Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh Kumar & Ors. on 20 November, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. PRITAM SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET
COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Unique Identification no. 02406R0006002002
Case no. RBT160/I dated 29.01.2014
FIR No. 145/01
PSBadarpur
State Vs Suresh Kumar & Ors.
JUDGEMENT
S. No. of Case : RBT160/I dated 29.01.2014
Date of Commission : 22.03.2001
of offence
Name of Complainant : Ct. Prem Chand
Name and address : 1. Suresh S/o Sh.Amar Singh,
of accused R/o House No.1789, Gautam Puri,
New Delhi.
2. Smt.Kamlesh W/o Sh.Suresh,
R/o House No.1789, Gautam Puri,
New Delhi.
3. Jeetu S/o Sh.Suresh,
R/o House No.1789, Gautam Puri,
New Delhi.
Offence Complained : U/s. 224/225/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Arguments heard : 18.11.2014
Date of judgment : 20.11.2014
Final order : Acquitted
FIR No.145/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Suresh & Ors. 1 of 9
2
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2001 accused Jeetu, who was wanted in case FIR No.147/2000, u/s 323/341/325 IPC, was legally apprehended from his house bearing no.1789, Gautam Puri, New Delhi by the complainant Ct. Prem Chand and Ct. Ramesh Kumar and accused persons namely Smt.Kamlesh and Suresh Chand, who are parents of accused Jeetu, in furtherance of their common intention also offered resistance to the lawful apprehension of accused Jeetu and as a result of which, accused Jeetu escaped from police custody.
2. Chargesheet was filed in the court and the accused were supplied complete set of documents. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.1.2006, notice for offence punishable u/s 224 IPC was served upon accused Suresh Kumar and notice for offences punishable u/s 225/34 IPC was served upon accused persons namely Smt.Kamlesh and Suresh Chand, to which, all accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. Ct. Ramesh Kumar and Ct. Prem Chand, who were eye witnesses, were examined as PW1 and PW2, respectively and HC Surinder Kumar, who was Duty Officer, was examined as PW3, HC Arun Kumar, who was the DD writer, was examined as PW4, Ct. Suresh, who joined investigation with the IO, was examined as PW5, Insp. Rajesh Kumar, who arrested accused in the present case, was examined as PW6, Insp. Naresh Kumar, who is first IO, was examined as PW7, SI Rahul Sawhney, who was second IO and filed the challan, was examined as PW8 and ACP Satyaveer Dagar, who gave sanction u/s 195 FIR No.145/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Suresh & Ors. 2 of 9 3 Cr.P.C., was examined as PW9. During prosecution evidence, the following documents were exhibited/marked:
(i) Complaint Ex.PW2/A
(ii) Site plan Ex.PW2/B
(iii) Copy of the FIR Ex.PW3/A
(iv) Endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW3/B
(v) Personal search of accused Suresh Ex.PW5/A
(vi) Arrest memo of accused Jeetu Ex.PW6/A
(vii) Rukka Ex.PW7/A
(viii) Arrest memo of accused Suresh Ex.PW7/B
(ix) Arrest memo of accused Kamlesh Ex.PW7/C
(x) Personal search memo of accused Kamlesh Ex.PW7/D
(xi) Complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/A
(xii) DD No.54B MarkX
4. The statement of all accused persons u/s 313 read with section 281 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 19.7.2014 wherein they denied deposition of witnesses against them being false & interested witnesses. Accused stated that the police officials deliberately and intentionally implicated them in this matter. They further stated that on 22.3.2001, the beat constable of the area police of P.P. Gautam Puri came at their residence in evening time. At that time, their vehicle (Ambassador car) was parked in front of their residence, then, the said police official demanded the monthly for parking of the vehicle from accused Suresh, but he denied for the same. They further stated that at the time, their neighbours also gathered there and they also intervened the matter and then, the said police official called accused Suresh in police station and implicated him in present case. They further FIR No.145/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Suresh & Ors. 3 of 9 4 stated that when accused Jeetu and Kamlesh objected, then, they were also falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
5. Final arguments heard. Record perused and considered carefully. Sections 224 and 225 IPC provide as under: Section 224 IPC provides :
Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension
- Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escaped or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 225 IPC provides :
Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person - Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
6. As per the prosecution story, PW1 and PW2 are material witnesses, therefore, their depositions are being discussed here. PW1 Ct. Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 22.3.2001, he was posted at P.S. Badarpur. He was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Prem Kumar at Gautam Puri area in beat no.10. At about 5.30 p.m. while they were on patrolling duty, secret informer informed them that Jeetu FIR No.145/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Suresh & Ors. 4 of 9 5 who was bad character in the area and who was also wanted in case FIR No.147/00 P.S. Badarpur was present in his house. PW1 further deposed that they had directions of SHO to arrest him. He alongwtih Ct. Prem immediately reached at the house of Suresh who was father of Jeetu. PW1 further deposed that as they entered in the house i.e. House No.1789, Gautam Puri, Jeetu was present in the ground floor of the house. PW1 further deposed that he had apprehended Jeetu alongwith Ct. Prem. Jeetu started shouting, on hearing of shouting Jeetu's father Suresh and mother Kamlesh reached at ground floor of house. PW1 further deposed that Kamlesh pulled and caught hold of him and Ct. Prem was caught by Suresh and he was pulled. In the process, they fled accused Jeetu and Jeetu fled from the spot. PW1 further deposed that in the process of scuffled Suresh got injuries. Some public persons called up at 100 no. SI Naresh Kumar reached at spot and he recorded his statement and Ct. Prem. PW1 further deposed that accused Suresh and Kamlesh used force against them to flee the accused Jeetu, their son. PW1 correctly identified the accused persons in the court. PW1 deposed in his crossexamination that while patrolling they came to know that Jeetu was present in his house by some person. He admitted that Ct. Anil was also posted in their police station. PW1 further deposed that he did not know whether Ct. Anil was demanded monthly Rs.500/ from the accused persons for parking vehicle of the accused in front of their house. PW1 further deposed that they had not tried to join the public persons when they were going to house of accused Jeetu. He did not know whether IO had tried to call the public persons to the FIR No.145/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Suresh & Ors. 5 of 9 6 house of accused. PW1 further deposed that he did not know how many family members Jeetu had. He could not say how many rooms in the house of Jeetu as they were entered in only one room where Jeetu was present. PW1 further deposed that he remained in the house of Jeetu for about 1520 minutes. He was not having any weapon when he went to house of Jeetu. He did not know whether Ct. Prem having any weapon. He admitted that on that day he was patrolling without any weapon.
7. PW2 Ct. Prem Chand deposed that on 22.3.2001, he was posted as constable at P.S. Badarpur and on that day he was in his beat duty wherein accused Jeetu resided and was wanted in case FIR No.147/2000 and was to be arrested as per direction of SHO. PW2 further deposed on that day at about 5.30 p.m., he received secret information that accused Jeetu was present at his house no.1789, Gautam Puri and when he reached there he found accused Jeetu and when he disclosed about the fact of his arrest, he raised alarm and tried to free himself. PW2 further deposed that the father of accused Suresh Chand and mother Kamlesh resisted the arrest of accused Jeetu on the pretext that their son was not wanted in any case. They also assaulted him and caused injuries on his person. PW2 further deposed that SI Naresh Kumar came to spot on information. PW2 further deposed that SI Naresh Kumar recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A which bore his signature at point 'A'. PW2 further deposed that site plan Ex.PW2/B was prepared by him (SI Naresh Kumar) at his instance. Accused persons voluntarily obstructed him to discharge his lawful duties and also caused injuries on his FIR No.145/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Suresh & Ors. 6 of 9 7 person in order to deter him from discharging his official duties as police officer. PW2 identified all accused persons in the court. PW2 deposed in his cross examination that he was posted at P.S. Badarpur around three months prior to incident. PW2 further deposed that the case FIR No.147/2000 was pertaining to u/s 323/341 IPC, P.S. Badarpur. Accused had not assaulted him but only manhandled him. He and one more constable were present when secret information was received.
DECISION AND LEGAL REASONING:
8. As per the prosecution story, on 22.3.2001, PW1 and PW2 were on patrolling duty and at about 5.30 p.m., they received information from secret informer that accused Jeetu who was a bad character in the area and also wanted in case FIR No.147/2000, P.S. Badarpur was present in his house. PW1 deposed that they had directions of SHO to arrest him (Jeetu). Both PW1 and PW2 went to the house of Jeetu and found him there. PW1 apprehended Jeetu. On this, Jeetu started shouting, hearing shouting of Jeetu, accused Suresh and accused Kamlesh, the father and mother respectively of accused Jeetu, reached and obstructed PW1 and PW2 in the process, accused Jeetu fled. There are various lacuna and loopholes in the story of the prosecution and in depositions of PW1 and PW2, which are discussed below:
9. PW1 deposed that when he was on patrolling duty alongwith Ct. Prem Kumar at Gautam Puri area in Beat No.10 at about 5.30 p.m., they reached FIR No.145/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Suresh & Ors. 7 of 9 8 information from secret informer that Jeetu was at his home and he was wanted in FIR No.147/2000, P.S. Badarpur. PW1 further deposed that they had direction of SHO to arrest him. From there, they went to the house of accused Jeetu. In between, they had not talked to the SHO. The question arises if PW1 and PW2 had not talked to the SHO after getting information about Jeetu, then, how SHO had directed them to arrest him. PW1 and PW2 failed to produce any direction of SHO in writing in the court. It is also important to mention here that PW1 and PW2 both were constables and none of them was investigating officer in FIR No. 147/2000, P.S. Badarpur. A police personnel below the rank of head constable cannot be investigating officer, therefore, both PW1 and PW2 have no authority, in the absence of any authority in writing, to arrest accused Jeetu from his home. If accused Jeetu was required in FIR no.147/2000, P.S. Badarpur, then, a notice should be issued to him and if he failed to appear despite notice and IO of the case should go to apprehend/arrest him, but police constables without authority in writing had no power to arrest the accused. It is also important to mention here that FIR No. 147/2000, P.S. Badarpur was u/s 323/341/34 of IPC and all these sections are bailable, therefore, the story of the prosecution that accused Jeetu escaped their arrest in the said case is highly improbable.
10. PW1 deposed that some public person called at 100 number. PW1 deposed in his crossexamination that he did not remember that accused had called the police at 100 number. PW1 further deposed that he did not know whether Ct. Anil was demanding monthly Rs.500/ from the accused persons for parking their FIR No.145/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Suresh & Ors. 8 of 9 9 vehicle in front of their house. PW1 further deposed that they had not tried to join the public persons when they were going to the house of the accused and he did not know whether IO had tried to call public persons in the house of the accused. These depositions of PW1 raise further doubts in the story of the prosecution.
11. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons. It is well settled law that benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused.
12. Accordingly, all accused persons are acquitted from the charges of offence u/s 224/225 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (PRITAM SINGH )
Dated: 20.11.2014 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South East District/Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi/20.11.2014
FIR No.145/01, P.S. Badarpur State Vs Suresh & Ors. 9 of 9