Delhi District Court
Judgment Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In ... vs . Kishanbhai, on 3 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 03:
NORTH EAST: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SC No. 226/10
Unique ID: 02402R0255652008
FIR No.741/07
PS Welcome
U/s 186/332/353/228/307/506 r/w section 34 IPC and 147/148/149
State
VERSUS
1. Aabid
s/o Gulsher
r/ H.No.47, Janta Colony, Welcome
Delhi.
2. Imraan
s/o Hasmat
r/o H.No.L374, Janta Colony, Welcome
Delhi.
3. Madeena
w/o Aakil
r/o H.No.L389, Janta Colony, Welcome
Delhi.
4. Naseem
w/o Munna
r/o H.No.382, Janta Colony, Welcome
Delhi.
5. Munna
s/o Navi Ahmed
FIR No.741/07 1 of 20
P.S. Welcome
r/o H.No.L382, Janta Colony, Welcome
Delhi.
6. Mohd. Wasim
s/o Munna
r/o H.No.L382, Janta Colony, Welcome
Delhi.
Date of Committal: 16.07.2008.
Date of Arguments: 03.09.2014.
Date of Judgment: 03.09.2014.
JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2007, PW2 ASI Brij Pal being posted at P.S. Welcome had been assigned the investigation of FIR No.711/07, u/s 379 IPC and 135 of Electricity Act. Vide DD No.17A dated 24.10.2007, at around 5.15 p.m., he left the P.S. alongwith Ct. Braj Pal Singh and L/Ct. Santosh. At around 6.15 p.m., he reached H.No.L374, Janta Colony, Welcome, Delhi where he met accused Munna who was wanted in that case. He apprised Munna that he was wanted in this case but Munna became annoyed and asked the police party not to arrest him. When PW2 ASI Brij Pal apprehended him, he started grappling with PW2, raised alarm and collected several persons of the locality. At around 6.25 p.m., PW1 Insp. S.B. Yadav who was on petrolling duty also reached the spot and saw that ASI Brij Pal, Ct. Braj Pal Singh and Lady Ct. Santosh holding Munna and other accused persons namely Abid, Imran, Nasim, Madina and FIR No.741/07 2 of 20 P.S. Welcome Wassim trying to save Munna from the police. PW1 Insp. S.B. Yadav asked them not to do so, but they did not pay any heed. Accused Nasim, w/o Munna, bit PW1 Insp. S.B. Yadav on his right hand. Accused Abid took out a knife and attacked PW1 with intention to kill. PW1 Insp. S.B. Yadav stopped the blow of knife with his right hand and received injuries on index finger of his right hand. The remaining four accused persons namely Imran, Madina, Wasim and Munna grappled with ASI Brij Pal and put them on ground. ASI Brij Pal Singh and Ct. Braj Pal Singh were beaten with fists and kicks by all the accused persons. PW1 Insp. S.B. Yadav called the PCR as well as other police force. Before PCR and other police party could reach, accused Munna and Wasim escaped from the spot and while escaping, accused Wasim took the knife from Abid and and ran way. On arrival of the additional force, the remaining four accused were apprehended. The injured were taken to the hospital in the PCR van and the official vehicle of the SHO.
2. Upon these allegations, the chargesheet u/s 186/332/353/228/307/506 r/w section 34 IPC and 147/148/149 IPC was filed.
3. Charges against the accused persons u/s 186 r/w section 34 IPC, 353 r/w section 34 IPC, 307 r/w section 34 IPC and 225 r/w section 34 IPC were framed against the accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 23.01.2009 to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty FIR No.741/07 3 of 20 P.S. Welcome and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
5. PW1 is Insp. S.B. Yadav. He deposed that on 24.10.2007, at around 6.25 p.m., he was on patrolling duty in Government vehicle and he reached at 65 ft. road, Janta Colony, FBlock. He noticed a large gathering of public persons at a public toilet in front of L374, Janta Colony. On reaching there, he saw that ASI Brij Pal Singh, Ct. Braj Pal Singh and Lady Ct. Santosh, were holding Munna and other accused persons Abid, Imran, Naseem, Madina and Wasim were trying to free Munna. He asked them not to do so but wife of Munna, namely Nasim, bit on his right hand. Accused Abid took out a knife and attacked his with an intention to kill him. He stopped the blow with his right hand and received injuries on index finger of his right hand. The remaining accused persons grappled with ASI Brij Pal and Ct. Braj Pal Singh and put them on ground. He called the PCR as well as additional force, but before police party could reach, two accused namely Munna and Wasim escaped from the spot. Accused Wasim took the knife from accused Abid and ran away with it. After arrival of additional force and PCR, the other accused persons were apprehended. The injured policemen were taken to the GTB Hospital in the PCR as well as in his official vehicle.
6. PW2 is ASI Brij Pal. He deposed that on 24.10.2007, he (PW2) was in the investigation of FIR no.711/07 u/s 379 IPC and 135 Electricity Act.
FIR No.741/07 4 of 20 P.S. Welcome
At around 6.15 p.m. they reached H.No.L374, Janta Colony where he met accused Munna. On being apprised that he was wanted in this case, accused Munna became annoyed and asked the police party not to arrest him. However, PW2 apprehended him and when he was being taken, Munna started grappling with PW2, raised alarm and collected several persons of the locality. At around 6.25 p.m., SHO of Police Station Welcome alongwith police staff also reached there. He also requested the accused not to do these things, accused Nasim, w/o Munna bit on the right hand of the SHO. Accused Abid took out a knife and attacked the SHO with that knife with intention to kill him. The SHO tried to avoid the blow with his right hand and received injuries on his index finger. Accused persons namely Abid, Munna, Madina, Imran and Wasim started beating them with fists and kicks and PW2 ASI Brij Pal, Ct. Braj Pal Singh and Lady Ct. Santosh were put on ground. Accused persons also tore his uniform. Accused Abid handed over his knife to accused Wasim and Wasim alongwith Munna escaped form the spot. PCR and extra police force reached the spot and accused Nasim started hitting her head on the ground. Accused Abid, Imran, Madina and Nasim were apprehended with the help of additional police force. He was then transported to GTB Hospital where SI Jagbir Singh reached and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. After the treatment, he alongwith SI Jagbir returned to the spot and at his instance, SI Jagbir prepared the site plan. SI Jagbir also seized his torn uniform vide seizure FIR No.741/07 5 of 20 P.S. Welcome memo Ex.PW2/B. At his instance, accused Nasim was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C and her personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/G. Accused Madina, Imran and Abid were also arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW/F respectively and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW2/G1, Ex.PW2/G2 and Ex.PW2/G3 respectively. He identified the torn uniform as Ex.P1 and the knife allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Abid as Ex.P2.
7. PW3 is SI Jagbir Singh. He deposed that on 24.10.2007, being posted as SI at P.S. Welcome, he was assigned DD No.20A. On receipt of DD, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Satpal, Ct. Rajeev and Ct. Dharampal went to Janta Colony, Peeli Mitti. There he found SHO, ASI Brij Pal, Ct. Braj Pal Singh and W/Ct. Santosh. Four accused persons namely Abid, Imran, Nasim and Madina were in the custody of the police team. He found SHO and ASI Brij Pal in injured condition and sent them to GTB Hospital for treatment. After the crowd had been dispersed, he went to GTB Hospital and collected MLCs of both the injured police officials. He recorded the statement of ASI Brij Pal and upon his statement, he made endorsement Ex.PW3/A and sent Ct. Sandeep for registration of FIR. Thereafter, at the instance of ASI Brij Pal, he prepared site plan Ex.PW3/B and seized the torn police shirt of ASI Brij Pal. Ct. Sandeep came back and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to him. He interrogated the accused persons and arrested them. On 27.11.2007, accused Wasim and Munna had FIR No.741/07 6 of 20 P.S. Welcome surrendered in the court and were taken on police remand by Insp. Pradeep. They were handed over to him for further investigation. He interrogated both the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. At the instance of accused Wasim, one button actuated knife was recovered from the Government toilet's roof near his house. He prepared sketch of the knife Ex.PW3/F, prepared a parcel of the same, sealed the parcel with seal of JSN and took the knife in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/G. He also identified the knife Ex.P2 to be the knife recovered at the instance of accused Wasim. He also identified Ex.P1 as the shirt of ASI Brij Pal which was seized by him.
8. PW4 is Ct. Braj Pal Singh. He deposed on the lines of PW2 and PW1.
9. PW5 is HC Sohan Lal. He deposed that on 24.10.2007, he was posted as Duty Officer at P.S. Welcome from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. At around 6.48 p.m., he recorded DD No.20A. At around 9.40 p.m., on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Sandeep and sent by SI Jagbir Singh, he had recorded the FIR no.741/07 Ex.PW5/A. After registration of FIR, he made his endorsement Ex.PW5/B upon the rukka already Ex.PW3/A.
10. PW6 is HC Kulbeer. He deposed that on 27.11.2007, he alongwith Ct. Rajeev and Addl. SHO Pradeep Sharma came to Karkardooma Courts Complex where accused Munna and Wasim had surrendered before the FIR No.741/07 7 of 20 P.S. Welcome court. With the permission of the court, both the accused were arrested and were taken on police remand. After being brought to the Police Station, both the accused were handed over to SI Jagbir Singh for interrogation. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Jagbir Singh, Ct. Rajeev and both the accused reached the toilet/shauchalaya Janta Colony, Welcome. Accused Wasim then got recovered a button actuated knife from under a brick near the wall of the toilet. SI Jagbir prepared sketch Ex.PW3/F of the knife, converted it into a parcel, sealed it with seal of JSN and took the knife in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/G. The arrest memo of accused Munna is Ex.PW6/B and his personal search memo is Ex.PW2/G2. The arrest memo of accused Wasim is Ex.PW6/C and his personal search memo is Ex.PW2/G3.
11. PW7 is the only public witness Ikrar Hussan. This witness during his testimony did not support the prosecution and deposed that he was not aware about the occurrence, but on 24.10.2007, he was called to the Police Station and one police official namely Nagar had obtained his signatures on one paper which was also written but the contents of this document were not read over to him. During crossexamination, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State could not bring out anything to support the case of the prosecution.
12. PW8 is Dr. P.K. Saha, CMO, GTB Hospital. He deposed that Dr. Murtaza A Khan had worked under him for a sufficient period and he was acquainted with the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Murtaza A Khan FIR No.741/07 8 of 20 P.S. Welcome who had left the services of the hospital. He deposed that MLC no.B4707 of S.B. Yadav was seen by him. It was in the handwriting of Dr. Murtaza A Khan having his signatures at point A. The MLC is Ex.PW8/A. He deposed that the MLC of injured ASI Brij Pal was in the handwriting of Dr. Murtaza A Khan having his signatures at point A. The MLC is Ex.PW8/B.
13. PW9 is Retd. ACP S.P. Kaushik. He deposed that in the second week of December 2007, the present case file was produced before him by SI Jagbir and after perusal and considering the material, he had given a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C, Ex.PW9/A.
14. PW10 is Dr. I.B. Dubey. He was deputed by MS, GTB Hospital to depose in this case on behalf of Dr. Rajni Kant who had left the services of the hospital. He deposed that he had seen the MLCs Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and in both the MLCs, Dr. Rajni Kant at encircled portion X, had opined the nature of injuries to be simple and he was acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Rajni Kant as Dr. Rajni Kant was his colleague.
15. PW11 is Insp. Pradeep Kumar. He deposed that on 27.11.2007, he was working as Addl. SHO at P.S. Welcome. On that day, on the directions of SHO, he reached Karkardooma Courts where two accused were to surrender before the court of Sh. S.K. Gupta, Ld. M.M. Two accused Munna and Wasim had surrendered before the court and with the FIR No.741/07 9 of 20 P.S. Welcome permission of the court, he formally interrogated the accused persons. Accused Wasim was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/C and his personal search memo is Ex.PWPW2/G2. Accused Munna was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/B and his personal search memo is Ex.PW6/G2. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Munna which is already Ex.PW3/G (Ex.PW3/D actually). He has recorded the disclosure statement of accused Wasim which is already Ex.PW6/A.
16. Thereafter, statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 19.04.2014. All of them preferred to lead evidence in their defence and examined Sabir Ali as DW1 and Salim as DW2.
17. DW1 Sabir Ali deposed that around 6 or 7 years ago, in the evening at around 4.30 to 5 p.m., two policemen came to the house of his neighbour Munna. they inquired about Munna. Munna's children informed that Munna had gone to Badaun. They then took Nasim, Imran and Madina with them. While they were taking Nasim, Imran and Madina, he inquired from them as to where they were taking these people and they told him that these persons were being taken to Police Station for certain inquiries and thereafter, they would be released. Around 2 and ½ hours later,he went to find out about the fate of these people, but he was not allowed to enter the Police Station and the policemen asked him to make inquiries from court. During crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he denied that these persons were not taken at the above said time by the policemen to the FIR No.741/07 10 of 20 P.S. Welcome Police Station in his presence. He also denied that Imran, Madina and Nasim were arrested by the police on 24.10.2007 as they had obstrcuted police officials in discharging their official duties. He denied that he had concocted a false story to create a defence in their favour. He stated that he had not made any complaint to the Sr. Police officers or before the court about the taking of these persons by the Police.
18. DW2 is Salim. He deposed that he had a shop on the main chowk of Janta Colony. Around 7 years ago, one day at around 5 or 6 p.m., he saw that a little distance from his shop a large crowd had gathered. Out of curiosity, he went there. He saw that two policemen were taking two ladies and one man with them. He overheard the policemen telling the people that they were taking these persons for making inquiries regarding Munna. During crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. P.P., he stated that he had not made any complaint to Sr. Police officers about taking away of these persons by the police. He denied that he never seen any police official taking away these persons. He denied that he had concocted a false story to save the accused persons.
19. I have heard Ld. counsel for the accused, Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State and perused the record very carefully.
20. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State has contended that the prosecution has succeeded in proving before the court that the accused persons on 24.10.2007 had obstructed the police officials in discharge of their FIR No.741/07 11 of 20 P.S. Welcome functions and had caused injuries with a knife upon the person of Insp. S.B. Yadav SHO P.S. Welcome.
21. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the accused has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. He has contended that despite a number of public persons being available, no public persons were joined by the police and the only public witness who was joined by the police, that too a day after the incident, had not supported the case of the prosecution. He has further contended that the entire case has been fabricated to falsely implicate the accused persons. He has contended that the fabrication of the evidence is visible from the fact that the doctor's opinion, after producing the knife, on MLC Ex.PW8/A was obtained on 15.11.2007, whereas the recovery of the knife has been shown to have been effected at the instance of accused Wasim on 27.11.2007.
22. I have heard Ld. counsel for the accused persons, Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State and perused the record as well as gone through the testimonies of the witnesses.
23. The first contention of Ld. counsel for the accused was that as the police had failed to join any public witness, this shows that the case is false and fabricated.
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Narayan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1995 SC 1930 has observed as under: Indeed, the evidence of the officials (police) witnesses cannot be FIR No.741/07 12 of 20 P.S. Welcome discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are, either interested in the investigating or the prosecuting agency but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see success of the case based on their investigation required greater care to appreciate their testimony. We cannot lose sight of the fact that these police officials did not join any independent witnesses of the locality and made an attempt to create an impression on the Court that PW2 and PW5 were witnesses of locality and were independent....
25. If the testimony of police witnesses in this case is scrutinized, a lot of discrepancies emerge in the story of the prosecution. The basis of this case was that PW2 was investigating FIR No.711/07 and pursuant to that investigation, when he went to arrest accused Munna, accused Munna and other accused resisted that arrest and in that process caused injury to the policemen. Surprisingly, nothing has been brought on record to show that in fact, accused Munna was required to be arrested in FIR No.711/07. PW2 ASI Brij Pal Singh who had allegedly gone to arrest the accused Munna in relation to FIR No.711/09 initially, during his examination in chief refused to answer any question regarding the involvement of the accused in FIR no.711/07. When he was recalled for his crossexamination, he stated that as per FIR no.711/07, the address of accused Munna was mentioned as L 21, Janta Colony. On reaching this address, they found that Munna was then residing at L374, Janta Colony, Delhi. Now something should have been brought before the court that Munna was owner of H.No.L21, Janta Colony or consumer of electricity in that house and thus, was required to be FIR No.741/07 13 of 20 P.S. Welcome arrested in the case of electricity theft and thus; on 24.10.2007, when PW2 ASI Brij Pal had proceeded to arrest this accused, he had reasons to believe that the accused had committed that offence. However, the prosecution has failed to bring anything on record. In the absence of anything being on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove that PW2 was acting in discharge of his duties and thus, was lawfully arresting the accused Munna when he was allegedly obstructed by accused Munna and other accused. In the absence of any such proof merely because a police official goes to somebody's house in uniform, he cannot be said to be having an absolute right to arrest anybody and if an attempt is made without any reasonable cause, the person being sought to be arrested, has every right to resist that arrest. In the absence of the reasonable cause of arrest being shown to the court, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove that PW2 and the policemen accompanied him were acting in discharge of their duty when they were allegedly obstructed and attacked by the accused persons.
Even otherwise, there are a lot of discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses as to how the story unfolded. PW2 ASI Brij Pal in his testimony nowhere stated that initially he had gone to H.No.L21, Janta Colony where he was informed that Munna had shifted to L374, Janta Colony. This only came up in the crossexamination of this witness when the defence started questioning this witness regarding the FIR No.711/07 for the investigation of which he had allegedly proceeded and in which FIR No.741/07 14 of 20 P.S. Welcome theft of electiricity ha been alleged at C21, Janta Colony.
26. Noticeably, on one hand, PW2 ASI Brij Pal has stated that he did not know accused Munna prior to 24.10.2007 and two persons had pointed towards accused Munna. On the other hand, PW4 Ct. Braj Pal Singh, who had accompanied PW2 ASI Brij Pal, deposed that when they reached H.No.L374, Janta Colony, accused Munna was found sitting outside the house. IO had identified the accused Munna and no other person had pointed towards Munna.
27. It is also to be noticed that a DD No.20 dated 24.10.2017 was registered in P.S. Welcome. The SHO admitted that he had knowledge of this DD and thus DD was proved vide Ex.PW1/DX. This DD was of the same time and of the same location and there were allegations that children and ladies were being beaten. However, the SHO feigned complete ignorance regarding the fate of this DD.
28. The SHO while appearing as PW1, during his crossexamination stated, that he flashed a wireless message and also informed the Police Control Room. Surprisingly, neither the transcript of the wireless message nor the PCR form was produced before the court so that the veracity of the statement of the SHO could have been checked.
Nobody from the PCR, who had responded to the call of SHO, had been made a witness. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses, including the PW1 and PW2, is that the four accused persons namely Abid, FIR No.741/07 15 of 20 P.S. Welcome Imran, Nasim and Madina could only be overpowered and apprehended when the PCR and additional police staff had arrived. However, this testimony appears to be false in view of the testimony of PW3 SI Jagbir Singh who deposed that when he reached the spot, he found the SHO Insp. S.B. Yadav, ASI Brij Pal and L/Ct. Santosh. He also found that all the four accused i.e. Abid, Imran, Nasim and Madina were in the custody of the police team. He nowhere states that there were other police personnel or PCR staff who might have helped in apprehension of overpowering these accused persons.
The suspicion that the PCR call was not made becomes more strong in view of the fact that according to PW2 ASI Brij Pal Singh, he was taken to GTB Hospital in the PCR vehicle whereas in the MLC of this witness which is Ex.PW8/B, he was shown to be brought by Ct. Sandeep No.561 NE of P.S. Welcome. Meaning thereby, he was not taken to the hospital by PCR and rather he was taken to the hospital by Ct. Sandeep who, according to PW3 SI Jagbir Singh, had accompanied him from the Police Station when he had proceeded for the spot on receipt of DD No.20A.
What is more surprising is that no DD NO.20A, in which the alleged information regarding assault on these policemen had been recorded and which was assigned to ASI Jagbir Singh, has been produced. Ex.PW5/C is not DD No.21A but DD No.20 copy of which had already been exhibited and proved in the crossexamination of PW1 as PW1/DX. Therefore, the FIR No.741/07 16 of 20 P.S. Welcome basis of the movement of the police officials including the IO SI Jagbir Singh, has not been produced before the court so that the truthfulness of the allegations and the stand that such an information was given to the Police Station and was recorded in the DD, could be established.
29. The most surprising part is that after the arrest of the accused Wasim on 27.11.2007, his disclosure Ex.PW6/A was allegedly recorded. Pursuant to this disclosure, a knife, stated to be the weapon of offence, was allegedly recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/G dated 27.11.2007. To connect this weapon to the offence, the prosecution had allegedly obtained opinion of the doctor who opined, that the injury on PW1 Insp. S.B. Yadav could have been caused by the knife which was produced before the doctor. The opinion of the doctor is dated 15.11.2007. Meaning thereby, even before the alleged recovery of this knife on 27.11.2007, the knife had been produced before the doctor on 15.11.2007 and the doctor had opined that the injuries on the index finger of PW1 could have been caused by that knife. It was only 11 days thereafter that the knife Ex.P2 was allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Wasim. This clearly establishes the fact that prior to the alleged recovery at the instance of accused Wasim, the knife was already available with the police and this establishes that this knife was in fact planted upon the accused Wasim. This explains why the police, despite opportunities, did not join any public witnesses at the time when the recovery of the knife was allegedly effected at the instance of FIR No.741/07 17 of 20 P.S. Welcome accused Wasim. PW3 SI Jagbir Singh, who effected the recovery, admitted that the place of recovery was a thickly populated place and at the time of recovery, vendors were present near the place of recovery, but he did not join any vendor at the time of recovery. On the other hand, PW6 HC Kulbeer, who was also witness to recovery of this knife, stated that many public persons were requested by the IO, but none agreed to become a witness. This is in contradiction to the testimony of PW3 who who did not ask any vendor, who would be a public witness available at the nearby shop, to join the investigation.
30. In view of my above observation, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and on the contrary, it is apparent that an effort was made to fix the accused and to do the police went to the extent of plating knife Ex.P2 which was in fact available with the police before its alleged recovery. Accused persons are accordingly acquitted. Their bail bond stand cancelled, Sureties discharged.
31. Before parting, I find it necessary that a finding regarding the conduct of investigation needs to be given in this case in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai, etc. 2014(1) SCALE 177 wherein it is held that:
''21. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, FIR No.741/07 18 of 20 P.S. Welcome whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability......''
32. This judgment mandates me to make observations with regard to the quality of the investigation in the case set up by the prosecution. Apparently, as discussed in my judgment, there are many lacunae in the case of the prosecution. Despite of the fact that there was availability of 400 to 500 public persons at the spot, not a single witness was joined in the investigation; despite the PCR being called, no details of the PCR form were filed and none of the PCR staff was made a witness; even the DD which was allegedly recorded on the wireless communication of PW1 was not filed on record. It appears that all this was not done because, it was a case of false implication and thus, evidence would not have been available. This fact had become visible by an accidental of slip which was observed by court, that the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered at the instance of accused Abid on 27.11.2007, had already been produced before the doctor on 15.11.2007 for seeking his opinion as to whether, the injuries caused could have been caused by that weapon?
33. Another serious irregularity which has been noticed by me is that FIR No.741/07 19 of 20 P.S. Welcome PW1 who was witness and injured in this case, had filed the chargesheet under his hand, which makes one of the interested parties, the investigator of the case.
34. In view of my observations, I hereby recommend that Ld. Commissioner of Police shall initiate action against SHO Insp. S.B. Yadav and IO SI Jagbir Singh and if necessary, initiate criminal proceedings against them for false implication of the accused. I further recommend, that till the pendency of that inquiry, no investigation should be assigned to any of the aforesaid officials. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Parveen Singh) today on 03.09.2014 Additional Sessions Judge03 (This judgment contains 20 pages (NE):Karkardooma Courts, and each page bears my signatures.) Delhi. FIR No.741/07 20 of 20 P.S. Welcome