duly corroborated from the testimony of PW7 Ct. Sudesh Kumar and PW9 ASI Madan Singh. Here I may observe that the accused has in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC has denied that he was under the influence of alcohol but has duly admitted that he was coming from a party. This being the background, I hold that the aspect that Ct. Sudesh had receipt injury on the right foot and accused was under the influence of alcohol stands conclusively proved and established.
Further, PW4 J. S. Pawar, Automobile Engineer has proved the mechanical investigation report of the vehicle Santro Car bearing No. DL 8CL 1025 vide report Ex.PW4/A. PW5 Dal Chand the photographer has proved the photographs of the Santro Car which are Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A4 and their negatives which are collectively Ex.PW5/B. The mechanical report shows that there was fresh damage on left side and front view of the bonnet having dent proving that at the time of the incident when Ct. Sudesh tired to stop the vehicle the accused drove the vehicle on fast speed and the dent caused on the bonnet on account of fall of the complainant.
In view of the above it stands established that Ct. Sudesh Kumar was controlling traffic when the accused Tara Chand Singhal who was under the influence of alcohol did not stop the vehicle State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 25 of 38 bearing No. DL8CL1025 despite signal and the vehicle touched his leg and after which the driver put the vehicle in gear and ran over Ct. Sudesh Kumar but he managed to remove himself from beneath the car and came on the bonnet and caught the wiper of the car and started crying for help and on hearing his cries some public person put the vehicle in front of the car of accused as a result the vehicle could be stopped and thereafter 100 number call was made and PCR came who took both Ct. Sudesh Kumar and the accused to BJRM hospital where their medical examination was conducted wherein the complainant was found to have sustained injuries on the right foot and the accused was found to be under the influence of alcohol. The relevant portion of the testimony of PW7 Ct. Sudesh is as under:
"On 08.07.2006 I was on duty at T point, Ashok Vihar. On that day in the night light has gone, I started controlling traffic. One vehicle bearing No. DL8CL1025 came from Richi Rich banquet hall side, I made the signal to stop it but it did not stop. The said vehicle touched my leg. I asked the driver to remove the vehicle, the driver put the vehicle in gear and ran over me. I removed myself from beneath the car and I came on the bonat.
I caught wiper of the said car. I started State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 26 of 38 crying. Public persons gathered at the spot.
Some unknown person put the vehicle in front of the aforesaid car as a result the said vehicle stopped. I made call at 100 number.
PCR came to the spot and local police also reached there. I was taken to BJRM hospital.
I came back to the spot where my statement was recorded by the IO and same is EX PW 7/A bearing my signatures at point A. At this stage Ld. APP seeks permission to put some leading questions.
Heard. Permitted.
The name of driver was known as Tara Chand and I had given his name in my statement EX PW 7/A. The father name and address of the accused Tara Chand was also known to me at the spot and I have given the same in my said statement. The accused had brought his car at a very fast speed and did not stopped despite giving the whistle by me.
It is correct that accused got down from his car and at that time he was under the influence of liquor. It is correct that I had State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 27 of 38 given this fact to the IO in my statement EX PW 7/A. It is correct that the accused Tara Chand had asked me as to why I had stopped his vehicle and I had also requested him to remove his car so that I may clear the traffic of the other side. It is correct that I had stated in my statement that the accused Tara Chand went inside his car and drove his car towards me. It is correct that I had stated in my statement that the accused has driven his car negligently and hit me with intend to kill me.
As per the provisions of Section 307 Indian Penal Code whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
To constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is sufficient if an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof is present. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 28 of 38 coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances and may even in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some over act in execution thereof [Ref.: Vipin Bihari Vs. State of MP reported in 2006 (8) SCC 799; Bappa @ Bapu Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2004 (6) SCC 485; State of Maharastra Vs. Kashi Rao & Ors. reported in 2003 (10) SCC 434; Hari Mohan Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2004 (12) SCC 220 and Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. State reported in 2010 (III) AD (Delhi) 198]. This being the legal position, intention can be deduced not only from the nature of injuries caused but also from other circumstances.
In the present case, the incriminating material against the accused in this regard is only the oral testimonies of Ct. Sudesh Kumar (PW7) who while testifying before this court did not at the first instance come out with the entire detail but it was only on the later stage when the Addl. PP for the State put leading questions to him that he mentioned about the accused having brought th car at the State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 29 of 38 fast speed and not stopped the same despite his indication, being under influence of alcohol and having driven the car towards him. Under the given circumstances, there being no independent corroboration to his testimony, the benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused in so far as the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is concerned, but in view of the MLC of the injured showing simple injuries on the public servant on official duty on account of the accused having driven his car over the foot of Ct. Sudesh Kumar, I hereby hold the accused guilty for the offence under Section 186/353/332 Indian Penal Code.
Defence of the accused:
The accused in his defence has examined DW1 Ct. Vinod and DW2 Divesh Kumar. Ct. Vinod (DW1) was asked to get the vigilance record in respect of the complaint made by the wife of accused to the police against the complainant but the said record could not be placed on record being destroyed. Further, DW2 Divesh Kumar has stated that he has no relations with the accused Tara Chand Singhal nor he knew him. However, in his cross examination he has admitted that the possession of mobile number 9818006810 as mentioned in Column No. 9 of the arrest memo. Therefore, under the given circumstances the mobile number being connected there is no reason to doubt the correctness and authenticity State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 30 of 38 of the memo Ex.PW6/B and the possibility of DW2 Divesh Kumar S/o Dinesh Aggarwal being known or in relation of the accused Tara Chand Singhal and pleading ignorance only to save the accused from penal consequences, cannot be ruled out. The defence of the accused to the effect that besides the complainant Ct. Sudesh, other police officials were also present there who were using abusive language and have given beatings to him and also damaged his car, does not stand substantiated either from the medical record or from the mechanical inspection report of the car. Rather, the medical record establishes that the accused himself was under influence of liquor at the time of the incident and therefore under these circumstances the defence raised by the accused appears to be an after thought. FINAL CONCLUSION:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 31 of 38 other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigations conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officer. The identity of the accused has been proved and established. It stands proved that on the date of incident i.e. 8.7.2006 the complainant Ct. Sudesh Kumar was on duty and was controlling the traffic at the spot i.e. Ring Road, T Point, Ashok Vihar. It is stands proved that the accused Tara Chand Singhal was driving the vehicle bearing No. DL 8CL 1025 at a very high speed on despite signal to spot by Ct. Sudesh Kumar, he did not stop the vehicle and in this process Ct. Sudesh Kumar received the injury on his right foot. It is further proved that at the time of incident the accused Tara Chand Singhal was under the in influence of liquor.
State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 32 of 38
This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Tara Chand Singhal under Section 186186/353/332 Indian Penal Code for which the accused is held guilty and accordingly convicted. However, under the given circumstances as narrated above neither the knowledge nor the intention so attributed by the prosecution to the accused Tara Chand Singhal to commit murder of Ct. Sudesh Kumar, does not stand reflected. Therefore, under these circumstances I hereby hold that the intention and knowledge as contemplated under the provisions of Section 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code are not made out. This being so I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and substantiate the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the accused Tara Chand Singhal who is hereby acquitted of the same.
Be listed for arguments on sentence on 13.1.2012.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 12.1.2012. ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 33 of 38 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 37/2011 State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal S/o Shyam Lal R/o F29, Ashok Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi. (Convicted) FIR No. : 534/2006 Under Section : 307/186/353/332 Indian penal Code Police Station : Ashok Vihar Date of Conviction : 12.1.2012 Arguments heard on : 13.1.2012 Date of sentence: 13.1.2012 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Taufique Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict in JC with Sh. Shiv Charan Garg & Sh. Sandeep Jindal, Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide separate detailed judgment dated 12.1.2012 the accused Tara Chand Singhal has been held guilty for the offence under Section 186/353/332 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, he has been acquitted of the charges under Section 307 Indian Penal Code.
State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 34 of 38
As per the allegations on 8.7.2006 at 10:15 PM at Ring Road, Tpoint, Ashok Vihar, Wazirpur Insutrial Area the accused Tara Chand Singhal came in a Satro Car bearing No. DL 8C L 1025 in a very fast speed and was under the influence of liquor. He was indicated to stop the vehicle by Ct. Sudesh Kumar who was on official duty at the spot and was controlling the traffic, but the accused instead of stopping the vehicle, hit Ct. Sudesh Kumar and thereafter got down and asked the constable why he tried to stop the vehicle. It is further alleged that thereafter the accused again sat in the car and drove towards Ct. Sudesh as a result of which Ct. Sudesh Kumar fell on the bonnet of the car and was dragged by the accused in that condition for about 500 yards in attempt to kill him and was compelled to stop only when another public person stopped him by putting his car in front of his vehicle. It is also alleged that by the aforementioned act, the accused has obstructed and used criminal force upon Ct. Sudesh Kumar, a public servant who was discharging public functions being and was regulating the traffic at the spot i.e. T Point Ashok Vihar. However, on the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses particularly the complainant Ct. Sudesh, this court vide a detailed judgment dated 12.1.2012 has held the accused Tara Chand Singhal guilty for the offence under Section 186/353/332 Indian Penal Code but has acquitted him of the charges under Section 307 Indian Penal Code.
State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 35 of 38
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. The convict is aged about 60 years having a family comprising of wife and three married daughters, one married son and five grand children. He is 10th class pass and is doing the business of timber and plywood under the name and style of Vinod Sales Corporation at Village Wazirpur, Ashok VIhar. He is a first time offender having no criminal background. He has already remained in Judicial Custody for a period of 18 days in the present case.
Ld. Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict is first time offender having no other criminal case against him and any harsh view would be detrimental to the entire family of the convict. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convict keeping in his age and family circumstances. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has prayed that a strict punishment be awarded to the convict keeping in view the allegations involved.
I have heard the rival contentions. Keeping in view the fact the convict Tara Chand Singhal is a first time offender, the Social Investigation Report was called which report has been received today confirming that he has no previous criminal record and is reported to be well behaved in the society and the chances of his reformation are bright. It has been recommended that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be given to the convict. State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 36 of 38
I have considered the rival contentions. The convict has no history of any previous involvement and is first time offender. Keeping in view the age of the convict and other family circumstances, any harsh view taken by this court at this stage would be prejudicial to his future and would take away the chances of reformation of the convict. I hold that the interest of justice require that the convict Tara Chand Singhal should be given an opportunity to reform himself.
I, accordingly direct that the convict Tara Chand Singhal be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of One years with supervision, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/, with one local surety of the like amount and compensation for a sum of Rs.10,000/ under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to be given to the complainant Ct. Sudesh Kumar. The convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In case of any default or repetition of offence, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 37 of 38 cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 13.1.2012 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Tara Chand Singhal, FIR No. 534/06, PS Asohk Vihar Page 38 of 38