Delhi District Court
State vs Rajbir @ Wazir on 12 August, 2008
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURTS,
ROHINI : DELHI
SC No. 72/2
Date of institution of the case: 09/02/2007
Date of Decision: 12th of August, 2008
State
Versus
1. Rajbir @ Wazir
S/o Sh. Budhram
R/o 28A, Sharma Colony,
Budh Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi.
2. Amitabh Upadhyay
S/o Sh. Vishwanath Upadhyay
R/o N-48, Sharma Colony,
Budh Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi.
3. Vinit Updahyay
S/o Sh. Vishwanath Upadhyay
R/o N-48, Sharma Colony,
Budh Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi.
4. Rana Pratap (since not arrested)
S/o Sh. Naresh Singh
R/o Village Rithala, Delhi.
FIR No.397/2003
P.S. Sultan Puri
U/s.436, 427 r.w. Sec. 34 IPC
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
First the Facts In this case, challan was put in court alleging commission of offences under Section 436, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. Name of Rana Pratap (accused) was shown in column No.2 of the accused as he could not be arrested during investigation. Other three accused named above, were sent up for trial. Allegations levelled against the accused persons are that on 18/04/2003 at about 01:30 p.m. in Sharma Colony, near Trimurti Mandir, Budh Vihar, Phase- II, all of them in furtherance of their common intention removed goods from the shops of two cable operators and set them on fire with a view to cause mischief. On 18/04/2003, at about 02:25 p.m., police was informed by a lady, resident of House No. 933, Rithala that 3/4 boys had decamped with Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) from the shop of her husband being run under the name and style Laxmi Cable in the area of Budh Vihar, Phase-II. On the basis of this information, Sub Inspector S. S. Rana accompanied by constable Siya Ram reached the spot and found that articles from the two shops situated there had been removed and -:3:- then set on fire. In addition thereto, police found broken articles lying scattered in the shop. On the basis of ruqqa sent by the SI, present case was registered as no eye witness was available there.
During investigation, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the spot was got photographed.
Amitabh Upadhyay and Vineet Upadhyay accused were arrested on 17/09/2004 and Rajbir accused was arrested on 15/11/2005. They are stated to have made disclosure statements. Rana Pratap accused could not be arrested and as such his name was shown in column No.2 of the report put in court.
After compliance with provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C , case came to be committed to the Hon'ble Court of Session vide order dated 17/02/2006, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
Charge Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offences u/s 427 and 436 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the three accused. Since the accused -:4:- pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
Discussion Main stay of the prosecution was on the statements of Anil, a cable operator and partner of Raj Kumar Gupta in Laxmi Cables; Naresh, an employee of the said cable operator; Smt. Gudiya, wife of Ram Niwas (the cable operator) and Satpal. Anil appeared in court as PW4; Naresh as PW8 and Smt. Gudiya as PW9. A perusal of their statements would reveal that they have not supported the case of prosecution so far as identity of culprits is concerned. None of them has raised any accusing finger against any of the accused present in the dock. Prosecution could not secure presence of 4th material witness namely Satpal despite opportunities. Name of Dev Chander, photographer was struck off from the list of witnesses.
While appearing in court, PW4 Anil deposed that he was a partner of Raj Kumar who was running cable operator's business under the name and style Laxmi Cables. According to him, in the year 2003, he came to know that someone had burnt the office of Ram Niwas. The witness -:5:- further stated that he could not know as to who was involved in burning of office of Ram Niwas. Further according to him, during those days, no damage was caused to his office. He denied to have himself seen anyone setting office of Ram Niwas on fire. He even denied to have made any statement to the police. Learned Addl. PP put leading questions to the witness after seeking permission from the court but nothing useful to the prosecution could be elicited from him. As regards identity of the accused persons, the witness admitted that he knew all of them, but denied their involvement in commission of present crime.
PW8 Naresh, the star witness displayed ignorance about the present case. He even denied to have made any statement. He too was put leading questions by learned Addl. P.P. but nothing useful to the prosecution could be extracted from him. The witness displayed ignorance about the accused persons present in court. He denied to have intentionally not identified them.
Smt. Gudiya, wife of Ram Niwas while appearing in court as PW9 deposed that on 18/04/2003 she received telephonic message from their employee that their office had -:6:- been set on fire whereupon she informed the PCR Staff and got lodged a complaint. Thereafter she reached office of Laxmi Cable. At that time, she saw 5/6 boys setting their office on fire. She also found that cash had been removed from the office. On seeing her, the 5/6 boys ran away from the spot. Further according to her despite reporting of the matter to PCR, no action was taken by the police. She went to Police Post Budh Vihar but police did not record any report. As regards identity of the culprits involved in committing mischief, the witness stated that she could identify them. However, she did not identify any of the accused persons present in court as the culprits involved in commission of crime. Learned Addl. PP put leading questions to the witness after seeking permission from the court but nothing useful to the prosecution could be elicited from her. She did not depose any fact in favour of the prosecution. She denied to have deliberately suppressed truth from the court or intentionally not named the accused persons present in court as the culprits involved in commission of crime.
Prosecution could not secure presence of other witness Satpal despite ample opportunities. -:7:-
As noticed above, none of the material witnesses has supported the case of prosecution. Statements of remaining witnesses namely PW1 Head Constable Ajeet Singh, PW2 Constable Chiranji Lal, PW3 SI Rajesh, PW5 Inspector Suraj Bhan, PW6 ASI Sugan Lal and PW7 Santosh Kumar are formal in character.
Since there is nothing incriminating in the statements of three material witnesses examined in court, recording of statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
Conclusion In view of the above discussion, when there is not even an iota of evidence against any of the accused persons, present in the dock, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt against any of the accused for any of the two offences for which they have been facing trial. Consequently, Rajbir, Amitabh Upadhyay and Vinit Upadhyay accused are acquitted in this case.
Since Rana Pratap accused could not be arrested during investigation, file is ordered to be consigned to record room u/s 299 Cr.P.C., with the directions that it shall -:8:- be taken up as and when accused appears or is produced before this court.
Announced in Open Court on dated 12th of August, 2008 ( Narinder Kumar ) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi 12-08-2008