Delhi District Court
District vs District on 25 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI, CMM, EAST
DISTRICT, KKD COURTS DELHI
FIR No. 238/95
PS Trilok Puri
JUDGMENT
UID No. 02402R0004601995 a. Sl. No. of the case : P666/08 b. Date of commission of offence : 21.08.1992 c. Name of the complainant : Mahant Ram Mangal Dass d. Name of the accused, their parentage and addresses : 1. Chote Lal S/o Khacheru Mal R/o H. No. 188, Village Patparganj, Delhi91.
FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 1/56
2. Sunil Kumar Goel
S/o Late Ramesh Chand
R/o H. No. 139, Village
Patparganj, Delhi91.
3. Braham Swarup
S/o Late Shanti Swarup
R/o H. No. 129, Village
Patparganj, Delhi91.
4. Chunni Lal
S/o Late Umrao Singh
R/o H. No. 109, Village
Patparganj, Delhi91
(Expired)
5. Bharat Singh
S/o Gulab Singh
R/o 178/1, Patparganj,
Delhi91.
6. Ram Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Hardwari Lal
R/o 174D, Village
Patparganj, Delhi91.
(Expired).
FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 2/56
7. Vijay Kumar Goel
S/o Jagdish Chand
R/o H. No. 140, Village
Patparganj, Delhi91.
(Expired)
e. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f. Offence complained of or proved: 323/342/506/34 IPC
g. Final order : Acquitted
h. Date of Institution : 06.12.1995
i. Judgment reserved on : 28.05.2014
j. Judgment delivered on : 25.07.2014
Brief Facts
As per prosecution version, FIR in the present case was lodged on 17.04.1995 on orders of Ld. MM Sh. A. K. Sarpal on basis of complaint of complainant Mahant Ram Mangal Das addressed to Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 3/56 Complainant in his complainant addressed to CP, Delhi stated that on 21.08.1992 on occasion of Janmasthmi between 09:00 to 10:00 AM, residents of village Patparganj namely Ram Kumar Sharma, Chote Lal Sharma, Bharat Singh Chauhan, Vijay Goel, Chunni Lal Gupta, Ramesh Goel, Braham Swaroop Sharma and Sunil Kumar alongwith 3040 ruffians and anti social elements laced with dangerous weapons came to Prachin Shiv Mandir Tapovan Kutir and exclaimed that Mahant Ram Mangal Das you get out as you make complaints against us in police again and again and you also filed one case in Tis Hazari Courts one/two days ago. He stated that they asked complainant to stop legal proceedings against them failing which they threatened to kill complainant. He stated that at instance of Chunni Lal and Ramesh Goel, Ram Kumar Sharma, Chote Lal and Vijay Goel caught complainant and started beating him after tying him with his dhoti. He stated that other accomplices of accused were laced with knives, lathis, axes, farsa and iron rods. He stated that they drove out invitee Sadhus, Sants and devotees after beating them. He stated that thereafter they untied hands of complainant and obtained signatures of complainant on one register forcibly after threatening him for his life. He stated that Sadhus, Sants and Devotees freed complainant with great FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 4/56 difficulty. He stated that finding opportunity, complainant quickly went to a near by factory and dialed at 100 number. He stated that after sometime, when police arrived at the spot, complainant also entered into the temple. He stated that complainant saw that Chote Lal Sharma, Ram Kumar Sharma and Bharat Singh Chauhan have driven out cows and calves out of the Gaushala by beating them. He stated that Bharat Singh Chauhan entered into his room alongwith his accomplices in front of police and drove out complainant's Guru Bhai Shiv Ram Das after beating him. He stated that before police constables, some people took important documents, register, various photographs and silver crown of Lord and went outside. He stated that some people took out one iron almirah, two small iron boxes, one bed with wooden box, clothes, bed sheet and new utensils out of his room. He stated that some people took out ghee, oil, flour, Sugar, masala after breaking lock of store room. He stated that during all this, SHO PS Trilok Puri came in official dress and asked ASI Ranjeet Singh to take complainant in PS. He stated that ASI Ranjeet Singh took complainant to PS and made him sit in a room. He stated that after some time he was asked to report the matter in writing. He stated that he got scared because of the incident but still he wrote something and gave it to SHO. He stated that SHO told him FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 5/56 that it is not safe for him to go outside and that is why he is made to sit in the PS. He stated that he came to know that one more Sadhu namely Ganga Das has also been brought in the PS. He stated that he inquired about the matter and saw that Sadhu Ganga Das was also seated in the backyard of the PS for hours. He stated that he was allowed to go outside at about 03:00 PM. He stated that he went to gate of the temple and saw that three four constables were present inside boundary of the temple. He stated that he saw that Ram Kumar Sharma, Chote Lal Sharma and their two boys were carrying luggage on the rickshaw including his iron Almirah and bed. He stated that he saw Bharat Singh Chauhan carrying bundle of religious books and important documents. He stated that on seeing all this, he understood that his temple has been illegally taken possession of with connivance of local police station. He stated that these sort of attempts for possession have earlier also been tried by these residents of Patparganj. He stated that he earlier also feared from them for his life and of illegal possession. He stated that earlier also he made complaints in writing to police and other higher authorities. He stated that some days ago on 17.08.1992, he requested in writing to various police officials of different ranks for saving his life as well as saving of property of temple but that police did not give any FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 6/56 assistance. He stated that on 19.08.1992, he filed suit for permanent injunction in Tis Hazari Courts against his opponents in which next date of hearing is 31.08.1992. He stated that before getting any help from court or police, he has been ruined by robbing and dacoity in the temple. He stated that on his request, SDM sought report from police in proceedings u/sec 145 CrPC. He prayed for lodging FIR against accused persons. He stated that there are various eye witnesses to the said incident. He stated that matter may be investigated through higher officials of Vigilance and Crime Branch. He also requested for providing security to him, saints residing in the temple and witnesses of the incident. He sent copy of the complaint to various authorities. He mentioned list of looted booty in the complaint.
After registration of the case, investigation was taken up by ACP Jai Pal Singh. It is stated that during investigation records of complainant, alleged persons, Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha, Police station and courts produced by both the parties were examined and 46 persons were examined u/sec 161 CrPC. It is stated that out of 46 persons examined, 21 stated that complainant was working as Pujari in the temple and they also stated that they had seen complainant being detained, beaten and threatened with dire consequences by the accused persons and FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 7/56 their associates on 21.08.1992. It is stated that there were contradictions in their statements but they have supported version of complainant. It is stated that remaining 25 persons examined stated that temple is being maintained by Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha to which accused persons are attached as Executive Members in one capacity or the other. It is stated that they have not supported version of complainant and condemned the alleged incident.
It is stated that complainant produced some photographs, pamphlets showing his possession of the temple. It is stated that from the documents it is proved that complainant was conducting functions after death of Baba Jai Ram Das but that these documents do not hold good to prove that he was owner or incharge of the temple.
It is stated that from perusal of documents produced by alleged persons, it is revealed that Shiv Mandir and adjacent land situated in Khasra No. 106 of Village Patparganj is a Gram Sabha property of Village Patparganj and Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha registered vide No. 5465 in July, 1972 was maintaining the Mandir. It is stated that Baba Jai Ram Das was staying there since long and was getting expenditure from Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha for conducting functions in the temple and FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 8/56 for his livelihood also. It is stated that Sanatan Dharam Sabha has produced copies of registration certificate, electricity bills, bank accounts, agreements with tenants and account books being maintained by Sanatan Dharam Sabha. It is stated that ration card of Baba Jai Ram Das was also produced by Sanatan Dharam Sabha in which there is no mention of complainant. It is stated that photographs and accounts produced by them also indicate that cremation of Baba Jai Ram Das was also conducted by Sanatan Dharam Sabha and complainant was not seen there. It is stated that there are not only one but several documents to show that Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sabha was in possession and was having a stay order against dispossession against Union of India and Ors. dated 23.04.1985. It is stated that complainant filed two civil suits but that both were dismissed. It is stated that from documents, it is revealed that Baba Jai Ram Das was living in the temple and was taking salary and after his death on 24.01.1987, several Pujaris were kept including complainant. It is stated that seeing intentions of complainant to usurp the property, Sudhar Sabha passed resolution on 09.08.1992.
It is stated that Mandir property allegedly stolen by accused persons was checked and 155 items have been found lying in the FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 9/56 temple/office of Sanatan Dharam Sabha and as such they are not found to be stolen.
It is stated that complainant might be in occupation of a portion as an employee which would make him a licensee only and he could be removed from Shiv Mandir Managing Committee. It is stated that in view of all this, allegations of committing dacoity of property of temple and forcible entry into the premises appears to be far fetched view and no connivance has been found on part of any police officer.
It is stated that on basis of statements of witnesses and various documents, it is established that complainant was staying in the temple premises on 21.08.1992 as Pujari and that there was resolution passed by Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha to remove him on 09.08.1992 but he was not removed from there. It is stated that accused persons who were members of Executive Committee, instead of taking legal course, removed complainant by catching hold of him. It is stated that they also bet him and threatened him with dire consequences and that he was forcibly removed from the temple and in the process his personal belongings were also stolen from there. It is stated that stolen articles could not be recovered. It is stated that temple is going on in the construction phase and as such the entire design of FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 10/56 building is changed and as such there is no evidence to prove exact place of residence of complainant to show in the site plan. It is stated that complainant could not produce any evidence regarding procurement /possession of allegedly stolen articles. It is stated that none of the accused persons other than named in FIR could be identified.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused before court on 06.12.1995.
Provisions of section 207 Cr. P. C. were complied with after appearance of accused before court. Prima facie case having been made out, charge u/s 323/342/506/34 IPC was framed against accused persons on 07.04.1998 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following witnesses: PW 1 Rambir Singh PW 2 Braham Dev Yadav PW 3 Kanhiya Lal PW4 Ganga Dass Maha Tyagi PW5 Rameshwar Chand PW6 Balestar Singh FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 11/56 PW7 Puri Ram PW8 Anil Sharma PW9 Mahant Ram Mangal Dass PW10 Satish Pawar PW11 Nand Gopal Mishra PW12 Fateh Bahadur @ Naneh PW13 Hira Lal PW14 Ram Prakash PW15 ACP Jai Pal Singh PW16 HC Mukhtiar Singh PW17 J. C. Sharma, Ex. ACP PW18 Mukesh Shastri PW19 Sheel Bhadra Uppadhyay PW20 HC Bishambar Dayal PW21 Pramod Kumar Tripathi PE was closed vide order dated 20.04.2002.
S/A u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded on 28.05.2002 in which all incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused were put to accused to which accused Ram Kumar Sharma, Vijay Goel, Braham FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 12/56 Swroop Sharma, Sunil Kumar Goel, Chunni Lal, Bharat Singh and Chote Lal have stated that all the documents were prepared by police with collusion of complainant. They further stated that all the witnesses which were produced by prosecution are false & interested witnesses and have stated against them at the instance of complainant. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case being member of Shiv Mandir Satnam Dharam Sudhar Sabha.
Accused in defence evidence, examined following witnesses DW1 Jagwat Saroop DW2 Gopal DW3 Ramvir Singh DW4 Kanhiya Lal DW5 Ved Prakash DW5 Shiv Dutt (inadvertently appears to have been examined as DW5 again) DW6 Jeet Singh DW7 Suraj Prakash DW8 Ranjeet Singh DW9 Nonil Kumar Sharma FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 13/56 DW10 Vijay Pal DW11 Sita Ram Sharma DE was closed on 11.03.2014 on statement of counsel for accused persons.
During pendency of present case, three accused namely Chunni Lal, Ram Kumar Sharma and Vijay Kumar Goel expired.
I have heard final arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record.
Decision and Brief Reasons for the Same Before disclosing my opinion with respect to present case i.e. whether prosecution has been able to prove guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt or not, I will discuss evidence led by prosecution and defence.
PW1 Rambir in his deposition has deposed that on Janmasthmi of 1992, he went to Shiv Mandir, Patparganj around 09:00 AM for giving 10 kg sugar to Maharaj Mangal Das. He deposed that when he reached there, he saw some quarrel between accused persons and complainant. He deposed that then he came back and he does not know anything else. He FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 14/56 further deposed that accused persons alongwith many other persons were taking away certain articles to the Canteen.
PW2 Braham Dev Yadav is a hostile witness so far as identity of accused persons is concerned.
PW3 Kanhiya Lal in his deposition has deposed that on day of Janmasthmi in August, 1992 between 09:00/10:00 AM, 3035 persons came at the Mandir alongwith lathis who started beating complainant. He deposed that they also bet cows and also got forcible signatures on papers of complainant. He deposed that they took out cows and other goods of complainant with themselves and this incident continued even in presence of police. He has not identified accused persons by name before court.
PW4 Ganga Das Maha Tyagi in his deposition has deposed that in 1992 on the day of Janmasthmi at about 09:00 AM, seven persons entered into the Mandir and inquired about complainant who was Mahant of the Mandir. He deposed that they inquired from complainant as to why he has lodged false case against them and started giving beating and also robbed goods of Mandir. He deposed that complainant some how got free himself and went out from western gate of the Mandir and reported the matter to police and police came at the spot in pursuance of call at 100 FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 15/56 number. He deposed that local police including SHO also came at the Mandir and even in presence of police officials, the said persons remained indulged in looting the goods and beating 24 persons including complainant, him and 34 sadhus. He deposed that he and complainant were forcibly detained in the PS. He has identified accused persons before court.
PW5 Rameshwar Chand is a hostile witness and has not supported prosecution version.
PW6 Balestar Singh in his deposition before court has deposed that on 21.08.1992, one Paath was going on around 09:00/10:00 AM. He deposed that around 40 people including accused persons started beating sadhus and also took away goods of sadhus. He deposed that hands of complainant were tied and he was given beatings. He deposed that complainant some how managed to rescue himself and intimated to the police. Police came at the spot but even at that time also, people of the village were taking away goods from the Mandir. He deposed that complainant was taken to PS on the pretext that his life is in danger and was released from PS at about 05:00 PM.
PW7 Puri Ram is a hostile witness who has not supported prosecution version.
FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 16/56 PW8 Anil Sharma is also hostile witness who has not supported prosecution version.
PW9 Mahant Ram Mangal Das is complainant. He in his deposition before court deposed that on 21.08.1992, at about 09:00/10:00 AM, accused persons alongwith 30/40 persons came in the Prachin Shiv temple, Patparganj and asked him to come out of room of the temple. He deposed that the said persons started beating him. He deposed that some of them were having weapons like saria, lathi, kulhadi and sword etc and they tied his hands. He deposed that accused Chunni Lal and Ved Goel started beating at instance of other persons. He deposed that other persons with them started beating other sanyasi of the temple. He deposed that accused Ram Kumar and Chote Lal obtained his signatures on two registers forcibly. He deposed that they asked him to stop civil proceedings which he has filed in Tis Hazari Court and also threatened that his last time has come and he must leave the temple. He deposed that accused Chote Lal, Ram Kumar and V. K. Goel kicked him and he fell down. He deposed that he raised alarm. He deposed that some sanyasis came to save him and they again obtained his signatures on blank papers. He deposed that thereafter accused persons stretched him by pulling his hair. He deposed that thereafter he saved FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 17/56 himself and ran away. He deposed that thereafter he informed at 100 number. He deposed that in the meanwhile, PCR van came there and local police also came at the spot. He deposed that even at that time, the said persons were taking away articles of the temple. He deposed that SHO PS Trilok Puri came at the spot and ASI Ranjeet Singh took him to PS saying that his case will be registered there. He deposed that he refused to go to the PS and said that till police removes the said persons from the temple, he will not go to PS. He deposed that thereafter police officials asked him to give written complaint but that he told them that he can not write the complaint under these circumstances and that firstly they should stop the said persons from taking articles of temple like Almirah, beds, books etc. He deposed that thereafter he visited PS Trilok Puri and gave his written complaint. He deposed that he was made to sit in PS for 3 /4 hours. He deposed that other Sanyasi of the temple Ganga Das was also brought to the PS. He deposed that from conduct of police, he came to know that police was in collusion with accused persons and that FIR was not lodged in the PS. He deposed that he again came back in the temple but that SHO told him that it was not safe for him to remain in the temple and so he left temple and went to office of SDM, Mayur Vihar. He deposed that there he FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 18/56 made an application and again came back to temple. He deposed that on checking, he found articles of temple like articles of room of Thakurji, clothes of Thakurji, utensils, mike, dholak, loud speaker, 10 copies of Ram Charit Manas, Granths, articles of Jag Mohan, 10 daris, 10 bed covers, articles of kitchen like 6 tin of desi Ghee, 2 tin dalda, one tin of mustered oil and other articles like sugar, rice etc were found missing. He deposed that 10 chairs and articles of Goshala were also found to be missing. He deposed that Rs. 2,000/, 8 small daris, wearing cloths were also found to be missing. He deposed that thereafter, he made a complaint to CP, Delhi. He has identified accused Ram Kumar Sharma, Chote Lal, Vijay Goel, Sunil Goel and Braham Swroop before court.
PW10 Satish Panwar is a hostile witness and has not supported prosecution version. He in his cross examination by state denied that accused were involved in the commission of offence.
PW11 Nand Gopal Mishra in his deposition before court has deposed that on 21.08.1992 at about 09:00/10:00 AM, 30/40 persons came in Shiv Tapovan Mandir and called Mahant Mangal Das and talked with him and thereafter started beating him and tied his hands. He deposed that they took articles of the temple like almirah, decoration articles and ration FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 19/56 etc. He deposed that all those persons were having lathi, danda etc in their hands. He has identified accused persons before court. He deposed that accused persons took away five cows with their calves.
PW12 Fateh Bahadur @ Naneh in his deposition before court has deposed that on day of Janmasthmi in 1992, there was Akhand Paath in Prachin Shiv Mandir, Patparganj. He deposed that between 09:00/10:00 AM accused persons with 30/40 persons came in the temple and called complainant separately and started abusing and beating him. He deposed that they tied his hands with clothes and took away all the articles from temple such as bed, almirah, tape, galicha and other articles. He deposed that persons from Mohalla and market also assembled there and on their intervention, complainant was untied. He deposed that thereafter they took complainant to PS. He deposed that the said persons removed name of the temple by paint and other name Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha was written by them and they did not allow complainant and other persons to enter in the temple. He has identified accused persons before court.
PW13 Hira Lal has identified only accused Ram Kumar before court and has become hostile so far as identity of other accused persons is concerned. He in his deposition before court has deposed that on FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 20/56 21.08.1992, at about 09:00/09:30 AM, there was hue and cry in the temple and he saw some persons including accused Ram Kumar were beating complainant and cows of the temple were running here and there.
PW14 Ram Prakash is a hostile witness so far as identity of accused persons is concerned.
PW15 ACP Jai Pal Singh, Crime Branch is IO of the case. He has exhibited order of the court vide which FIR in the present case was lodged vide Ex. PW15/A, his endorsement vide Ex. PW15/B, FIR vide Ex. PW15/C, seizure memo of certain documents and photographs produced by complainant vide Ex. PW15/D, seizure memo of Mark PW15/K vide Ex. PW15/L, seizure memo dated 26.04.1995 vide which accused Sunil Kumar Goel produced certain documents and photographs vide Ex. PW15/M, seizure memo of list of articles vide Ex. PW15/P and search memos of houses of accused persons vide Ex. PW15/Q1 to Ex. PW15/Q7. He has identified accused persons before court. Site plan has been exhibited in cross examination of PW15 vide Ex. PW15/R. PW16 HC Mukhtiyar Singh is a witness to Ex. PW15/D, F, L, M and P. PW17 J. C. Sharma, Ex. ACP conducted Vigilance inquiry on FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 21/56 the same being marked to him by DCP, Vigilance. He has marked vigilance report collectively vide Mark PW17/A. PW18 Mukesh Shastri in his deposition before court has deposed that on the day of Janmasthmi in 1992 at 08:00 AM, 30/40 persons came in the temple and started abusing and misbehaving with complainant. He deposed that he tried to intervene but they pushed him to other side. He deposed that many other persons also assembled there. He deposed the said mob started beating complainant. He deposed that hands of complainant were tied and he was also tied with the pole. He deposed that the said mob also took away ration articles including utensils, burner, cows, calves, documents and photograph of complainant. He deposed that the said mob forcibly obtained signatures of complainant on two blank registers. He deposed that he tried to intervene but was abused by them and thereafter he was allowed to leave the temple. He deposed that at the same time PCR van came there and he also went in the temple with the said PCR van. He deposed that complainant was made to sit in PCR van but accused persons with other persons continued to take away articles of the temple even at that time. He deposed that he was made to leave his residence from Patparganj on account of threat being given to him by accused persons.
FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 22/56 PW19 Sheel Bhadra Upadhyay in his deposition before court has deposed that on day of Janmasthmi in 1992 at about 09:00 AM, he saw some persons raising hue and cry coming from main gate of the temple. He deposed that they were using words Maro Pakro. He deposed that some of them were having dandas in their hands who made devotees of the temple to flee from there. He deposed that they caught hold of complainant and other sadhu and thereafter they started taking away articles. He deposed that they forced complainant to write something on some documents. He deposed that public persons intervened and saved complainant. He deposed that police came there and took complainant and one of his chela. He deposed that the said miscreants took away articles of temple like box, almirah, utensils etc. He deposed that some of the cows were also taken. He deposed that he also sustained some stick blows. He identified accused Chote Lal and Ram Kumar before court by name and also identified other persons but without their names.
PW20 HC Bishambar Dayal is DO who has deposed regarding recoding of FIR already Ex. PW15/C. PW21 Pramod Kumar Tripathi though has deposed that accused were present at the spot but has become hostile with regard to role FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 23/56 played by accused persons.
DW1 Jagwat Saroop in his deposition before court has deposed that he used to work in the Mandir at Patparganj, Shiv Mandir in evening and morning. He deposed that he also performed Puja Paath at the temple. He deposed that Baba Jai Ram who was Pandit by caste was nominated by villagers as Pujari of the above temple. He deposed that Baba Jai Ram died in 1987. He deposed that after death of Baba Jai Ram, Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudahr Sabha nominated another Pujari Gopal Das for Puja Paath in the temple. He deposed that all the expenses including food etc was arranged by above committee. He deposed that after two years of death of Baba Jai Ram, complainant also performed Puja Paath at the temple. He deposed that complainant left temple on may occasions for one week or two week and in his absence Gopal Das performed the Puja Paath at the temple. He deposed that on 21.08.1992, villagers and people of committee were preparing work of Puja, cleaning the temple and preparing the Jhanki . He deposed that at about 09:00/09:30 AM, complainant alongwith his another companion armed with kulhari and dandas came at the temple and threatened people of the village and members of the committee and asked them to leave the temple. He deposed that FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 24/56 complainant attacked accused Ram Kumar who was President of Committee who was saved with intervention of villagers and members of committee. He deposed that complainant was handed over to local police.
DW2 Gopal in his deposition before court has deposed that committee of the temple i.e Shiv Mandir, Patparganj is working at the temple since 1972. He deposed that after death of Baba Jai Ram Das on 24.01.1987, committee of the temple called him and asked him to do work of Pujari at the aforesaid temple. He deposed that at the time of death of Baba Jai Ram Das, complainant was present in the temple. He deposed that complainant started coming to the temple since 1989. He has not deposed anything with regard to incident dated 21.08.1992. He has deposed that on 08.08.1992, he went to his native village and came back on 23.09.1992. He deposed that one case of kidnapping of him and his children by complainant and his associates on 26.01.1993 is pending before court.
DW3 Ramvir Singh in his deposition before court has deposed that on 21.08.1992, when he was preparing Prasad at his shop at about 10:00 AM, he noticed complainant and twothree persons armed with kulhari and lathi entered in temple and stated that it is his temple and started quarreling with members of the committee. He deposed that members of the FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 25/56 committee called police and handed over complainant to police. He has identified complainant before court.
DW4 Kanhiya Lal in his deposition before court has deposed that on 21.08.1992 on occasion of Janmasthmi, people of village gathered in the temple for worship. He deposed that complainant, Ganga Das alongwith other persons came in the temple from gate No. 1. He deposed that complainant had danda in his hand and Ganga Das had kuhari and other persons also were having dandas and rods who started attacking Chote Lal, Bharat Singh and Ram Singh and asked them to leave the temple. He deposed that after listening to the noise, police reached at the spot. He deposed that everybody fled from the spot except Ganga Das who was caught and police took him to the PS. DW5 Ved Prakash has not stated anything in favour of defence. He has deposed that he does not know anything about the quarrel.
DW5 Shiv Dutt (inadvertently appears to have been examined again in nomenclature of DW5) in his deposition before court has deposed that on the day of Janmasthmi in August 1992, he had gone to Shiv Mandir at about 09:30 AM. He deposed that on reaching there he heard noise coming from inside and saw that quarrel was going on between Chote Lal, FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 26/56 Bharat, Mangal Das and other villagers. He deposed that on seeing that he returned back to home and he does not know that what happened thereafter.
DW6 Jeet Singh in his deposition before court has deposed that in 1992 on the day of Janmasthmi, people of village were busy in preparation of Janmasthmi in the temple. He deposed that complainant alongwith 45 people came to the temple and started quarreling with people including persons of body/sabha of the temple. He deposed that people of the village requested complainant not to quarrel on the temple but he did not listen and villagers called the police. He deposed that complainant was armed with lathi and other sadhus were armed with kulhari. He deposed that police apprehended complainant and his associates.
DW7 Suraj Prakash in his deposition before court has stated that he is also a member of body of Shiv Mandir for last 2025 years. He deposed that in the beginning, one Baba Jai Ram used to reside in the said temple and after his death body of temple appointed another pandit for performing Puja namely Gopal Das. He deposed that body of temple never appointed complainant. He deposed that on 21.08.1992 on the day of Janmasthmi, he was present in the temple alongwith other villagers and preparing for function of Janmasthmi. He deposed that in the morning at FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 27/56 about 09:00 AM, complainant, Ganga Das alongwith 23 other companions came to the temple. He deposed that complainant was armed with lathi and Ganga Das was armed with Kuhlari. He deposed that complainant was adamant to quarrel and abused the persons preparing for function of Janmasthmi. He deposed that villagers informed the police and police came to the spot and took them to PS. DW8 Ranjeet Singh in his deposition before court has deposed that in the beginning, one Baba Jai Ram used to reside in the Shiv Mandir and after his death, body of temple appointed Gopal Das for performing Puja. He deposed that complainant also used to come for performing Puja sometimes after death of Baba Raj Ram. He deposed that on the day of Janmasthmi at about 09:00 AM, he was present in the temple alongwith other villagers preparing for function of Janmasthmi and complainant, Ganga Das alongwith 23 other companions came to the temple. He deposed that complainant was armed with lathi and Ganga Das was armed with kulhari. He deposed that complainant was ready to quarrel and started abusing people who were busy in preparing for function of Janmasthmi. He deposed that people of village asked him not to quarrel and abuse but he did not stop and villagers had to inform police which came at the spot and took FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 28/56 complainant, Ganga Das and their companions to PS. DW9 Nonil Kumar Sharma in his deposition before court deposed that on 21.08.1992, at about 09:00 AM, he visited Shiv Mandir Kaleshwar Nath, Patparganj. He deposed that one Pujari namely Purshottam Sharma was doing Puja and one Rambir Halwai was preparing sweets. He deposed that complainant alongwith his 57 associates having sticks, axes in their hands came into the Mandir and started abusing Ram Kumar Sharma i.e. Pradhan of Managing Committee of the Mandir. He deposed that on he objecting, the above said persons attacked Ram Kumar Sharma with sticks and axes. He deposed that all the persons gathered in the Mandir caught hold of them and handed over to the police.
DW10 Vijay Pal in his deposition before court has deposed that on the day of Janmasthmi in August at around 08:30 AM, he went to hair cutting saloon near Shiv Mandir. He deposed that at about 09:00/09:15 AM, he was coming out from the said shop. He deposed that he heard noise from inside the Mandir and went inside the Mandir. He deposed that he saw complainant alongwith his 4/5 associates having sticks and axes in their hands were abusing members of the committee of the Mandir. He deposed that police came at the spot and complainant and his associates were handed FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 29/56 over to police by committee members and villagers.
DW11 Sita Ram Sharma in his deposition before court deposed that on 21.08.1992 at about 08:30 PM, he went to temple to see function of Janmasthmi. He deposed that members of the committee were cleaning temple and fixing light for the function. He deposed that he heard the noise and saw that complainant alongwith 2/3 other associates having danda and Kulhari were beating members of committee. He deposed that some one informed police and police came in the temple and apprehended complainant and his associates namely Ganga Das and others and took them to PS. After going through evidence as adduced by prosecution through witnesses examined by prosecution, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to establish guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons as to why I have arrived at this conclusion are as follows:
The basic root cause of conflict in the present case appears to be land on which Mandir in question is built. Complainant in his complaint given to CP, Delhi on basis of which court ordered for registration of FIR in the present case (though complaint has not been exhibited or proved on FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 30/56 record by state) has referred to the temple in question again and again as his Mandir. Accused persons in their defence have claimed that the said temple was being managed and governed by Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha of which they were members. PW15 /IO in this regard in his cross examination has admitted that land on which temple is existing belongs to Gram Sabha, Patparganj. He has admitted that accused are the members of Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha registered. He further admitted that during his investigation, he found that complainant was working as Pujari at Shiv Mandir, Patparganj, Delhi. He also admitted that complainant used to claim himself as owner of the temple. He has admitted that complainant could not produce any documentary proof regarding land and building ownership. He stated that complainant produced some receipts and copy of Trust registered by him. He admitted that in the Trust created by complainant, none of the resident of the village is member of the Trust. He further admitted that complainant could not produce any documentary proof regarding his possession over the temple except that he was staying as Pujari. He admitted that he recorded statements of 25 persons of the village Patparganj who stated that complainant was working as Pujari and when they found that he was trying to grab the land of temple, they asked him to FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 31/56 leave the place.
Complainant/PW9 in his deposition before court has himself stated that he was appointed as a Mahant of the temple by Sadhu Samaj and Villagers. Complainant in his cross examination has stated that he does not know whether temple in question is constructed on village Sabha land of Patparganj, Delhi (which fact in law implies admission on part of complainant that temple in question is constructed on village sabha land). Complainant in his cross examination has further admitted that Baba Jai Ram Das was residing in the above temple till his death. He has further admitted that Baba Jai Ram Das was having a ration card in his name and that name of complainant was not included in that ration card. He has further admitted that no villager of village Patparganj was member of his Trust in which he was Trustee. He admitted that he made the then Prime Minister Sh. Chander Shekhar, President of his Trust. He has admitted that in Trust Deed, he mentioned regarding land of temple, his power to sell land of temple, to mortgage and to let out land of temple. He has feigned ignorance that after abovementioned powers were taken by him in his Trust, villagers of village Patparganj held Panchyat and passed resolution to remove him from the above temple (which fact in law implies admission on FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 32/56 part of complainant of this fact). From cross examination of complainant, it appears that complainant formed a Trust of land of temple in question but it has not been proved by state as to how complainant formed trust. State has failed to bring on record any document which empowered complainant to form such a Trust of temple land.
PW4 in his cross examination has stated that complainant was Mahant in the Mandir and he was not performing religious ceremonies there. He in his cross examination further stated that there were 15/20 shops existing in the temple and complainant used to collect rent from the tenants. PW3 in his cross examination has stated that complainant was over all Incharge of the Mandir. PW11 in his cross examination has stated that accused persons had installed complainant on the Gaddi. PW10 in his cross examination by state has admitted that complainant was installed on the Gaddi by Panchayat of the village on 24.01.1987. PW6 in his cross examination has stated that after death of Baba Jai Ram Das, complainant started Puja at the above temple as Pujari. PW12 in his cross examination has admitted that it is correct that he had stated in his statement to the police that he is paying Rs. 30/ per month as rent to Chunni Lal of my vegetable shop. He has further stated that he has seen complainant doing work of FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 33/56 Pujari in the temple only in the evening time. PW13 in his cross examination has admitted that complainant used to work in temple as Pujari. PW19 in his cross examination has stated that he cannot say whether complainant was Mahant or Pujari in the temple. He again said that complainant was Mahant of the temple. From cross examination of PWs as discussed in this para, it cannot be said that it stands proved that complainant was Mahant of temple in question. Many of the PWs have stated that complainant was performing Puja in the temple.
No evidence in writing of the fact that complainant being acting as Mahant of temple in question being brought on record, I am of the view that it cannot be said that it stands proved in view of different versions of different PWs as discussed above that complainant was Mahant of temple in question but whatever the case may be, it appears that accused persons are not denying that complainant was working as Pujari in temple in question and had right to be present in the temple as a matter of fact (as is evident from nature of questions asked from various PWs by defence).
There was no requirement in an ordinary case of quarrel to discuss status of complainant as Mahant or Pujari but in the circumstances of present case, the discussion was necessary in order to start on the FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 34/56 premises that complainant had some status in temple in question and had a right to be present in temple in question. Now I proceed further to discuss case on merits.
Complainant in his complaint given to CP, Delhi on basis of which FIR in present case was lodged has also levelled allegations of theft against accused persons and other accomplices of accused (not arrested). Charge in the present matter was not framed for offence U/sec 379 or 380 IPC but allegations of complainant are necessary to be discussed so as to take a holistic view of incident that allegedly took place on 21.08.1992. Complainant in his complaint given to CP, Delhi has stated that accused persons alongwith their accomplices took various articles from his room, from store room of the temple and various other articles of the temple. IO has not annexed any ownership proof of articles of complainant which complainant in his complaint claims to be his. IO/PW15 in his cross examination has admitted that it is correct that when he visited temple, he found articles of the temple reported to be taken away were found in the temple. IO in body of charge sheet has stated that personal belongings of complainant were also stolen from there and these articles could not be recovered. IO in body of charge sheet has further mentioned that the temple FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 35/56 is going in the construction phase and as such the entire design of building is changed and there is no evidence to prove exact place of residence of complainant now in the site plan. He has further mentioned that complainant could not produce any evidence regarding procurement /possession of allegedly stolen articles. Complainant/PW9 in his examination in chief has stated that in the meanwhile PCR van came there and local police also came there and even at that time, the said persons were taking away articles of temple. He in his examination in chief has further stated that he told to police officials that the can not write a complaint under these circumstances and first of all you must stop the abovesaid persons from taking away articles of temple like Almirah, bed, books etc. He in his examination in chief further stated that on checking his temple, he found articles of temple like articles of room of Thakurji, clothes of Thakurji, utensils, mike, dholak, loud speaker, 10 copies of Ram Charitmanas, granths, articles of Jag Mohan, 10 dari, 10 plung push, articles of kitchen, 6 tin of desi ghee, 2 tin dalda, 1 tin mustered oil and other articles like sugar, rice etc were found missing. He deposed that 10 chairs, articles of Goshala, Rs. 2,000/, 8 small dari and our wearing clothes were found missing. Complainant in his deposition before court has not FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 36/56 stated theft of anything else except his clothes. He has not given any number of clothes that he was having. He has not deposed regarding theft of his other articles as mentioned by him in his complaint given to CP, Delhi like iron almirah (though he has deposed regarding theft of Almirah but Almirah he has deposed to be of temple and not his personal), small iron boxes etc. As per cross examination of IO as mentioned above, articles of temple were found in the temple itself which were reported to be taken away. IO in the body of charge sheet has stated that complainant has not given any proof regarding procurement /possession of allegedly stolen articles. Further, complainant has not adduced any documentary proof with regard to his belongings/ clothes on record nor has stated anything that goes to show that he was having lawful possession over articles which he claims to be his own. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe version of complainant with regard to alleged theft by accused persons of articles of temple as well as his personal belongings and it appears that charge u/sec 380 IPC was not framed in the present matter by my Ld. Predecessor keeping in mind body of charge sheet.
Now, let me analyze evidence as brought on record by state qua charge u/sec 323/342/506/34 IPC.
FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 37/56 As per averments of complainant in complaint given to CP, Delhi, he has mentioned that he was tied with his dhoti and was beaten by accused Ram Kumar Sharma, Chote Lal and Vijay Goel. He has further stated that accused persons also drove out other Sadhus residing in the temple and guest Sadhus after beating them. No MLC of any injured has been proved by state on record. Rather IO has not filed MLC of any injured on record.
PW3 in his examination in chief has deposed that 3035 persons came at the Mandir armed with lathis. PW4 Ganga Das in his examination in chief has stated that 7 persons entered into the Mandir. He has not stated that aggressors were having any weapon in their hands. PW6 has stated number of people to be 40. He has also not stated that aggressors were laced with any weapons. Complainant/PW9 in his examination in chief has numbered people entering in the temple to be 30/40. With regard to weapons, people were carrying, complainant has deposed that they were having weapons like Saria, lathi, kulhari and sword etc. PW11 has stated number of persons to be 30/40. He has described weapons carried by them to be lathis and dandas. PW12 and PW18 though have stated number of people to be 30/40 but they have not stated that they were carrying any FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 38/56 weapons. PW19 has not numbered the persons and regarding weapons, he has stated that some of them were having dandas etc. in their hands. PW18 has stated time of entry of assailants to be around 08:00 AM whereas rest of supporting witnesses have stated time to be between 09:00 to 10:00 AM. Difference in version of various PWs as discussed in this para reduces their credibility.
Most of the witnesses examined by prosecution appears to be interested witnesses. PW3 in his examination in chief has stated that in 1989, he used to reside in East of Kailash. He in his cross examination has stated that he knows complainant from Jhansi Mandal prior to this place. PW4 in his cross examination has stated that he was in JC in FIR No. 688/93, PS Trilok Puri and was released yesterday only. He has admitted that accused Bharat Singh and Ram Kumar are witnesses in case registered against him. PW6 has deposed to have taken shop on rent on the premises of temple in question. He in his cross examination admitted that eviction/recovery of rent proceedings are pending at Tis Hazari Courts between him and Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha Secretary. PW11 in his cross examination has stated that his statement was never recorded by the police. PW12 has deposed to be running a vegetable shop FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 39/56 near Prachin Shiv Mandir, Patparganj since 1976. He in his cross examination has stated that he does not know whether Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha or its members are facing trial before Civil Court at Tis Hazari in which his father is also party. He in his cross examination has admitted that he met complainant out side court today. PW18 in his cross examination has stated that on that day he reached in the Mandir at 08:00 AM. He has further stated that at that time 30/40 people were already present. Time of alleged incident as took place on 21.08.1992 is quite different as stated by PW18 i.e. at around 08:00 AM as compared to other PWs who have supported prosecution version i.e between 09:00 to 10:00 AM. PW18 in his cross examination has admitted that complainant is out side court. PW21 in his cross examination by defence has stated that complainant met him in the court. He has admitted that from time of meeting with complainant, he remained with him till start of his statement (though PW21 is a hostile witness so far as identity of accused persons is concerned in the participation of alleged incident).
PW2, PW5, PW7, PW8, PW10, PW13 (has identified only accused Ram Kumar before court), PW14 and PW21 have turned hostile and have not supported prosecution version.
FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 40/56 PW1 in his examination in chief has merely stated that at around 09:00 AM on Janmasthmi day of 1992, when he went to Shiv Mandir, Patparganj, he saw some quarrel between accused persons and complainant. He has deposed that thereafter he came back and he does not know anything else. He has not deposed that he saw accused persons beating, restraining or threatening complainant or any other of his disciples. PW2 is hostile with regard to identified of accused persons. PW3 has not identified any accused by name. He has not specified role of any particular accused while beating complainant. He has not deposed anything with regard to restrainment of complainant by accused persons and threatening by accused persons. In view of the fact that PW3 has not specified any role to any specific accused while beating complainant, his testimony cannot be relied for convicting accused persons. Further, as discussed above, PW3 in his cross examination has stated that he knows complainant from Jhansi Mandal prior to this place meaning thereby that he is interested witness. Further, though he has not specified that at the time of alleged incident where he was residing but from his examination in chief, it appears that at the time of alleged incident, he used to reside in East of Kailash. Coming to temple so far away from his house appears to be bit unreasonable as he has FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 41/56 not specifically stated that he had great faith in idol installed in temple in question.
PW4 Ganga Das Maha Tyagi in his deposition has stated that 7 persons entered into the Mandir. Number of persons stated by PW4 to have entered the temple are quite different than as stated by other PWs. He has also not assigned any specific role to any of the accused in beating of complainant nor he has stated the manner in which complainant was beaten by accused persons. He has deposed that beating of complainant and other three four Sadhus continued in presence of police officials. No other PW including complainant has deposed that beating of complainant and other Sadhus continued even after police arrived at the scene. Further as pointed earlier, PW4 is an interested witness in the sense that accused Bharat Singh and Ram Kumar in present case are witnesses against him in FIR No. 688/93, PS Trilok Puri as admitted by PW4 in his cross examination. He has not deposed anything with regard to restraining aspect of complainant or threatening to complainant by accused persons. He has also not deposed anything with regard to weapons being carried by accused persons. Testimony of PW4 therefore cannot be relied upon for convicting accused.
PW5 Rameshwar Chand is a hostile witness and has not FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 42/56 supported case of prosecution.
PW6 Balestar Singh is witness who has taken shop on rent in premises of Prachin Shiv Mandir Tapovan, Patparganj. He has deposed that hands of complainant were tied and he was given beating. He has not deposed as to who bet complainant. He has not spoken anything regarding weapons carried by accused persons. He has not deposed anything with regard to restraining of complainant and threatening to complainant by any of the accused. He in his cross examination has admitted that eviction/recovery of rent is pending at Tis Hazari Courts between him and Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha Secretary. As per cross examination of IO /PW15, accused herein are members of Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha. In these circumstances, PW6 is an interested witness. PW6 in his cross examination has stated that he cannot tell date of Dushera in 1992, he cannot tell of Rakshabandhan in 1992 or any other festival in 1992. PW6 is not remembering dates of other festivals in year 1992 but he remembers date of Janamasthmi in 1992. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on testimony of PW6 for convicting accused persons.
PW7 Puri Ram and PW8 Anil Sharma are hostile witnesses FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 43/56 and have not supported prosecution case.
PW9 Ram Mangal Das is complainant himself. He in his examination in chief has stated that some of the persons who entered in the temple on 21.08.1992 were having weapons like Saria, Lathi, kulhari and sword etc. He in his complaint addressed to CP, Delhi on basis of which FIR in present case was lodged has included weapon like knives and Farsa amongst Lathi, axes and iron rod/saria. PW1 has not mentioned that any weapon was being carried by accused persons in his deposition before court. PW3 has deposed regarding weapons being carried by assailants to be lathis only. PW4 and PW6 have not stated that accused persons were carrying any weapons. PW10 (though hostile with regard to identity of accused persons with regard to involvement of accused) has stated that lathis, sticks and rods were being carried by persons who entered in the temple. PW11 has stated weapons to be lathi, danda etc. PW12 and PW18 have not stated anything with regard to weapons being carried by accused persons. PW14 has deposed weapons to be dandas only. PW19 has deposed weapons to be only dandas. Contradictions between version of various PWs regarding weapons being carried by accused persons diminishes credibility of prosecution version. PW9 in his deposition has FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 44/56 deposed regarding obtaining his signatures forcibly twice i.e once on two registers and once on blank papers. PW9 in his complaint addressed to CP, Delhi on basis of which FIR in present case was lodged has stated regarding getting his signatures forcibly by accused persons only once and that too on one register. PW3 in his deposition has deposed with regard to signatures of complainant being obtained once only and that too on certain papers. PW18 in this regard has deposed that the said persons of the mob forcibly obtained signatures of complainant on two blank registers. PW19 in this regard has deposed that they also forced complainant to write something on some documents. No other PW has deposed with regard to forcible obtaining of signatures of complainant by accused persons. These contradictions between versions of various PWs lowers credit of prosecution version. PW9 in his deposition has not stated as to from where he called at 100 number. Complainant in his complaint addressed to CP, Delhi has stated that he rang at 100 number from a nearby factory. No name of the factory has been stated by him. IO has also not done any investigation in this regard. PW3 in this regard has deposed that complainant went to PS for lodging the complaint. PW4 has not stated that as to who called at 100 number. PW6 has not deposed as to how police was informed though he FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 45/56 has deposed that complainant intimated police. PW10 and PW11 in this regard have deposed that someone informed police at 100 number. IO has not brought on record any DD entry vide which it can be shown that indeed call at 100 number was done. All this casts shadow of doubt on state's version. Complainant in his deposition before court as well as in complaint addressed to CP, Delhi has stated that he gave complaint in writing to SHO concerned on the day of alleged incident but no such complaint has been brought on record by IO nor the same has been proved by state. It is an important missing link in version of prosecution. PW9 in his deposition before court has deposed that accused persons tied his hands. He has not deposed as to with which thing his hands were tied or they were tied interse. In his complaint addressed to CP, Delhi, he has stated that he was tied with his Dhoti. PW1 to PW5, PW10, PW13, PW14 and PW19 do not speak anything with regard to tying of complainant/PW9 by accused persons. PW6 speaks of tying of hands of PW9 but he has not stated as to with which thing hands of complainant were tied. PW12 speaks of tying hands of complainant with clothes and not by Dhoti of complainant. PW18 speaks of tying of hands of complainant with pole. All this reduces trustworthiness of prosecution version. Regarding threat extended to FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 46/56 complainant, PW9 /complainant in this regard has deposed that threat was to the effect that last time of complainant has come and he must leave the temple. PW1 to PW3, PW5 to PW8, PW10 to PW14, PW18, PW19 and PW21 do not speak anything with regard to threatening aspect. PW4 in this regard has deposed that persons doing Akhand Paath were threatened. He has not spoken anything with regard to threatening of complainant by accused. All this creates doubt regarding genuineness of prosecution version.
PW10 Satish Pawar is hostile with regard to identity of accused persons so far as their involvement in incident in question is concerned.
PW11 Nand Gopal Mishra in his cross examination has stated that his statement was never recorded by police. In case his statement was not recorded by police, I am at loss to understand as to how IO cited him as witness and on what basis. Perusal of his deposition shows that he is not resident of village Patparganj and is resident of Noida. He has not disclosed in his deposition as to why he had come to temple for decoration though in his cross examination, he has stated that he was doing decoration work at saying of complainant. He in his cross examination has stated that he is FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 47/56 employed at Super Bazar. In case he is not a professional decorator, why did he come for decoration far away from Noida is beyond logical comprehension. He appears to be interested witness and his testimony is not sufficient to convict accused.
PW12 Fateh Bahadur @ Naneh has deposed to be running a vegetable shop near Prachain Shiv Mandir. He in his cross examination has feigned ignorance with regard to the fact that Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha or its members are facing trial before Civil Court at Tis Hazari in which his father is also a party (denial for want of knowledge in law means admission of a fact). PW15 in his cross examination admitted that all the accused are members of Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha. In these circumstances, it appears that PW12 is also an interested witness and false deposition on his behalf cannot be ruled out.
PW13 Hira Lal is hostile witness so far as identity of accused persons is concerned except accused Ram Kumar. He in his cross examination has stated that he knows accused Ram Kumar being a visitor of his owner's house. He has feigned ignorance with regard to the fact as to whether his owner had litigation with Ram Kumar prior to above incident (it implies admission of the fact on part of the witness in law as he has failed to FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 48/56 specifically deny this fact). PW13 has also not deposed in detail regarding the alleged incident of 21.08.1992. He has in his cross examination admitted that complainant is present outside court and he met him outside court. It appears that PW13 is an interested witness and his testimony cannot be relied upon for convicting accused being lacking in detail and being that of interested witness.
PW14 Ram Prakash is hostile witness and has deposed that he does not know anything about this case except that many people having danda in their hands came from Patparganj village and entered the temple and started beating complainant. He in his cross examination by defence has stated that he does not know as to who caused injury to complainant.
PW15 ACP Jai Pal Singh is the IO. He in his cross examination has stated that land on which temple exists belongs to Gram Sabha, Patparganj. He has further admitted that accused present in the court are members of Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha. He has admitted that during his investigation, he found that complainant was working as Pujari in Shiv Mandir, Patparganj Delhi. He has admitted that complainant used to claim himself as owner of temple. He has admitted that complainant could not produce any documentary proof regarding land and FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 49/56 building ownership. He admitted that in Trust created by complainant, none of the resident of village is member of the Trust. He has admitted that complainant could not produce any documentary proof regarding his possession over the temple except that he was staying as Pujari. He has admitted that complainant has filed several complaints to various authorities besides the complaint on which present case has been registered. He has admitted that when he visited temple, he found articles of the temple reported to be taken away were found in the temple. From testimony of IO, it appears that complainant had motive to lodge present case against accused persons as he was admittedly claiming ownership of temple in question and accused persons being members of Shiv Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sudhar Sabha i.e Sabha managing affairs of the temple.
PW16 HC Mukhtiar Singh is police official witness to various seizure memos and is not as such an eye witness and so not a very material witness.
PW17 J. C. Sharma is Ex. ACP who conducted inquiry while he was posted in Vigilance Branch as ACP. Vigilance report prepared by him has not been exhibited and has been marked as Mark PW17/A. He in his deposition has not stated that Vigilance inquiry conclusion/discussion FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 50/56 bears his signatures anywhere, so Vigilance inquiry as such cannot be read in evidence remaining unproved. Further, he in his cross examination has stated that he cannot tell the management of land on which temple existed. He stated that complainant accompanied him when he visited the temple. He stated that he did not examine during inquiry any member of the trust i.e Sh. Chander Shekhar, the then Prime Minister of India, Zile Baba and Sudham Baba. He stated that he did not verify the register of Trust which was produced by complainant during his inquiry. He admitted that he received letters of various MPs during his inquiry alongwith complaint of complainant. He stated that he recorded statement of one Dushyant Kumar during his inquiry. He stated that he cannot identify Dushyant Kumar if he is produced before him. He stated that he did not contact any other person of the village Patparganj except Dushyant Kumar. He has admitted that he recorded statements of the persons produced by complainant. He stated that he also recorded statement of near residents of the temple. From cross examination of PW17, it appears that he has not conducted inquiry in impartial manner. Otherwise also, his evidence is of no consequence, inquiry report remaining unproved.
PW18 Mukesh Shastri has deposed to be residing in house of FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 51/56 one Satish in Patparganj. He has deposed to be Purohit when Baba Jai Ram Das was Mahant of Prachin Shiv Mandir Tapovan Kutir, Patparganj. He has deposed that cremation proceedings of Baba Jai Ram Das was done by him. He has deposed that complainant was appointed as Mahant in the evening hours after death of Baba Jai Ram Das by Sanyasi of all four communities and villagers. He has deposed that on Janmasthmi of 1992 complainant visited his residence and asked him to be present in the temple by 08:00 AM for Janmasthmi ceremony. He deposed that accordingly he reached there at 08:00 AM. He has deposed that complainant was handing over Puja Samgari to him at the same time more than 30/40 persons came in the temple and started abusing and misbehaving with complainant. He deposed that he tried to intervene but was pushed to other side. Thereafter he has given details of the alleged incident. He in his cross examination has stated that he remained in house of Satish till 1993. He stated that there was no ration card in his name from Village Patparganj. He stated that he does not know about adjacent property of Satish. He stated that he does not have any documentary proof regarding his tenancy or residence proof. He submitted that however he may have a visiting card of panditai of above said residence. He stated that complainant was residing with Baba Jai Ram Das FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 52/56 for around 2, 4 and 5 years before death of Baba Jai Ram Das. He stated that Baba Jai Ram Das was having ration card. He stated that he does not know if any photographs of last rites of Baba Jai Ram Das were taken or not. He again said that probably photographs were taken. He has shown ignorance to the fact as to whether he appeared in photograph or not. He stated that at the time of cremation, many respectable people of Patparganj were present. He stated that he does not remember name of anyone except one Ram Swroop. He stated that on that day, when he reached Mandir at 08:00 AM, around 30/40 people were already present. As mentioned earlier, almost all the PWs have stated time of alleged incident to be between 09:00 to 10:00 AM, credibility of PW18 is shattered on this count. Further, from answers given by him in his cross examination, it appears that he is a stock witness who has deposed at instance of complainant. A person residing at a particular place is likely atleast to know as to who is residing in neighbourhood but PW18 has shown ignorance in this regard. PW18 has not got made any document with regard to address on which he was residing except one Panditai card which he may have and which any one can get printed. PW18 is stated to have conducted cremation proceedings of Baba Jai Ram Das but he does not remember name of any one present at FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 53/56 the time of cremation except one Ram Swaroop. All this creates doubt regarding genuineness of version of PW18 and accused cannot be convicted on basis of his testimony.
PW19 Sheel Bhadra Upadhyay has identified two accused namely Chote Lal and Ram Kumar by name before court but has identified other accused also though he has not identified them by name. He in his cross examination has stated that he used to reside in Panchayat Bhawan from 1989 to 1993. He stated that his name was not mentioned in any voter list or any ration card. He stated that he does not have any knowledge about other residents who were residing in Panchayat Bhawan during those days. He stated that he cannot tell from where he knew accused Ram Kumar and Chote Lal. He stated that except these two names, he does not have any knowledge about names and addresses of persons who entered in the temple on the day of Janmasthmi. He has feigned ignorance about the fact that Baba Jai Ram Das was taking money from Sanatan Dharam Sabha for his livelihood. He stated that he knows complainant since 1989. He stated that he cannot tell name of any person who intervened in the matter in his presence. He stated that he cannot tell whether any person came from the shops which were situated in front of temple. He stated that he cannot tell FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 54/56 name of any person who entered in the temple. He stated that he does not know who tied hands of complainant with cloth piece nor he can tell name of person who removed articles from temple. He stated that he had seen about 8/10 Sadhus in temple during his visit in temple. He stated that he can not give name of any other Sadhu who resided in the temple except complainant. Whatever has been stated by PW19 in his cross examination shows that he is a stock witness who has deposed at instance of complainant. He does not have any address proof of the address where he resided for four years, he does not know other residents who were residing at the place where he was residing, he does not know name of anybody who entered in temple on the day of Janmasthmi despite residing at one address near temple for period of four years, he does not know name of any other Sadhu except complainant, despite he visiting temple daily for 8/10 months, he does not know who tied hands of complainant nor he knows name of person who removed articles from temple. Accused persons in these circumstances cannot be convicted on testimony of PW19.
PW20 HC Bishambar Dayal is DO who has proved copy of FIR already Ex. PW15/C. PW21 Pramod Kumar Tripathi is hostile witness so far as FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 55/56 involvement of accused in alleged incident is concerned.
In view of testimonies of various PWs discussed by me in various preceding paras of this judgment, I am of the view that PWs who have not turned hostile are not credible enough to convict accused persons.
In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. There is no requirement of discussing defence evidence in these circumstances. It appears that complainant had motive to lodge present case against accused persons. There are various contradictions between versions of various PWs, no medical of any injured has been proved on record by state and version of various PWs is inconsistent with regard to material particulars. Many of the PWs have turned hostile. I am of the view that accused persons deserve to be given benefit of doubt which is accordingly given. Accused are acquitted for offences u/s 323/342/506/34 IPC. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
Dt. 25.07.2014 CMM, District East,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 238/95 PS Trilok Puri 56/56