Delhi District Court
State vs . Gajender Singh, Fir No. 446/99, Ps ... on 23 June, 2011
State Vs. Gajender Singh, FIR No. 446/99, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 353/186/34 IPC, Page No.1 IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 446/99 PS. Shalimar Bagh U/s. 353/186/34 IPC State Vs. Gajender Singh & Anr. JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 161/2000
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 26.05.2000
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 18.06.1999
D. NAME OF THE : Sh. R.N Mukherjee AE, PWD, Delhi
COMPLAINANT
E. NAME OF THE : 1. Gajender Singh
ACCUSED S/o Sh. Giani Ram
2. Manjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Ramanand
F. OFFENCE : U/s 353/186/34 IPC
COMPLAINED OF
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquittal
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 23.06.11
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as unfolded from the chargesheet are that on 18.06.1999 at about 5.30 pm at PWD, work site at Haider Pur, Outer Ring Road, Pitam Pura side, Delhi, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed the complainant Sh. R.N. Mukherjee, AE State Vs. Gajender Singh, FIR No. 446/99, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 353/186/34 IPC, Page No.2 and his staff including Sh. A.S. Yadav JE, Sh. Preet Pal Singh JE and Sh. Arvind Kumar JE all being the public servants, in the discharge of their public function. Further, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted or used criminal force to the complainant Sh. R.N. Mukherjee and his staff as mentioned above, the public servants and consequently, they stopped them from discharge of their duties as public functionaries. Consequently, on the basis of statement given by the complainant Sh. R.N. Mukherjee, AE, the present FIR U/s 353/186/34 IPC against both the accused persons was registered at PS Shalimar Bagh. On conclusion of investigation the present challan under the aforesaid sections was filed by SHO PS Shalimar Bagh.
2. The accused persons were summoned by the court for facing trial under the aforesaid sections. In compliance of Section 207 Cr. P. C the copy of the challan and the documents annexed with the challan were supplied to the accused persons. Prima facie charge U/s 353/186/34 IPC was made out against both the accused persons. Accordingly, on 08.01.2008 the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. PW1 HC Harnam Singh has testified that 18.06.1999 he was posted as a duty officer and on that day, he had registered the present FIR. He has proved the said FIR as Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B. State Vs. Gajender Singh, FIR No. 446/99, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 353/186/34 IPC, Page No.3
4. PW2 Sh. A.S. Yadav, Asstt. Engineer, PWD, ZoneI, New Delhi has testified that on 18.06.1999 he was a Junior Engineer in PWD at Mukarba Chowk to Badli Junction and he was working under the Asstt. Engineer Sh. R.N. Mukherji. He has further deposed that on that day, he had not visited Rakesh Petrol Pump, Outer Ring Road, Delhi i.e. the place of the incident. Ld. APP for the State crossexamined the said witness as he was resiling from his previous statement, but nothing incriminating against the accused persons could be extracted from the said witness.
5. PW3 HC Jagmal Singh is the IO of this case and he has deposed that on 18.06.1999 on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant Sh. R.N. Mukherjee (AE) which is exhibited as Ex.PW3/A. He has further stated that he recorded the statement of the witness and he took permission U/s 195 Cr. P. C. from the Department of PWD marked as Mark A. He has further testified that both the accused persons were arrested by him.
6. PW4 Sh. Sanjeev Rastogi, S/o Sh. M.L. Rastogi, SE CPWD, Tharad, Gujarat has proved his complaint U/s 195 Cr. P. C. dated 23.02.2000 No. 15 (323)PF/ECI/PWD/992000/343, vide which the permission to prosecute the accused persons for obstructing public servant/complainant Sh. R.N. Mukherjee was granted. The aforesaid letter/complaint is Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, PE was closed.
State Vs. Gajender Singh, FIR No. 446/99, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 353/186/34 IPC, Page No.4
7. There was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons to fix their liability U/s 353/186/34 IPC. Hence, the statements of both the accused persons U/s 313 Cr. P. C. were dispensed with. Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. I have carefully perused the case file.
9. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
10. The present case of the prosecution is based on the statement of the complainant Sh. R.N. Mukherjee and the three eyewitnesses namely, Sh. A.S. Yadav, Sh. Preet Pal Singh and Sh. Arvind Kumar. All the aforesaid persons are stated to be the public servants, being the employees of PWD, Delhi. The allegations against both the accused persons are that they obstructed the said public servants in discharge of their official duties and for that purpose, both the accused persons used criminal force against them. However, the complainant Sh. R.N. Mukherjee and the eyewitness Sh. Preet Pal Singh have expired before entering the witness box. Therefore, the complaint of Sh. R.N. Mukherjee has remained unsubstantiated. PW2 Sh. A.S. Yadav is allegedly one of the eye witnesses to the incident. However, the said witness has turned hostile and has State Vs. Gajender Singh, FIR No. 446/99, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 353/186/34 IPC, Page No.5 failed to support the prosecution version. On the contrary, he has deposed that on the date of incident, he did not visit the place of incident. The said witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State, but nothing incriminating against the accused persons could be extracted from the said witness, rather, he persisted with his version given by him in his examination in chief. The other eyewitness namely, Sh. Arvind Kumar remained untraceable, even though he was summoned through DCP N/W. The prosecution was granted several sufficient opportunities for examining the said witness, but all in vain.
11. The aforesaid four witnesses are the vital and crucial witnesses for proving the prosecution version and the remaining witnesses are merely formal witnesses. The none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed anything culpable/incriminating against the accused persons. The prosecution version including the complaint of the complainant Sh. R.N. Mukherjee has remained unproved. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the foundation laid down by the statements of the aforesaid four witnesses and the absence of their supporting testimonies have proved fatal to the prosecution case. There is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against both the accused persons to substantiate the prosecution version. Hence, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of proving the culpability of the accused persons. Thus, both the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
12. In view of the, above discussion both the accused persons namely, Gajender Singh and Manjeet Singh are acquitted of the charges framed against State Vs. Gajender Singh, FIR No. 446/99, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 353/186/34 IPC, Page No.6 them. Bail bonds are cancelled and sureties be discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned to the persons legally entitled, after cancelling the endorsement, if any, on the said documents.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN court today i.e. 23.06.11 (DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI State Vs. Gajender Singh, FIR No. 446/99, PS Shalimar Bagh, U/s 353/186/34 IPC, Page No.7 FIR No. 446/99 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 353/186/34 IPC 23.06.11 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Both the accused on bail with counsel.
PW4 examined and discharged.
No other PW is present. It was the last opportunity for the prosecution to lead and conclude the entire PE. Thus, PE stands closed.
There is no incriminating evidence against both the accused persons to fix their liability U/s 353/186/34 IPC. Hence, the statements of both the accused persons U/s 313 Cr. P. C. are dispensed with.
Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, both the accused persons namely, Gajender Singh and Manjeet Singh stand acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 353/186/34 IPC. The sureties are discharged and bail bonds stand canceled. Original documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any, on the said documents.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi 23.06.11.