Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder Kumar Verma on 28 March, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHDEEP CHAHAL
Metropolitan Magistrate01 : New Delhi District : PHC : New Delhi.
FIR No. 15/2016
P.S. : Connaught Place
Under Section : 182, 507 IPC
State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma
JUDGMENT
ID number of the case : New No. 11006/2018
DLND020003862018
Date of commission of : 13.01.2016.
offence
Date of institution of the case : 09.01.2018.
Name of the complainant : SubInspector Pritam Singh, Police
Station Connaught Place, New
Delhi.
Name of accused and address : Ravinder Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Rattan Chand Verma, R/o H. No. C185, Madhu Vihar, Dwarka, New Delhi & D55, Vashisht Park, Sagar Park, New Delhi.
Offence Complained of : Under Section : 182, 507 of the
Or Proved Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Offence charged of : Under Section : 182, 507 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 28.03.2023.
FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 1 2 JUDGMENT BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. By this Judgment, I shall decide the case of the prosecution against accused Ravinder Kumar Verma. As per the prosecution case, the accused, on 10.01.2016 at about 2:00 a.m. made a phone call from Inner Circle, Barakhamba Road to the Police Station at 100 Number and informed that a bomb blast was to take place at Karol Bagh and Pahar Ganj at 09:00 a.m. in the morning. On receiving this call, two DD entries No. 6B and 7B were reduced in writing and upon this information an FIR was registered against the accused for making a hoax call with the intent to set the investigation machinery into motion. Thereafter, investigation was launched and CDRs of the mobile numbers mentioned in the D.D. Entries were obtained. The said mobile numbers were found to be belonging to the accused.
2. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused. Upon taking cognizance, the accused was summoned and charge was framed against him on 16.03.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 182 IPC and 507 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 2 3
4. The prosecution examined PW1 ASI Phool Karan, who deposed that on 13.01.2016, he was posted at P.S. Connaught Place as Duty Officer and had registered an FIR on the basis of rukka given by S.I. Pritam. PW1 has exhibited the said FIR as Ex. PW1/A as well as his endorsement on the original rukka as Ex. PW1/B.
5. PW1 was not crossexamined despite opportunity.
6. The prosecution then examined PW2 ASI Lal Singh, who deposed that on 10.01.2016, he was working as Duty Officer from 12:00 midnight to 08:00 a.m. He further deposed that at about 2:03 a.m. he received a call from D55 Operator and the information was reduced by him in writing as D.D. No. 6B. He further deposed that at about 2:10 a.m., he received another call from D55 Operator and this information was also reduced by him in writing as D.D. No. 7B. He further deposed that thereafter, both the DDs were handed over by him to S.I. Pritam Singh for further action. PW2 also brought the Rojnamcha Register and compared the D.D. entries in the Register with the entries lying on the judicial record. They were found to be same.
7. PW2 was not crossexamined despite opportunity.
8. Prosecution then examined PW3 Shri Maninder Singh, Nodal Officer of Vodafone Idea at Sarita Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that during investigation, S.I. Pritam Singh had asked for CDR of Mobile No. FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 3 4 9540694286 from 08.01.2016 to 15.01.2016 along with C.A.F. PW3 further deposed that CDR was provided to the I.O. which is now Ex. PW3/A along with certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. PW3 also brought a fresh copy of CDR along with location chart and the same was taken on record as Ex. PW3/C.
9. PW3 was not crossexamined despite opportunity.
10. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW4 Shri Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel. He deposed that during investigation, S.I. Pritam had asked for CDR of Mobile No. 7042585587 from 08.01.2016 to 15.01.2016 along with CAF. He further deposed that he had provided the CDR to the I.O. along with a certificate under Section 65B of IEA. He also brought a fresh copy of CDR and the same was taken on record as Ex. PW4/C.
11. PW4 was not crossexamined despite opportunity.
12. Thereafter, PW5 SI Pritam Singh was examined who deposed that on 10.01.2016, he received information regarding the DD No. 6B and 7B indicating the phone call conveying that a blast would be carried out by ISI the following morning at Karol Bagh and Paharganj. Thereafter, the numbers mentioned in the DD entries were contacted and the caller did not give any material information. At this point, information was conveyed to senior officers who opined that it must be a FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 4 5 hoax and thus, the present case was instituted. Upon initiation of investigation, PW5 tried to trace the mobile numbers and sought CAF and CDR details from Idea and Airtel with respect to the aforesaid mobile numbers. He further deposed that as per the information received from the service providers, the numbers were found to be registered in the name of the accused. The information received from the service providers is Ex. PW3/A, PW3/B, PW4/A and PW4/B.
13. During cross examination, PW5 deposed that he never met the caller of the aforesaid mobile number and never met the accused during investigation.
14. Thereafter, PW6 Sh. Amit Kumar was examined to whom the investigation was marked on 24.03.2017. He deposed that he tried to trace the accused after taking charge of investigation and upon failure to do so after issuance of NBWs, process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was initiated. He further deposed that he filed the challan u/s 182, 507 IPC and later, after arrest as PO, the accused was produced before the Court.
15. During cross examination, PW6 deposed that he tried to trace the accused from his residence at Uttam Nagar, however, no diary entry in this regard was entered by him when he left for the said visit. He denied having obtained any CDR and CAF in this case as the same were obtained by the previous IO. He denied the suggestion that the accused was served properly at his residence.
FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 5 6
16. Upon closure of PE, the matter was fixed for recording of statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the entire material against the accused was put to him. The accused stated that the entire case against him is false and he never supplied hoax information to the police. No DE was led on behalf of the accused.
17. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments wherein the accused pleaded innocence and submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is false and moreover, it has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Per contra, Ld. APP for the State submitted that all the PWs have supported the case of the prosecution and the ingredients of the offences charged have been proved by the prosecution.
18. I may now proceed to consider the prosecution case by appreciating the evidence on record. At the outset, I consider it important to reproduce Section 182 and 507 IPC which read thus: "182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.--Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant--
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 6 7
19. The ingredients essential for proving an offence under Section 182 are : i. Giving information to any public servant;
ii. Knowledge or reason to believe that such information is false;
iii. Information is given with the intention to cause such public servant to act in a manner he would not act otherwise or to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of another person.
20. Section 507 IPC makes it punishable to commit criminal intimidation through anonymous communication. An essential element for criminal intimidation, as discernible from Section 503 IPC, is to threaten another person. The existence of threat is a prerequisite.
21. In order to bring home the charge under Section 182, therefore, it is not enough to prove the actus reus of making a fake call, it is equally essential to prove that the informant had the knowledge or reason to believe that the information was false and the intention of the informant was to make a public servant act without due cause. Thus, the provision incorporates two limbs of mens rea knowledge/reason to believe regarding the falsity of information and intention towards the public servant. Whereas, the former can be ascertained by cross checking the veracity of information with other material on record, the latter has to be ascertained from the conduct of the accused in the facts and FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 7 8 circumstances of the case.
22. In the present case, the PWs have established that the calls were made from a number belonging to the accused. No doubt, it establishes the causal link between the accused and the offending act. Although merely proving a phone call at 100 number does not, in itself, establish the content of the calls. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon DD entries bearing No. 6B and 7B which duly record the information supplied by the accused in those calls. Proving the DD entries, it is deposed by PW2 that the accused had informed regarding a potential bomb blast at two places in the capital on the next morning. Thus, the actus reus of the offence stands proved to the effect that the information was actually given to a public servant and it was of a nature that could compel the public servant to act upon it. However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is grossly insufficient to prove the remaining ingredient i.e. the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the information supplied was a false information. Apart from a general statement by PW5 that upon conveying the information to senior officers, they opined it to be false, there is no endeavour by the prosecution to prove the element of mens rea of the accused. Conviction in a criminal case cannot be arrived at on the basis of an "opinion" given by the senior officers of police. This Court looks for hard facts and not for opinions, that too of the officers constituting the investigating agency. There is no examination of any witness from the agencies which verified the information and held it to be false. In the absence of any FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 8 9 evidence in that regard, the Court is compelled to note that no such fact checking exercise was ever done by the IO. There is no material on record to indicate what steps were taken by the IO to verify the information. In such circumstances, it cannot be denied that the accused could have made the call in a bona fide state of mind, to actually convey a serious piece of information. The element of knowledge or reason to believe ought to stand on the foundation of some credible material and such an essential ingredient cannot be proved against the accused on the basis of a presumption.
23. As regards Section 507 IPC, even as per the case of the prosecution, the call made by the accused was meant to supply information. There is no indication in the entire prosecution and in the DD entries, wherein the information supplied was recorded, to show that the accused had threatened the police. A threat is not the same as information. A threat is a direct statement to cause injury, whereas an information is to bring to notice the possibility of injury by some other person. The information giver in such circumstances cannot be said to have threatened.
24. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence and the burden upon the prosecution has not been discharged. Let aside proving the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has not been able to prove the essential ingredient of mens rea, as required by the offence in express terms, and the ingredient FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 9 10 of threat. Therefore, I find it a fit case for acquittal.
25. Accordingly, the accused stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him for want of evidence. Bail bonds lying on record be extended for a period of 6 months in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Original documents, if any, lying on the record of this Court be released to the acquitted person forthwith.
26. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
YASHDEEP Digitally signed by YASHDEEP
CHAHAL
CHAHAL Date: 2023.03.28 16:08:01 +0530
Pronounced in the Open Court (YASHDEEP CHAHAL)
th
On 28 March, 2023. Metropolitan Magistrate01 : New Delhi District Patiala House Courts : New Delhi.
FIR No. 15 of 2016 State Vs. Ravinder Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 10