Delhi District Court
State vs . Kanda Ram on 2 June, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWATI KATIYAR : MM, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Kanda Ram
FIR No. : 145/2001
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. : 186/332/353 IPC
JUDGMENT :
a) Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution 907A/2 19.05.2001
b) Date of commission of offence 22.04.2001
c) Name of the complainant State Through Prashant Yadav
d) Name of the accused Kanda Ram S/o Sh. Ramu Ram, R/o Village Kanniram, Distt. Jalore, Rajasthan.
e) Nature of offence complained of U/Sec. 186/332/353 IPC f) Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty g) Date reserved for order 05.05.2014 h) Final Order Acquitted i) Date of order 02.06.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Accused is facing trial in the present case for the offences punishable under Section 186/332/353 IPC on the allegations that on 22.04.2001 at about 01:30 am at Matka Peer, Mathura Road he voluntarily obstructed SI Prashant, Ct. Sanjeev and Ct. Somvir Yadav in discharge of their public functions and caused simple hurt to Ct. Sanjeev and Ct. Somvir with intention to prevent or deter them from exercising their duty as such public servant. State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 2
2. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. Copies were supplied to accused and charge for offence under Section 186/332/353 IPC was framed upon the accused on 02.11.2001 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To establish its case, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW1 is Ct. Sanjeev who deposed that on 21.04.2001, he was posted at PS Tilak Marg and on that day, he was on night patrolling duty and at about 01:30 am, when he reached at near Matka Peer, there he saw gathering of many public persons. PW1 deposed that accused was quarreling with public persons and he also saw SI Prashant Yadav and Ct. Somvir who were already present there. PW1 deposed that blood was oozing from the head of SI Prashant Yadav and uniform of Ct. Somvir was torn from front side near button and thereafter, when he tried to control the accused, he also scuffled with him. PW1 deposed that thereafter Ct. Somvir informed the police station and SI Ajab Singh came to the spot and with the help of public persons, SI Ajab Singh apprehended the accused. PW1 deposed that thereafter, SI Ajab Singh took them alongwith accused to RML Hospital for medical examination and IO recorded his statement. During cross examination, PW1 deposed that he had made the rewangi in the rojnamcha of the PS but he could not remember the DD no. of the same. He deposed that on that particular day, he was on patrolling duty but no vehicle was allotted to him. He deposed that he was on foot as the concerned beat was allotted to him. He deposed that when he reached the spot two police officials and 15 public persons were gathered on the spot and all the public persons and police official could not apprehend the accused as he was out of control. He deposed that incident took place in front of the petrol pump and accused had torn the dress of State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 3 Ct. Somvir and beat the head of SI. He deposed that incident took place before he reached on the spot. He deposed that he does not remember what was the information given by the Ct. Somvir to the Police Station Tilak Marg. He could not remember whether he had stated regarding tearing of dress or causing the injury on head of SI. He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Somvir, SI Prashant Yadav and accused went to RML Hospital by auto but he could not remember the number of that TSR which was hired by SI Ajab. PW1 was not able to remember the fare which was paid. He denied the suggestion that no scuffle had taken place between him and the accused. He was not able to recall whether the accused went for quashing of FIR in question and affidavit on his name was signed by him or what were the contents of the affidavit. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
4. PW2 is ASI Vinod Kumar who deposed that on 22.04.2001, he was posted at PS Tilak Marg as Duty Officer and had recorded FIR Ex. PW2/A.
5. PW3 is HC Dharam Pal who deposed that in the intervening night of 2122.04.2001, he was posted at PS Tilak Marg and working as Duty Officer and he recorded DD No. 26A i.e. Ex. PW3/A. He denied the suggestion that he was not working as Duty Officer on the particular date and time or that he did not record Ex. PW3/A.
6. PW4 is Ct. Sanjeev Kumar who deposed that on 2122.04.2001, he was posted as Constable at PS Tilak Marg and on that day, he alongwith HC Vinod and Ct. Sanjeev Kumar were on patrolling duty and at about 01:30 am, when they reached Matka Pir, Mathura Road, they saw one person who was under
State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 4 influence of liquor was abusing public persons. He deposed that SI Prashant Yadav and Ct. Somvir were also present there and the said person had caused injury on the head of SI Prashant Yadav by a stone and also torn the uniform of Ct. Somvir and the said person also grappled with him. He deposed that blood was oozing out from the head of SI Prashant and the said accused was overpowered by them. He deposed that Ct. Somvir informed the police station over telephone and IO came at the spot and accused was arrested by IO and his statement was also recorded. During crossexamination, PW4 deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO on the same night at the spot at 02:00 am. He deposed that he had seen his statement recorded by IO. He deposed that stone was lifted by accused and hit on head of SI Prashant Yadav. He was not able to recall whether he had stated this fact to the IO or not. He admitted that he has stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that the blood was oozing from the head SI Prashant Yadav. He admitted that he had stated in his statement that accused had also grappled with him. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW4/DA where it was not so recorded. He admitted that he had stated that HC Vinod and Ct. Sanjeev were with him on patrolling duty and same was told to IO in his statement. He was confronted with Ex. PW4/DA where the name of Ct. Sanjeev was not recorded. He deposed that near about 89 public persons were present when he reached the spot and IO had enquired from the public persons with regard the incident and he had also written the name and address. He deposed that he took the accused to RML Hospital for the medical examination in the Gypsy of PS Tilak Marg and reached hospital at 03:00 am on 22.04.2001. He was not able to remember whether IO had seized the stone by which accused had caused injury to the police official. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 5
7. PW5 is Ct. Somvir who deposed that in the intervening night of 2122.04.2001, he was posted at PS Tilak Marg and on that day, he alongwith SI Prashant were on patrolling duty. He deposed that he was the motorcycle rider and SI Prashant was the pillion rider. He deposed that at about 01:30 am, when they reached Matka Pir, Mathura Road they saw a crowd of people gathered there. He deposed that accused under influence of liquor was abusing the public persons. He deposed that SI Prashant tried to convince the accused but accused did not bother. He deposed that when they tried to overpower the accused, he inflicted injuries on the head of SI Prashant Yadav by pelting a stone. PW 5 deposed that when he with the help of other persons overpowered him, then accused had torn his uniform and also slapped him. He deposed that in the meantime, Ct. Sanjeev also came there and thereafter they all with the help of other public persons overpowered the accused and informed the police of PS Tilak Marg. He deposed that OP came there alongwith the staff and the stone and torn shirt of his uniform was kept in a parcel and after sealing the same, it was taken into possession and seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. He deposed that accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW5/C. He depose that his statement was recorded by IO. He identified the case property. During cross examination, PW5 deposed that he had stated in his statement to the IO regarding the place of tearing of shirt. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW5/DA where it was not so recorded. He deposed that Vinod and Aftab were also present alongwith with other persons but he could not recall their parentage and address. He deposed that he did not tell in his statement Ex. PW5/DA about their parentage and address, he was confronted with the statement where it was so recorded. He admitted that he had signed the affidavit in favour of accused State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 6 i.e. Mark B1 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He denied the suggestion that he under influence of liquor. He deposed that he had not made departure entry in roznamcha, however, same was made by SI Prashant Yadav at 11:00 am. He was not able to remember number of his motorcycle but stated that the same was a government vehicle. He admitted that Ex. PW5/B and C does not bear his signature but stated that his name is written on both memos. He deposed that 56 public persons were there on the spot to whom the accused was abusing and all were of young age of 2225 years. He deposed that he did not know whether blood stone was present on the spot. He deposed that accused brought in TSR from the spot but he did not know where he was brought. He deposed that from the spot he came to PS. He denied the suggestion that accused was not involved in any incident as alleged by him or that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW6 is Vinod Kumar who deposed that on 22.04.2001 he was sleeping outside Matka Pir on the footpath alongwith his friend Aftab and one person namely Kanda Ram came there at 01:30 am and started abusing who was under
influence of liqour. He deposed that in the meantime police officials also came there and said Kanda Ram started abusing police officials. He deposed that accused inflicted injury to a police official by pelting stone over his head and also tore uniform of a constable whose name PW6 could not recall. He deposed that accused was overpowered. He deposed that due to lapse of time, he was not able to identify the accused. He deposed that accused was overpowered and taken to the police station and he was also inquired by the police and he told entire facts to the police. The witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP and crossexamined with permission of the Court. During crossexamination by Ld. APP, PW6 deposed that he could not tell even after looking at the accused State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 7 whether he is Kanda Ram or not. He denied the suggestion that he was identifying the accused deliberately or at instance of accused or that he was deposing falsely on the point of identity of the accused. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW6 deposed that he was working in the Hotel known as Mohd. Tehsil situated at Matka Peer and at that time, about 2025 persons were working at the said hotel and all were sleeping in the hotel itself. He deposed that at that particular time, he was sleeping and he woke up when the police came on the spot. He again said that he awoke when accused was abusing. He deposed that accused abused for half an hour including the proceedings conducted by police on the spot. He deposed that there were two more public person namely Aftab and Raman present there. He deposed that police had inquired from him and Aftab only. He deposed that Raman was not inquired by the police. He deposed that after the incident, he again slept. He deposed that police had not recorded his statement in his presence with regard to this incident. He denied the suggestion that no scene was created by any person as well as the police or that he was deposing falsely.
9. PW7 is Ct. Khub Chand who deposed that 22.04.2001 he was posted at PS Tilak Marg and on that day on receipt of DD no. 26 at about 01:30 am he alongwith SI Ajab Singh reached at Matka Peer, Mathura Road where SI Prashant Yadav, Ct. Sanjeev and HC Dharambir alongwith public person and accused met them. He deposed that Prashant Yadav was in injured condition and accused as well as SI Prashant were taken to RML Hospital. He deposed that thereafter they returned to the spot and IO prepared rukka on the statement of SI Prashant Yadav and got the case registered through him. He deposed that accused was also arrested. He deposed that torn shirt of uniform of Somvir and State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 8 stone were kept in white color parcel and sealed with the seal of ASB which was later on deposited in Malkhana and his statement was recorded by IO. He identified the case property. During crossexamination, PW7 deposed that they reached hospital by TSR and returned back by another TSR. He was not able to remember the number of abovesaid TSR. He deposed that he did not sign his statement . He deposed that he also did not sign seizure memo an arrest memo etc. He denied the suggestion that he did not sign seizure memo since he was not present there. He denied the suggestion that he did not join investigation of this case at any point of time as alleged or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO. He deposed that after sealing the pullanda, IO did not hand over the same to anyone including himself and same was deposited in Malkhana.
10. PW8 is Sh. Raj Kumar, Record Clerk from RML hospital who deposed that he was working in RML hospital since 1988. He deposed that he had seen the the MLC No. 44447/01 of injured Ct. Somvir Singh, MLC No.44446/01 of injured Ct. Sanjeev Kumar, MLC No.44441/01 of injured S.I. Prashant Yadav, and MLC no.44444/01 of injured Kandha Ram prepared by Dr. M. Kaushik, Medical Officer Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/D respectively which bears his signatures at point A on all the MLCs. He deposed that as per the opinion at Point B on Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B on both the MLCs by Dr. M. Kaushik and at Point B on Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D on both the MLCs by Dr. Sanjay Kohli the nature of injury is simple. He identified the signatures of both the doctors as he had seen them while writing in his official duty. He deposed that both the doctors had left their services and their present whereabouts are not known to the hospital. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW8 admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the contents of the above said MLCs. He deposed State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 9 that he had not brought any record from the hospital with regard the above said MLCs as they were not traceable in the hospital. He admitted that there is no thumb impression of the patients on the MLCs Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D. He denied the suggestions that these MLCs does not belong to the injured persons in the present case or that he was deposing falsely in this case.
11. PW9 is Aftab who stated that he does not know anything about the present case and that the case is a very old one. The witness was declared hostile by prosecution and crossexamined by Ld. APP with the permission of the Court. During crossexamination by Ld. APP, PW9 deposed that he does not know any Kanda Ram in this case. He deposed thta he had not given any statement to the police in this case. The witness was confronted with his earlier statement Mark A which he denied in toto from Point A to A. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he had been won over by the accused.
12. PW10 is Inspector Ajab Singh who deposed that on 21.04.2001, he was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day, he was on night emergency duty and on receipt of DD No.26A he alongwith Ct. Khoob Chand had reached near Matka Peer, Mathura Road, New Delhi where he met S.I. Prashant Yadav, Ct. Somveer, Ct. Sanjeev, H. Ct. Vinod, Ct. Sanjiv and two public persons namely Aftab and Vinod, resident of Matka Peer. He deposed that accused Kanda Ram was also present there. He deposed that S.I. Prashant Yadav had got recorded his statement which is Mark A and he had prepared rukka Ex.PW10/A and handed over the same to Ct. Khoob Chand for registration of FIR. He deposed that he had prepared seizure memo of stone State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 10 and torn uniform of Ct. Somveer which is already exhibited as Ex.PW5/A and thereafter he had left Ct. Sajeev at the spot. He deposed that he had prepared site plan at the instance of complainant S.I.Prashant Yadav which is Ex.PW10/B and thereafter, he had left Ct. Sanjeev at the spot and had gone to RML Hospital alongwith S.I. Prashant Yadav, Ct. Somveer, Ct. Sanjeev and accused Kanda Ram. He deposed that he had got medically examined S.I. Prashant Yadav, Ct. Somveer and accused Kanda Ram and thereafter he alongwith S.I. Prashant Yadav, Ct. Somveer, Ct. Sanjeev and accused Kanda Ram had come back at the spot. He deposed that Ct. Khoob Chand had come back at the spot after registration of FIR and thereafter he had arrested the accused Kanda Ram vide arrest memo already exhibited as Ex.PW5/B. He deposed that he had recorded the statement of witnesses U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C and thereafter he alongwith the staff had come back to the Police Station. He identified the accused in the Court and the case property.
13. During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW10 deposed that he received the DD No.26A at about 2.00 a.m. in the P.S. Itself and reached at the spot after 2030 minutes. He deposed that approximately 1015 public persons were present at the spot and he had joined two public persons as a witness in the present case. He deposed that no one apart from them told their names and addresses. He deposed that he had not stated this fact in the chargesheet. He denied the suggestion that he had not asked any other public person to join the investigation on account of which he had not stated this fact in the chargesheet. He deposed that firstly he recorded the statement of S.I. Prashant Yadav at the spot thereafter he prepared the seizure memo of case property, site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses. He was not able to State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 11 remember when he left the spot towards hospital. He deposed that he went to the hospital alongwith all abovesaid persons by a TSR, number of which he does not remember. He admitted that such type of uniform is easily available in the market and such type of stone are also easily available. He admitted that the case property i.e. uniform does not have the name plate of Ct. Somveer. He voluntarily added that the name plate might have been broken down at the time of incident. He admitted that such fact about broken down of the name plate has not been mentioned by him in the Chargesheet or none of the witness has stated the said fact. He also admitted that the uniform which has been shown to him does not have any blood spot and that he had not put any specific identification mark on the case property. He stated that he could not remember at what time Ct. Khoob Singh went to the Police Station alongwith rukka and what time he came back after registration of the FIR. He deposed that no documents were prepared by him in between. He deposed that he prepared all the documents after his arrival from the hospital at the spot. He admitted that Mark A is not in his handwriting and stated that the statement Mark A is in the handwriting of H. Ct. Vinod. He stated that as far as he remember, statement Mark A had been recorded by H. Ct. Vinod at his direction. He admitted that statement Mark A and rukka is in the same handwriting and that Ex.PW5/C does not bear any FIR number. He also admitted that there is cutting at point A in the date of Ex.PW5/C and that same does not bear the signatures of Ct. Somveer. He admitted that he was having the knowledge that the accused is working in CRPF. He also admitted that he had not applied for any sanction prior to prosecution. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that no such incident had ever taken place or that present case is false and registered on the instructions of S.I. Prashant Yadav. He admitted that he had not taken State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 12 any photographs of the spot. He was not able to remember at what time he came back to the P.S. after completion of proceedings at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the investigation of the present case has not been conducted properly or that he was deposing falsely.
14. Statement of accused was recorded on 16.12.2013, wherein he denied the entire case of prosecution and pleaded innocence. Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that no such incident had taken place. However, he declined to lead evidence in defence.
15. Final arguments were advanced at length by Sh. Honey Goel, Ld. APP for State and Sh. Sandeep Verma, Ld. Counsel for accused. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
16. In the present case to secure conviction of accused, prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had voluntarily obstructed public servants SI Prashant, Ct. Sanjeev and Ct. Somvir in discharge of their public functions and caused simple hurt to them to deter them in discharging their duties as public servants. Now, complainant in the present case is SI Prashant Yadav and he was the material witness of prosecution who could have proved the allegations against the accused. However, complainant has not come forward during evidence to establish the case of prosecution. Further, there are two public witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution to support its case, rest of the witnesses are police personnel. These public witnesses are PW6 and PW9, however, these witnesses have failed to support the case of prosecution and have been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW6 State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 13 failed to identify the accused despite looking at him in the Court while PW9 entirely denied his involvement in the present case. PW9 even denied making any statement Mark A to the police while PW6 deposed that police had not recorded his statement in this case in his presence. Thus, none of these witnesses prove the case of prosecution.
17. So far as the remaining witnesses are concerned, there are several contradictions and inconsistencies in their deposition which creates doubt in the case of prosecution. For instance, as per almost all the witnesses, there were about 1520 persons who were present on the spot apart from the police officials. Now, it is highly improbable that those 1520 persons alongwith the police officials were unable to control a single accused in inebriated condition who would be in no comparison to the physical strength of all these persons combined together. It is to be kept in mind that accused was not even in full control of his senses being inebriated and it is also not the case of prosecution that accused was having any weapon of offence with him due to which he was out of control as stated by PW1. Thus, under such circumstances it is hard to fathom as to how accused single handedly assaulted two police officials and they were not able to stop him. Further, PW1 and PW4 were not present on the spot when the incident had taken place and thus, their deposition is mere hearsay evidence which cannot be relied upon. Further, PW1, PW5, PW7 and PW10 have deposed that they went to RML hospital in TSR but as per PW4, they went in Gypsy of PS Tilak Marg and thus, deposition of witnesses contradicts each other.
18. Further, as per PW1, PW4 and PW5, they were on patrolling duty at the State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg 14 time of incident. However, none of these witnesses have placed on record their arrival or departure entries in compliance with Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
19. Further, a complete chain of handing over of the seal has not been established as there is no document prepared or produced by the Investigating Officer. PW10 has categorically admitted in his cross examination that similar case property i.e the uniform and stone is easily available elsewhere and that he had not put any identification mark on the case property. Moreover, seal after use was not handed over to any independent witness and in such an eventuality, the tampering of the case property could not be ruled out.
20. Thus there are number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the case of prosecution requiring extension of benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Thus, accused stands acquitted of the charges.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open
Court on 02.06.2014) (Swati Katiyar)
MM, New Delhi
State Vs. Kanda Ram
FIR No. 145/2001
P.S. Tilak Marg
15
State Vs. Kanda Ram
FIR No. : 145/2001
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. : 186/332/353 IPC
02.06.2014
Present : APP for state.
Sh. Sandeep Verma, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Exemption application is moved for accused by his counsel. Heard. Exemption is allowed for today only.
Vide separate judgment the accused stands acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.186/332/353 IPC. Previous bail bond U/Sec.437A of accused is extended for a period of six months.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Swati Katiyar) MM/ND/02.06.2014 State Vs. Kanda Ram FIR No. 145/2001 P.S. Tilak Marg