Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Ved Prakash @ Raju on 20 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN, LD. ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE03, SE: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 192/11
State Vs 1. Ved Prakash @ Raju
S/o Shri Tejram
R/o KII180, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
2. Vijay Pal
S/o Makkhan Lal
R/o 816/19, K Block,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
3. Dharam @ Satish
S/o Shri Hari Ram
R/o C230, TC Camp, Raghubir Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
4. Suresh Kumar
S/o Manphoot
R/o A380, Pandav Nagar,
Delhi
5. Sonu (Not traceable)
FIR No : 488/07
P.S. : Hazrat Nizaumuddin
U/s. : 399/402 IPC & 25 Arms Act
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.01.2011 (Initial date of
institution: 11.10.2008
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 20.10.2011
DATE OF DECISION : 20.10.2011
State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 1)
JUDGMENT:
1. Brief facts of prosecution case are that on receiving secret information at around 4.30pm on 17.08.2007 regarding 56 persons will assemble at Gandhi Smriti Park for planning to commit dacoity in bus and if raided they can be apprehended with illegal arms and weapons, SI Kuldeep Singh on instructions of SHO he prepared raiding party consisting of HC Dinesh Tyagi, Ct. Jitender, Ct. Pramod and Ct. Hoshiar Singh. The entire raiding party was briefed about secret information by SI Kuldeep Singh who thereafter went to Rajiv Gandhi Smriti park and at gate of the said park SI Kuldeep Singh asked 56 passersby to join the investigation but all went away by showing their inabilities. Thereafter, entire raiding party was directed to take respective positions and HC Dinesh Tyagi was asked to conceal himself inside bushes to hear the conversation and at around 5.30 pm from Southern side 5 persons came inside park and sat in the bushes and thereafter on signaling all accused persons were apprehended. SI Kuldeep Singh alongwith Ct. Hoshiar Singh had apprehended accused Ved Prakash and from his right pant pocket one buttondar knife was recovered. HC Dinesh Tyagi had apprehended accused Vijay Pal @ Makhan from whose pant pocket one buttondar knife was recovered. Ct. Jitender had apprehended accused Satish Kumar from whom one buttondar knife was recovered, Ct. Paramod Kumar apprehended Suresh Kumar from whom one churi was recovered and out of those State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 2) one accused ran towards village Nangli Raja village but could not be apprehended and whose name was later revealed as Sonu. It was told by HC Dinesh that these accused were planning to commit dacoity in bus route no. 534 and out of these accused one was saying that accused Satish and Sonu will board from back gate after some time Vijay Pal and Suresh will board from front gate and accused persons will overpower the driver and conductor on the knife point and lateron will snatch jewellery and money from passengers and would get down near Akshardham.
2. After apprehension accused persons, the sketch of the respective recovered weapons were prepared. Thereafter rukka was prepared and sent alongwith Ct. Shiv Kumar for registration of FIR. Thereafter, investigation was handed back to SI Kuldeep Singh who formally thereafter arrested accused persons and prepared site plan, conducted personal search and recorded the statement of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
3. On committal, charges were framed against the accused persons u/s 399/402 and section 25 Arms act to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution for substantiating charge had examined 9 prosecution witnesses. Summary details of their deposition is as follows.
State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 3)
5. PW1 HC Dinesh Tyagi deposed that on 17.08.2007 at about 4.30 pm a secret informer came to PP and informed SI Kuldeep Singh that 56 boys would come to Rajiv Gandhi Smriti Park to commit dacoity in bus route no. 534. IO recorded the said information vide DD entry 22 and on direction of SHO IO Si Kuldeep Singh prepared raiding party consisting of himself, Ct. Jitender, Ct Hoshiar, Ct. Shiv Kumar, Ct. Pramod and further briefed the raiding party about the information and at around 4.40pm they alongwith secret informer reached Rajiv Gandhi Smriti park and IO asked 45 persons to join raiding party but they refused to join. Thereafter, respective members were deployed at different positions and he alongwith Ct. Hoshiar, IO SI Kuldeep and secret informer remained at the east side of the park and he was in plain clothes and other members were in uniform. And at around 5.30 pm 5 boys came and sit near bushes in the park and at the pointing out of secret informer he came near the boys and heard their talks and out of 5 boys one boy was briefing others that Satish and Sonu would board the bus no. 534 from back side, and Vijay and Suresh from front side and they will overpower the driver and conductor and further loot cash and jewellery from passengers and after finishing they will get down at Akshardham Mandir and all the boys said 'theek hai Raju bhai". Thereafter, he signalled raiding party, Ct. Hoshiar apprehended Ved Parkash , he apprehended Vijay, Ct. Jitender apprehended Satish, Pramod apprehended Suresh and one of the accused whose name is Sonu ran away and from the right side pant pocket of accused Vijay State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 4) one buttondar knife was recovered. PW2 Ct. Pramod Kumar also deposed on the same lines and stated that on seeing the raiding party accused persons started running in different directions and he apprehended accused Suresh, Ct. Hoshirar apprehended Ved Parkash, HC Dinesh apprehended Vijay and ct. Jitender apprehended Satish. On conducting search of Suresh Kumar on the back side of his shirt, one chapad was recovered. PW3 HC Ram Raj recorded the FIR. PW4 Anil Yadav, UDC from Home Department had brought the notification Ex. PW4/B.
6. PW5 HC Hoshiar Singh also deposed that on receiving secret information IO prepared the raiding party and raiding party alongwith secret informer reached gate no.1 Rajiv Gandhi Smriti van and on the way asked 45 persons to join the raiding party but all went away expressing their helplessness without telling their names and addresses. HC Dinesh Tyagi was made shadow witness and told to go near the boys to hear the conversation and he was with IO on the East side of the park. At about 5.30 pm 5 boys came from south side of park and sat behind the bushes and on signal by HC Dinesh Tyagi all the raiding party members rushed towards boys and all boys tried to run away on seeing raiding party. He apprehended one boy with the hlep of SI Kuldeep namely Ved Prakash and from his search one buttondar knife was recovered and handed over the said knife to IO State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 5) who opened the same with the help of button. After preparation of rukka IO handed over the same to Ct. Shiv Kumar for registration of case and on completion of investigation at spot they took the accused to AIIMS hospital. In cross examination he stated that when SI Kuldeep received information he was in the area of Sarai Kale Khan and not with SI Kuldeep and had not seen secret informer talking SI Kuldeep Singh and SI called him by sending staff but he do not know which staff had called him. He further stated that no. of public persons were present but none was joined and accused were sitting at about 100 mtrs from gate no.1 and accused came to spot after about 40 minutes of their reaching at spot and height of bushes where accused were sitting was around 1 mtr. and also could not tell whether the sketch of knife was prepared before or after sending of rukka and further accused were taken to hospital by private jeep and jeep was hired from Sarai Kale Khan bus stop but he don't know who called the jeep or given money to driver. He further deposed that they reached back to PS at around 11 pm.
7. PW6 Ct. Jitender also deposed that after preparation of raiding party the raiding party reached Rajiv Gandhi Smriti park and HC Dinesh Tyagi was made shadow witness and at about 5.30pm, 5 boys came towards form south side of park and entered inside the park. HC Dinesh heard the conversation and thereafter on his signal, entire raiding party apprehended accused persons and he apprehended one State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 6) boy whose name revealed as Satish from whom one buttondar knife was recovered and one of the boy managed to escape from the spot. In cross examination, he stated that the time when the secret informer met SI Kuldeep, he was in PP and stated that all police persons including Dinesh and Hoshiar took positions as directed by SI Kuldeep and HC Dinesh, Hoshiar and secret informer went and stood near the place where all 5 persons sat but he cannot tell the distance between boys and HC Dinesh Tyagi. No person was present inside the park and no guard or chowkidar was also present and left spot at around 8.30 to 9 pm in a private car might be Tata Sumo and bushes were 6 to 7 ft high. Further seizure memos were prepared by IO before sending of rukka and seal was not handed over to him. PW7 Ct. Ravinder stated that SI Kuldeep had recorded the departure entry vide DD no. 22 at around 4.40 pm.
8. PW8 Ct. Shiv Kumar also deposed that after preparation of raiding party, they went to the park and at the instance of IO Kuldeep Singh they all were sent in different directions and HC Dinesh was made shadow witness for hearing conversation. And on his signal all the accused persons were apprehended except one who ran towards Nangli Raja pur side and IO taken into possession the entire recovered knives and prepared their seizure memos and sealed. Thereafter IO handed over the rukka to him for registration of FIR. In cross State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 7) examination, he stated that at the time of receiving of secret information he was in the area of PP Sarai Kale Khan and SI Kuldeep Singh called him through one staff but he could not tell the name of that staff but there were public person in park but no one was joined. Bushes where the accused sat were around 2 ½ ft. and the seizure memo and sketches of knife were prepared before preparation of rukka. Accused persons were taken to hospital by him by private jeep from Sarai Kale khan bus stop and he do not know who called that jeep but had reached back to PS at around 11.30 in the night.
9. PW9 SI Kuldeep Singh also deposed on same lines that on receiving secret information he prepared raiding party and on the way requested 56 persons to join raiding party but none agreed and at spot on signal of HC Dinesh accused were apprehended and further from them respective weapons, knife and buttondar knives were recovered and he prepared the sketches and also seized those knives and thereafter prepared rukka and sent it for registration of FIR through Ct. Shiv Kumar. In cross examination, he stated that in DD he had not written the time as 4.30 pm when the informer came to him. He further deposed that secret informer had disclosed names of some accused but that fact was not recorded in DD and further did not tried to verify the previous criminal record of them as he did not had time. He also deposed that they entered the Rajiv Gandhi park from East side gate. Distance between accused and Dinesh was less than 5 mtrs. and he do State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 8) not remember the width and height of bushes and do not remember if any mobile was recovered from any accused and they remained at the spot for about 5 hours and MLC of accused was also not on court record. He further deposed that he had not inquired about the bus route and not went to search 5th accused as no proper address was there.
10. Accused in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them and raised plea that they are falsely implicated in present case and not opted to lead any defence evidence.
Material Exhibits:
11. Ex.PW7/A is DD no. 22 dated 17.08.2007 regarding information received by secret informer that after sometime 56 persons will assemble at Rajiv Smriti Park to commit dacoity. Ex.PW9/A is the asal tehrir pursuant to which rukka was prepared and FIR was registered vide Ex.PW3/A. Ex.PW9/B is the site plan. Ex.PW6/B is the seizure memo of knife recovered from accused Satish Kumar, Ex.PW5/B is the seizure memo of knife recovered from Ved Prakash, Ex.PW2/B is the seizure memo of knife recovered from Suresh Kumar, Ex.PW1/B is the seizure memo of knife recovered from Vijay State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 9) Pal. Ex.PW1/A, PW5/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW2/A are the sketches of respective knives recovered from accused persons. Ex.PW5/C , Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW6/D are the respective arrest memo of the accused persons.
12. Ld. counsel for the accused from legal aid submitted that prosecution case on the face of it is unbelievable. There is no mention of the number and route of the bus in which accused persons would plan to commit dacoity. There is no mention of name of accused persons in the secret information despite same was informed by secret informer to the IO. Ld. counsel for the accused further submitted that no public witness was joined at any point of time. Ld. Counsel for the accused also submitted that it is unlikely that if the accused persons shall come together just for assigning roles, they will assemble in the park. Ld. Counsel further submits that it is incomprehensible that shadow witness would hear the conversation of accused persons from 5 mtrs without being noticed by the accused persons. Ld. Counsel further submits that there is no investigation on the factum from where those buttondar knives were procured by the accused persons. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that there are no medical documents placed on record of the accused persons.
13. Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand submitted that all the prosecution State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 10) witnesses supported the prosecution story and the accused persons were apprehended from the park while planning for dacoity in bus route no. 534 and illegal weapons recovered from their possession. Therefore, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
14. The prosecution story is that on getting the information through secret informer IO SI Kuldeep Singh (PW9) prepared the raiding party on the instructions of SHO and went to spot where the raiding party members were posted at different positions and after half an hour of their reaching the accused persons came from Southern side of park and assembled inside the bushes and discussed the planning for committing dacoity in bus route no. 534 and same was heard by HC Dinesh Tyagi PW1 and on his signal the accused persons were apprehended by police party and from their possession respective butondar knives or knives were recovered.
15. The prosecution case is initiated on DD no. 22 recorded at the instance of secret informer. But there is nothing mentioned in the said DD about the name of the accused persons. Neither in the said DD the bus route number is mentioned. Though, PW9 SI Kuldeep Singh IO stated in cross examination secret informer had also told about name of some of the accused persons. Even in cross examination IO PW21 could not tell the name of accused persons which were told prior by the secret informer.
State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 11)
16. As per deposition of prosecution witnesses all the accused came together from the southern side of the park. Perusal of the site plan shows that accused persons had entered from point B. It is not mentioned in the said site plan that there is any gate at point B, further the only gate shown in site plan is point A i.e, gate no.1. It is not the version of the prosecution witnesses that all the accused persons had jumped over the wall and came inside park and point B as per site plan appears to be the wall/ boundary.
17. Prosecution case is that accused persons assembled in the park for planning to commit dacoity in bus. It is unlikely if the accused persons coming together from one side then just for the purpose of telling roles of each accused for purpose of dacoity they would assemble in the park. When they are coming together why should they assemble just to assign the roles in park, they could very well do the same anywhere on the way. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused persons were coming from different directions and thereafter assembled.
18. As per the deposition of prosecution witnesses, PW1 Dinesh Tyagi was assigned the task of hearing the conversation of the accused persons and he is stated to be at point G in site plan at the time of hearing of conversations and accused persons are at point X but there is nothing mentioned in the site plan about the distance between the State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 12) accused persons and the shadow witness. Even the approximate distance of positions taken by the police persons was not mentioned. PW9 in cross examination stated that PW1 Dinesh Tyagi heard their conversation from a distance of 5 mtrs. It is highly unlikely that accused persons if planning for such a dacoity would not able to see the person from such a short distance and further as per site plan the said bushes do not appear to be quite dense and the height of the bushes as per the witnesses is not more than 2 ½ ft.
19. As per the deposition of witnesses while coming to the park PW9 IO asked the passersby to join the investigation but none has joined. The way from Police post to the spot is a busy ring road and traffic on that ring road is very fast. It is very unlikely that police persons on foot could ask anybody to join the investigation. It is not stated by IO that he had made any effort to join any public witness at thepark itself. There are numbers of officials including chowkidars or malis who maintains the park but none of them was associated in the proceedings. PW5 HC Hoshiar Singh in cross examination stated that there are number of public persons present in the park but none was joined in the proceedings whereas other prosecution witnesses in contradiction stated no public persons were present in the park. Therefore, non joining of public witnesses in these circumstances casts doubt on the credibility of prosecution case.
State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 13)
20. PW5 HC Hoshiar Singh stated to be present at the spot throughout the proceedings but could not tell whether the sketches of knives recovered were prepared before sending the rukka or after sending the rukka. As far as height of the bushes are concerned there is contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. PW6 stated that the height of the bushes might be around 6 to 7 fts. whereas other witnesses stated it to be around 2 to 2 ½ ft. or one meter.
21. PW9 IO remained evasive to replies about the width and height of the bushes and even could not state that if any mobile was recovered from any of the accused though as per personal search memos mobile phone was recovered from accused Ved Prakash and accused Vijay Pal.
22. The arrest memo of the accused persons shows their time of arrest between 8.30 pm to 8.45 pm whereas as per prosecution story after registration of FIR at 5.30 pm the accused persons were shown to be arrested on the spot vide respective arrest memos. As per prosecution witnesses they remained at the spot for 5 hours and thereafter accused persons were taken to the hospital. All the PW's stated that these accused were taken to hospital in private jeep. Some of the PW's stated that this jeep was called by IO but PW5 stated that he do not know who called the jeep or given the money to driver and even could not tell who had given the money to driver and what is the amount of State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 14) money. As per prosecution case they hired the jeep from Sarai Kale khan bus stand. It is unlikely that from that park to Sarai Kale Khan bus stop they will go on foot.
23. PW9 SI (IO) stated that MLC of accused are not on record. This is the only document which could be prepared independent of raiding party member. Its non placing on record also create doubt about intergrity of investigation.
24. It is the case of the prosecution that the buttonkar knives and other knives were recovered from the possession of accused persons but IO had not tried to inquire from where those buttondar knives were procured by the accused persons. It also created doubt whether such knives were recovered or not.
25. On overall appreciation of prosecution evidence, prosecution story do not appear to be credible. Prosecution unable to prove its case against accused persons beyond doubt Thus, accused persons are acquitted of charges. Bail bond of accused persons stands discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court
On 20th October, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Jain)
ASJ03: SE: NEW DELHI
State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 15)
State vs. Ved Prakash etc. (Contd.. Page no. 16)