Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Dalip Kumar @ Sonu on 26 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II(NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 1201/10
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0058212010
State Vs. 1. Dalip Kumar @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o H-4/1520,
Masjid Wali Gali,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
2. Deepak
S/o Ram Kishan
R/o H-4/1635,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
3. Ravinder @ Ravi @ Khusi
S/o Mafat Lal
R/o H-4/1827,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
4. Vikas @ Vikcy
S/o Khoob Singh
R/o B-276/277,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 10/2010
Police Station: Jahangir Puri
Under section: 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code
25/54/59 of Arms Act
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 1 of 42
Date of committal to sessions court: 17.3.2010
Date on which orders were reserved: 15.11.2010
Date of Decision: 2611.2010
JUDGMENT:
It is alleged that on 9.1.2010 all the four accused i.e. Dalip Kumar @ Sonu, Deepak, Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas @ Vikcy, in furtherance of their common intention robbed one Nitin Kumar of his purse containing Rs.1,200/- some documents and one mobile phone make Tata Indicom. It is also alleged that the accused Ravinder @ Ravi used a knife at the time of committing robbery with Nitin Kumar.
BRIEF FACTS:
Case of the prosecution:
The case of the prosecution is that on 9.1.2010 HC Dalip, Ct. Rajender, Ct. Sajjan and Ct. Bijender of police station Jahangir Puri were on patrolling duty. At about 5:15 am when they reached at Mangal Bazar Chowk, Jahangir Puri four boys were found running towards them who were followed by one boy namely Nitin who was shouting as 'Pakro Pakro'. On this HC Dalip apprehended the accused Ravinder @ Ravi @ Khusi; Ct. Rajender apprehended the accused Dalip Kumar, Ct. Sajjan apprehended the accused Deepak and Ct. Bijender apprehended the accused Vikas @ Vicky. Nitin informed them that the said boys had robbed him on the point of knife by putting the same on his neck. From the personal search of accused Ravinder @ Ravi @ Khushi, one churra St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 2 of 42 like knife was recovered from the pocket of his pant; from the search of accused Deepak one mobile phone of Tata Indicom was recovered; from the search of accused Dalip Kumar @ Sonu one purse of black and brown colour containing two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/-, two currency notes of Rs.100/- and four visiting cards were recovered. All the aforesaid articles were belonging to Nitin whose statement was recorded and the accused persons were arrested and charge sheeted.
CHARGE:
The Ld. Predecessor of this court has settled the charges under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against all the four accused persons who have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, charges under Sections 397/34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act were settled against the accused Ravinder @ Ravi who has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses.
Public witness/ victim/ complainant:
PW2 Nitin Kumar is the complainant who has deposed that he is a Drum Beater (Dhol Master) by profession and on 09.01.2010 he was coming after attending a programme from Azadpur and was St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 3 of 42 going to his house. According to him, when he reached in H Block, DDA Market, five persons came before him out of which one ran away immediately and one of them who was of black complexion caught hold him; other put knife on his neck who was of fair complexion and the person who put the knife on his neck told that "shor machaya to gala kaat doonga". The witness has deposed that the third boy took out one purse from his pant which purse was containing some visiting cards and Rs.1,200/- and the fourth boy took out mobile phone of TATA Indicom from the pocket of his jacket, after which they all left the spot by saying that "shor machaya to jaan se mar denge." He has testified that three - four police officials came from behind who apprehended all the four accused persons and his purse, mobile phone and Rs.1,200/- etc. were recovered from them. He has further deposed that one chhuri was also recovered from one of them and he had identified all the four accused persons after they were apprehended by the police office at a distance of half kilometer. He has proved his statement which is Ex.PW2/A and the documents which are Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/E were prepared by the police later on and his signatures were taken thereon but according to him, the said documents were not prepared in his presence and only his signature were taken on them. The witness has also deposed that his signatures were taken on twelve - thirteen documents. He has identified his signatures on the documents which are Ex.PW2/F to Ex.PW2/I pertaining to the arrest of the accused persons and the documents Ex.PW2/J to Ex.PW2/M also bear his signatures. PW2 has identified the case property in the court i.e. mobile phone of TATA Indicom which St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 4 of 42 is Ex. P.1; purse is Ex.P-2, Rs.1,200/- are collectively Ex.P-3 and some visiting cards which are Ex. P.4 (collectively) but the witness has not been able to identify the knife which was produced in the court and has deposed that it was a knife of different handle and the handle of that knife was round shape as is fixed in a screw driver. He has also not identified the accused persons in the court.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the aspect of identity of the accused persons when all the accused persons were shown to him despite which he denied that the accused Vickey @ Vikas, had caught hold of him or that accused Ravinder @ Ravi put knife on his neck or that accused Dalip had removed the purse from his pocket of pant or that the accused Deepak removed mobile phone from his jacket. The witness was thereafter explained the consequences of his making a false statement on oath before the court after which this court has put certain questions to the witness in order to elicit the truth from him. He has admitted that all the accused persons had been named by him in his statement on the basis of which the FIR has been registered and that the accused have been apprehended at the spot but he states that he came to know of their names in the police station. PW2 further admitted that the purse and mobile phone which were robbed from him, was recovered at the spot and shown to him and according to him, it was in the police station that he identified the same. According to the witness, immediately on the apprehension of the accused persons he went to the police station and after about seven to eight minutes of the incident the accused were St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 5 of 42 apprehended from the Mangal Bazar Chowk. He has deposed that he had told the police the direction in which the accused persons gone and the accused persons were apprehended from the same direction. The witness has testified that he did not tell the police officers that the boys who had been apprehended were not the same boys who committed the robbery incident. According to him, he was not shown the boys in the police station but only his statement was recorded and he did not tell the police officials that he would not sign his statement without seeing the boys. PW2 has admitted that he is residing in the same area where the accused persons are residing but has denied that he has been won over by the accused persons. He has further deposed that after the date of the incident he never met the accused persons and met them only on the date of the incident and never after that.
In his cross-examination by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons the witness has deposed that his date of birth is 21.04.1992 and is now eighteen years old. He has denied that he had given his age to the investigating officer on the day of this incident as seventeen years and states that since his birthday was about to come therefore he had given his age as eighteen years in lump sum. According to him, as on date he is residing at B-1680, Jahangir Puri, Delhi on rent and previously he was residing at C-1770, Jahangir Puri, Delhi which he vacated in the month of February 2010. The witness has admitted that none of the accused persons committed robbery with him on the day of incident.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 6 of 42 After the witnesses completed his testimony he orally informed the court that in fact no incident had taken place and he has never seen the accused previously. He also told the court that he had given his incorrect address in his statement and that he had gone to the Police Station along with one Kuldeep Soni on the asking of his employer Bunti Bhatia who is a property dealer of the area, where he handed over an old mobile phone and purse after which he was made to sign certain documents. Finding that the witness was taking a somersault from his deposition made before the court and was taking an altogether contrary stand he was made to sit in the court and it was ensured that he should not interact with any person. This was done in order to remove all traces of any kind of fear, coercion or pressure from him. Thereafter his fresh statement was recorded in vernacular in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Ld. counsel for the accused persons, the Station House Officer - Police Station Jahangir Puri Inspector S.B. Yadav and Assistant Commissioner of Police Sh. Jai Bhagwan Kaushik. In the said statement Nitin has given his present address as Hero Property Dealer, on 1st Floor, in front of H. No. C-1745- 46, Jahangirpuri.C/o Sh. Bunti Bhatia and permanent address as Village Laloo Kheri, Distt Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. The statement of Nitin which was recorded in verbitum is as under:
Main pata uprokt par rahta hoon aur aaj subah jab main court main aya aur apna bayan diya toh maine court ko apna galat pata bataya. Ab main keh raha hoon ki main H.No. C-1745-46 Jahangir Puri mein St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 7 of 42 Bunty Bhatia ke saath rehta hoon jo ek property dealer hai. Mera H. No.C-1770 aur B-1680 Jahangir Puri se koyee talluk nahin hain aur maine jaan bujh kar ye address diye thay kyonki main dar gaya tha.
Dinank 09.01.2010 ko mein Bunty Bhatia ke office main kaam karta tha. Us din Kuldeep Soni Jiska office usi area main hai jahan wo K-7 News Channel ke naam se office chalata hai jo ki Bunty Bhatia ke ghar se teen gali door hai, mujhe apne office mein kaam karane ke bahane le gaya. Wahan se wo mujhe Jahangir Puri Thane le gaye jahan mujhe kamre mein bitha diya gaya. Kuldeep Soni ne mujhe ye kaha tha ki koyee kharab mobile aur purse le ke aana jis par meine Vishwajeet, jo ki mere parosh mein rehta hai, se uska kharab mobile manga. Usne mujhe yeh mobile TATA Indicom jo ki aaj court main pesh kiya gaya, diya. Main wo mobile aur apna purse jo ki khali tha, lekar thane gaya tha. Meine yeh mobile aur khali purse police officer ko de diya jo ki kamre mein baitha tha. Main nahin janta usme paise aur visiting cards kaise aaye. Uske baad us police officer ne mera naam pata mujhse poocha jo maine bataya aur phir kuch report likhi jis per mere se sign karaya. Meine sign karne se pahle nahin para ki usme kya likha tha. Mujhse 12-13 Kagajon par bhi sign karaye gaye. Uske baad mujhe St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 8 of 42 nahin pata kya hua, aur mujhe ghar bhej diya gaya.
Kal raat ko mujhe Kuldeep Soni ne raat 8 baje apne office mein bulaya aur kaha ki jo meine report likhayee thee usme bayan dena hai. Kuldeep Soni ne mujhe yeh bataya ki mujhe court mein kya kehna hai. Main aaj subah court aaya.
(The witness has pointed out towards the investigating officer and has stated that he had gone to the police station in the morning as he had been given the wrong copy of the FIR and instead of FIR No.10/10 he was given FIR No. 2/10 and thereafter he came to the court with the investigating officer).
Mujhe yeh bataya gaya ki court mein chaar larke dikhaye jayenge aur mujhe ye samjha diya jayega ki kis larke ne kya kiya aur mujhe kya bolna hai. Mujhe ye charon larke dikha diye gaye aur bataya gaya ki kya bolna hai. Jab main court me andar aa raha tha toh ek larke (The witness has identified the accused Deepak) ne mujhe dhamkaya ki agar main kuch boloonga toh mujhe ura dega jis par main dar gaya aur is he liye maine unko court main nahin pehchana. Yeh theek hai ki maine jo report main likha tha, sab kuchh court main bataya lekin maine in larkon ko nahin pehchana.
Rekha meri muh boli behan hai jiske pati ka naam vishwajeet hai jo ki hamari hi gali main rehti hai.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 9 of 42 Vishwajeet 861 (blue line) number ki bus main conductori karta hai. Mujhe is baat ka koyee gyan nahin hai ki vishajeet ke saath koyee cheena jhapti ka mamlaa March ke mahine main hua hai. At this stage witness is shown FIR No. 91/10 PS Jahangir Puri in which Vishajeet is complainant and the allegations in the same are absolutely similar as that of the present case which FIR is Ex.PW5/DX-3.
Meri yeh pehli galti thi, Mujhe maaf kiya jaye. Aaj mai pehli baar court main aaya hoon.
It is evident from the aforesaid that in his first statement made before this court as aforesaid he supported the prosecution case in so far as the incident is concerned but turned totally hostile on the identity of the accused persons. Later, he was duly warned about the legal consequences of his making an incorrect deposition before the court and after some time he disclosed to the court that he is a poor person and had gone to police station on the asking of his employer Bunti Bhatia who had sent him to his friend Kuldeep Soni who took him to the police station after telling him to make the arrangements of an old mobile phone and purse. The victim has also disclosed that he had in fact given an empty purse but he does not know how other articles i.e. visiting cards and cash came into the same. He has also stated to the court that the mobile phone which he had given to the police in the present FIR was in fact given to him by one Vishwajeet a resident of C-
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 10 of 42 1743, Jahangir Puri who was the husband of Rekha who is like a sister to him. It was also observed by the court that the very same Vishwajeet who had given the mobile phone to the complainant Nitin was a complainant in another FIR bearing No. 91/10 pending in the court under the similar provisions of law. Observing that the allegations and narrations of the incident was absolutely similar in both the FIRs and if the present FIR had been registered on an incident which never took place, then it is a serious matter that life and liberty of four young boys has been curtailed in violations of all existing norms and primafacie an offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code would be made out not only against Kuldeep Soni but also against all such officers of Police Station Jahangir Puri who were involved in registration and investigations of the present case in respect of an incident which did not happen. This court in order to arrive at the truth vide order dated 11.8.2010 directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to get the matter probed at the Departmental/ Vigilance level particularly on two aspects firstly with regard to the aspects highlighted by the witness Nitin in his testimony on the falsity of allegations and secondly with regard to the similarity in the FIRs bearing No.10/10 and 91/10 Police Station Jahangir Puri and also to inquire into the connections of the complainant in both the cases. During this period, it was deemed appropriate to ensure the safety and security of the complainant who was a young boy of 18 years and orphan his parents having expired and having an aged grandmother and unmarried aunt/ Bua at his native village. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-West) was directed to ensure protection St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 11 of 42 of this witness and also to ensure that none of the person i.e. either the public persons particularly Kuldeep Soni or any of the officers of Police Station Jahangir Puri have any access to the witness till such time the proceedings were pending before this court or further orders as the case may be.
Police/ official witnesses:
PW1 HC Rampal is the duty officer who in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/B and the endorsement made by him on the rukka which is Ex.PW1/C. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that he had not mentioned the name of the officer who give directions for visit (gast) and the area in which the officers had gone for visit (gast).
According to him, in DD entry no.4A it has been mentioned that two beat officers namely Ct. Sajjan and Ct. Rajender had gone for visit with Ct. Vijender and Ct. Dalip. The witness has admitted that he has not mentioned in his affidavit of evidence about the DD entry no.4A which was recorded by him. PW1 has also admitted that no place of occurrence has been mentioned in the FIR No. 10/10 which is Ex.PW1/B and according to him, the place of occurrence was about two kilometer from the police station. He has further admitted that only two items were placed to him which is mentioned at serial no. 9 in the FIR i.e. mobile phone make Tata Indicom and Indian Rupees 1,200/- and no visiting cards were placed before him.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 12 of 42 PW3 Ct. Sajjan Singh has deposed that on 09.01.2010 he was on patrolling duty along with HC Dalip, Ct. Rajender and Ct. Bijender Dagar and they left the police station for patrolling vide DD No. 4A which is Ex.PW3/A for Mangal Bazar Chowk at 4.30AM. According to him, when they reached H-Block Jahangirpuri, four boys came running from the side of H Block and one boy was running behind them shouting Chor-Chor. He has further deposed that all the four boys were apprehended by them and the boy who was running behind them whose name he late came to know as Nitin told them that he was coming back after playing Dhol and the said boys had caught hold of him in front of S-2 Market and robbed him of his purse and mobile phone. The witness has testified that he had caught hold of one boy whose name he later came to know as Deepak; accused Dalip was apprehended by Ct. Rajender; accused Ravi was apprehended by Ct. Bijender and the accused Vikas (whose name the witness was unable to tell initially but was told after much pondering) was apprehended by HC Dalip. During his examination in chief this court has observed that the witness has wrongly identified the accused Ravi as Vikas and the accused Vikas as Ravi and it was later on pointing out that he identified them correctly by name. PW3 has further deposed that the casual search of the accused persons were conducted during which one knife was recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of Ravi; a mobile phone make TATA Indicom which was of black and golden colour was recovered from the accused Deepak and a purse of black and golden colour was recovered which found to contain Rs.1,200/- i.e. in the denomination of two notes St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 13 of 42 of Rs.500 and two notes of Rs.100 each from the search of accused Ravi. He has also testified that the boy Nitin was also present at the spot identified the mobile phone and the purse as belonging to him and had been robbed from him. According to PW3, search of the purse was carried out by HC Dalip which was converted into a pulanda by him and the same was sealed with the seal of DSC which seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajender. He has also deposed that the statement of Nitin was recorded by HC Dalip who prepared the rukka on the basis of same which is Ex. PW2/A which rukka was handed over to Ct. Rajender which he took to the police station for registration of the case. The witness has also testified that while they were still at the spot Ct. Rajender came back to the spot after registration of the FIR along with ASI Umed to whom further investigations were handed over. According to him, HC Dalip informed ASI Umed about the position at the spot and handed over all the four accused persons to him along with the sealed pulanda. The witness has proved that HC Dalip had prepared the seizure memo which is Ex.PW2/E which he handed over to ASI Umed and all the accused persons were arrested by ASI Umed and their personal search was conducted after which the disclosure statement of accused Deepak was also recorded which is Ex.PW3/B. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Vikas which is Ex.PW2/F; arrest memo of accused Deepak which is Ex.PW2/G; arrest memo of accused Ravinder @ Ravi which is Ex.PW2/H; arrest memo of accused Dalip Kumar which is Ex.PW2/I; personal search of accused Ravinder @ Ravi which is Ex.PW2/J; personal search of accused Deepak which is Ex.PW2/K;
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 14 of 42 personal search of accused Dalip Kumar which is Ex.PW2/L; personal search of accused Vikas which is Ex.PW2/M all bearing his signatures as well as the signatures of Ct. Rajender and signatures of the accused persons. The witness has further deposed that the complainant thereafter left the spot and all the accused persons were taken to BJRM Hospital where their medical examination was got conducted and thereafter brought to the police station where they were put in the lock up and later produced before the Ld. MM on the same day. PW3 has correctly identified the case property in the court i.e. mobile phone of TATA Indicom which is Ex. P.1; purse is Ex.P.2, amount of Rs.1,200/- is collectively Ex. P.3; the visiting cards are collectively Ex.P.4 and the dagger/ knife recovered from the possession of the accused Ravi which is Ex. P.5.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that on 09.01.2010 no beat officer was with them and he and other police officials were having lathis, one pistol and IO bag which was carried by HC Dalip. He has testified that they had gone to the spot via CD Park, Kushal Cinema on foot and it took about 40 minutes to reach the spot. According to the witness, they were on patrolling duty on the directions of SHO and has admitted that the directions of SHO were not mentioned in the DD entry. PW3 has further admitted that the direction and distance of place of occurrence from police station mentioned in the FIR is South-East/ 0.1 km and that the place of occurrence is not mentioned in the FIR. He has denied the suggestion that the place of occurrence is not mentioned in the FIR since there is no place of occurrence and has St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 15 of 42 stated that the place of occurrence is the road between H2 and H3 Block. The witness has been confronted with his statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure which is Ex.PW3/D1 on the aspect of apprehension of accused persons on which he states that his statement Ex.PW3/D-1 is correct. He has admitted that his statement Ex.PW3/D1 does not bear his signatures. According to him, the distance between the complainant Nitin and accused persons was about 10 yards and he is not aware who was caught firstly but states that the accused persons were apprehended at about 5:15 am. He has also deposed that they remained at the spot till 7:50 am and has admitted that in the personal search memos of the accused persons i.e. Ex.PW2/J to PW2/M nothing has been shown to be recovered from the accused persons. He has denied that the case property has been planted upon the accused persons in the police station. PW3 has testified that the knife was recovered from the right pocket of the pant of accused Ravi @ Ravinder but he does not remember the colour of the pant wore by accused Ravinder and states that it was a casual pant. According to him, all the writing work was done at H-4 Block which is just right to Mangal Bazar Chowk while sitting on a Takat of a tea stall and they have asked some passers-bye to join the proceedings but they did not join. He has testified that the Tea Stall owner was not present at the time and did not reach his stall till they remained there. According to the witness, the said purse was containing Rs.1,200/- only and nothing else and the accused persons did not try to escape. He has further deposed that he did not ask the complainant the address of the place where he had gone to play the St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 16 of 42 drums and states that the complainant told him that he had come from Adarsh Nagar side and at that time the complainant Nitin was not having any Dhol. PW3 has denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the police station Jahangir Puri or that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused persons and no such incident as alleged had taken place. He has also denied that all the accused persons were picked from their houses in the intervening night of 8/9.01.2010 and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
PW4 HC Dalip is also a member of the patrolling party and has corroborated the testimony of PW3 to the extent that 09.01.2010 he along with Ct. Rajender, Ct. Sajjan and Ct. Bijender was on patrolling duty vide DD No.4 A and at about 5.15 AM when they reached at Mangal Bazar Chowk, Jahangir Puri, four boys were found running towards them and were followed by one Nitin who was shouting as Pakro-Pakro towards the aforesaid four persons. According to him, on hearing his cry they apprehended all the four persons. He has deposed that he apprehended the accused Ravinder @ Ravi @ Khushi; Ct. Rajender apprehended accused Dalip Kumar; Ct. Sajjan apprehended the accused Deepak and Ct. Bijender apprehended the accused Vikas @ Vicky. PW4 has testified that Nitin informed them that the said boys had robbed him on the point of knife by putting the same on his neck after which the formal search of the accused persons were conducted during which one Chhura like knife was recovered from the pocket of the pant of accused Ravinder @ Ravi @ Khushi. He has further testified that Ct. Sajjan conducted the formal search of accused Deepak on his St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 17 of 42 instructions and took out one mobile phone TATA Indicom of black and brown colour from the pocket of the accused; Ct. Rajender conducted the formal search of accused Dalip Kumar @ Sonu and took out one purse of black and brown colour from his pocket; Ct. Bijender conducted the formal search of accused Vikas @ Vicky but nothing could be recovered from his formal search. PW4 has deposed that the purse recovered from accused Dalip was further checked and found containing two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- and two currency notes of Rs.100/- each and four visiting cards which articles along with the mobile phone were shown to the witness Nitin Kumar who identified the same as belonging to him. He has proved having prepared the sketch of the chhura vide Ex.PW2/B after which the said Chhura was wrapped in cloth and sealed with the seal of DSC and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. The witness has also deposed that the purse, visiting cards and Rs.1200/- were wrapped in the cloth and sealed with the same seal and the sealed parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D after which the mobile phone was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/E which seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajender. PW4 has also proved having recorded the statement of Nitin Kumar vide already Ex.PW2/A and having prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW4/A which was sent to Police Station through Ct. Rajender for getting the case registered who came back to the spot with investigating officer ASI Umed Singh who took the copy of FIR and original Rukka from Ct. Rajender as he was handed over the further investigation of this St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 18 of 42 case. According to him, he also handed over the sealed parcels, documents and the accused persons to the investigating officer. The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the court as well as the case property i.e. mobile phone of TATA Indicom which is Ex. P.1; purse is Ex.P.2, amount of Rs.1,200/- is collectively Ex. P.3; the visiting cards are collectively Ex.P.4 and the dagger/ knife recovered from the possession of the accused Ravi which is Ex. P.5.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that when they left the police station Ct. Sajjan was with him who was the beat constable at that time and they had no directions for patrolling on that day but it was a routine patrolling duty which was assigned to them by the then Duty Officer. According to him, he was having service pistol whereas other members of police party were having dandas and the distance between police station and the spot is about half kilometer. He has testified that before reaching the spot they covered the area of E- block, CD Park, Kushal Cinema Road and thereafter reached at the spot. According to the witness, the accused persons were running from the side of H-1 Block and the accused persons were apprehended at Mangal Bazar Chowk opposite DDA Market. He has testified that all the accused persons were one behind the other and first of all he apprehended the accused Ravi @ Ravinder and they were apprehended while they were coming towards their side. The witness has further deposed that the knife was recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of accused Ravinder which was a cut pocket having V shape. He has deposed that he made enquiries from Nitin also as to from where he St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 19 of 42 was coming to which he replied that he was coming from Azadpur. According to PW4, he did not ask the address from where the complainant was coming after attending the function and he did not ask the complainant regarding the time of completion of the function. The witness has admitted that C-Block falls in front of Kusal Cinema and deposed that as per the site plan Metro Station falls on the north side and when one comes from Azadpur via Shah Alam Bandh to Mangal Bazar Road, he would take the way of main H Block road and reached at Mangal Bazar Chowk. According to PW4, the writing work was done while sitting on a "Takht" lying at the corner of DDA Market and he was having sealing material in his IO's bag. He has deposed that he is not known to any Kuldeep Soni. According to him, it took about thirty minutes in investigation done by him and till then no public person was found moving there as it was winter season. The witness has denied that no such incident has taken place at the spot on that day or that the accused persons have no concern with the alleged offence.
PW5 ASI Umed Singh is the investigating officer who has deposed that on 09.01.2010 he was posted at Police Station Jahangir Puri and on that day when he was present in the police station the investigations of this case was handed over to him. According to him, he took copy the FIR and original rukka from Duty Officer after which he along with Ct. Rajender reached Mangal Bazar Chowk where HC Dalip, Ct. Bijender and Ct. Sajjan met them at the spot. The witness has further deposed that the complainant Nitin was also present at the spot and HC Dalip produced four accused persons before him. The investigating St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 20 of 42 officer has testified that HC Dalip handed over three sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of DSC and he received the seizure memos, sketch etc. from HC Dalip after which he recorded the statement of HC Dalip and relieved him from the spot. He has proved having prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Nitin which is Ex.PW5/A and the accused persons were interrogated orally and after being satisfied with the statements of Nitin and HC Dalip the accused persons were arrested vide memos which are Ex.PW2/F to Ex. PW2/I and personally searched vide memos which are Ex.PW2/J to Ex.PW2/M at the instance of complainant. The witness has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Deepak which is already Ex.PW3/A and has deposed that all the accused persons were taken to BJRM Hospital where their medical examination was got done. According to him, he recorded the statements of witnesses and came back to the police station and the case property was deposited with MHC(M). PW5 has correctly identified the accused persons in the court.
In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that the place of occurrence is about one kilometer from police station and that in the FIR the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station has been mentioned as 0.1 Kilometer. He has deposed that he inquired from the complainant as to from where he was coming on that day on which the complainant replied that he was coming from Adarsh Nagar but at that time the complainant was not having any Dhol. He is not aware if the complainant is working with some property dealer and not a Drum Beater. He has denied the suggestion that the complaint is St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 21 of 42 not a Drum Beater and is working with some property dealer and also used to stay in the shop of the said property dealer due to which reason he did not make any enquiry from the complainant in this regard. According to PW5, he along with Ct. Rajender, Ct. Bijender and Ct. Sajjan went to the BJRM Hospital but he does not remember the exact time when they reached the hospital. He has testified that BJRM Hospital is situated at a distance of one to one and a half Kilometer from the spot of incident and they went to hospital on foot and it took about minutes minutes to reach hospital. He has admitted that the time of arrival in BJRM Hospital is mentioned as 2.30PM in the MLC of accused Vikas. PW5 has admitted that as per MLC Ex.PW5/DX-1 the accused Dalip Kumar was brought by Ct. Mrityunjay and that as per MLC Ex.PW5/DX-2 the accused Ravinder was brought by Ct. Sanjay. The witness has further deposed that he did not carry out any investigations as to in whose name the mobile connection of the stolen mobile phone has been taken. He has denied the suggestion that the FIR recorded in the present case is a false one and on very similar facts, another FIR bearing no.91/2010 has been registered in Police Station Jahangir Puri, copy of which is Ex.PW5/DX-3. PW5 has also denied that the accused persons have no concern with the alleged offence or that on the basis of false statement of Nitin the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:
After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 22 of 42 accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence has been put to them which they have denied. All the accused persons have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. According to them they were lifted by the police from their respective houses. However, the accused persons preferred not the lead any evidence in their defence.
FINDINGS:
Now I propose to analyze the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
PUBLIC WITNESS/ COMPLAINANT
1. Nitin Kumar He is the complainant in the present case and in his initial
(PW2) statement to this court on oath, has deposed on the
following aspects:
That he is a Drum Beater (Dhol Master) by profession. That on 09.01.2010 he was coming after attending a programme from Azadpur and was going to his house and when he reached in H Block, DDA Market, five persons came before him out of which one ran away immediately and one of them who was of black complexion caught hold him; other put knife on his neck who was of fair complexion and the person who put the knife on his neck told that "shor machaya to gala kaat doonga".
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 23 of 42 That the third boy took out the purse from his pant which purse was containing some visiting cards and Rs.1,200/- and the fourth boy took out mobile phone of TATA Indicom from the pocket of his jacket, after which they all left the spot by saying that "shor machaya to jaan se mar denge."
That three - four police officials came from behind who apprehended all the four accused persons and his purse, mobile phone and Rs.1,200/- etc. were recovered from them.
That one chhuri was also recovered from one of them and he had identified all the four accused persons after they were apprehended by the police office at a distance of half kilometer.
He has proved his statement made to the police which is Ex.PW2/A and has identified his signatures on Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/M. He has also identified the case property in the court i.e. mobile phone of TATA Indicom which is Ex. P.1; purse which is Ex.P-2, Rs.1,200/- which are collectively Ex.P-3 and some visiting cards which are Ex. P.4 (collectively). However, he has not been able to identify the knife shown to him as well as the accused persons in the court. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the aspect of identity of the accused persons when all the accused persons were shown to him despite which he denied that the accused Vickey @ Vikas, had caught hold of him or that accused Ravinder @ Ravi put knife on his neck or that accused Dalip had removed the purse from his pocket of pant or that the accused Deepak removed mobile phone from his jacket.
The witness was thereafter explained the consequences of his making a false statement on oath before the court after which this court has put certain questions to the witness in order to elicit the truth from him. He has admitted that all the accused persons had been named by him in his statement on the basis of which the FIR has been registered and that the accused have been apprehended at St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 24 of 42 the spot but he states that he came to know of their names in the police station. He has further admitted that the purse and mobile phone which were robbed from him, was recovered at the spot and shown to him and according to him, it was in the police station that he identified the same. According to the witness, immediately on the apprehension of the accused persons he went to the police station and after about seven to eight minutes of the incident the accused were apprehended from the Mangal Bazar Chowk. He has deposed that he had told the police the direction in which the accused persons had gone and the accused persons were apprehended from the same direction. The witness has testified that he did not tell the police officers that the boys who had been apprehended were not the same boys who committed the robbery incident. According to him, he was not shown the boys in the police station but only his statement was recorded and he did not tell the police officials that he would not sign his statement without seeing the boys. PW2 has admitted that he is residing in the same area where the accused persons are residing but has denied that he has been won over by the accused persons. He has further deposed that after the date of the incident he never met the accused persons and met them only on the date of the incident and never after that.
After the witnesses completed his testimony he orally informed the court that in fact no incident had taken place and he has never seen the accused previously. He also told the court that he had given his incorrect address in his statement and that he had gone to the Police Station along with Kuldeep Soni on the asking of his employer Bunti Bhatia who is a property dealer of the area, where he handed over an old mobile phone and purse after which he was made to sign certain documents. Finding that the witness was taking a somersault from his deposition made before the court and was taking altogether contrary statement he was made to sit in the court and it was ensured that he should not interact with any person.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 25 of 42 This was done in order to remove all traces of any kind of fear, coercion or pressure from him. Thereafter his fresh statement was recorded in vernacular in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Ld. counsel for the accused persons, the Station House Officer - Police Station Jahangir Puri Inspector S.B. Yadav and Assistant Commissioner of Police Sh. Jai Bhagwan Kaushik. In the said statement Nitin has given his present address as Hero Property Dealer, on 1st Floor, in front of H. No. C-1745-46, Jahangirpuri C/o Sh. Bunti Bhatia and permanent address as Village Laloo Kheri, Distt Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. The statement of Nitin which was recorded in verbitum wherein he has deposed that: That he had given his wrong address to the court in his earlier statement.
That he is now residing at C-1745-46, Jahangir Puri with one Bunti Bhatia who is a property dealer and he has no concern with house no. C-1770 and B- 1680 Jahangir Puri and he had given his wrong address since he got scared.
That on 9.1.2010 he was working in the office of Bunti Bhatia and he was called by one Kuldeep Soni who is running an office by the name of K-7 News Channel in the area.
That Kuldeep Soni asked him to bring an old mobile phone and purse on which one Vishwajeet who is residing in his neighbour, handed over to him one old mobile phone after which Kuldeep Soni took him to Police Station Jahangir Puri along with the said mobile phone and his empty purse. That he handed over the mobile phone and empty purse to the officer at Police Station and he does not know as to how the money and visiting cards were placed in the said purse.
That thereafter the said police officer asked him about his name and other details which he told to him and the said police officer wrote some report on which he was asked to sign.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 26 of 42 That he did not read the said report before signing and he had put his signatures on certain papers which were 12-13 in numbers and he does not know what happened thereafter.
That on the night of 10.8.2010 at about 8:00 pm Kuldeep Soni called him to his office and informed him that he had to give evidence in respect of the report lodged by him and also told him as to what he is required to state before the court.
That he had gone to the police station in the morning since he had been given the wrong copy of the FIR and instead of FIR No.10/10 he was given FIR No. 2/10 and thereafter he came to the court along with the investigating officer.
That he was told that four boys would be shown to him in the court whom he had to identify and he would be made to understand the roles of the said boys.
That he was shown the four boys (accused persons) in the court and has been told as what has to be deposed in the court.
That when he was entering in the court room the accused Deepak threatened him to kill in case if he deposed anything in the court and that is why he did not identify the accused persons in the court earlier.
He has admitted that whatever is written in the report, he has deposed before the court but he did not identify the accused persons.
That Vishwajeet is the husband of Rekha who is just like a sister to him and is residing in the name gali.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 27 of 42 That Vishwajeet is working as a Conductor on a blue line bus plying on route no. 861 and he is not aware if a snatching incident had happened with Vishwajeet in the month of March or not.
Observation: The complainant has got a false case registered against the accused persons on the basis of a non existing incident having concocted the entire story. He initially made a falsely deposition on oath before the court but later on being warned about the legal consequences of the same he panicked and informed the court about the true position. POLICE / OFFICIAL WITNESSES
2. HC Ramphal He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer. He has (PW1) been examined on affidavit and in his examination-in-
chief by way of affidavit the witness has proved having registered the FIR Ex.PW1/B on the basis of the rukka sent by HC Dalip Singh. He has also proved his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW1/B.
3. Ct. Sajjan Singh The said witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW3) 1. That on 9.1.2010 he was on patrolling duty along with HC Dalip, Ct. Rajender and Ct. Bijender Dagar and they had left the Police Station for patrolling vide DD No. 4A for Mangal Bazar Chowk at 4:30 am.
2. That when they reached H Block Jahangir Puri four boys came running from the side of H Block and one boy was running behind them shouting Chor-Chor.
3. That all the four boys were apprehended by them and the boy who was running behind them whose name he late came to know as Nitin, told them that he was coming back after playing Dhol and the said boys had caught hold of him in front of S-2 Market and robbed him of his purse and mobile phone.
4. That he had caught hold of one boy whose name he later came to know as Deepak; accused Dalip was apprehended by Ct. Rajender; accused Ravi was apprehended by Ct. Bijender and the accused Vikas was apprehended by HC Dalip.
He has wrongly identified the accused Ravi as Vikas and the accused Vikas as Ravi and it was later on pointing out that he identified them correctly by name.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 28 of 42
5. That one knife was recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of Ravi and a mobile phone make TATA Indicom which was of black and golden colour was recovered from the accused Deepak.
6. That a purse of black and golden colour was recovered which found to contain Rs.1,200/- i.e. in the denomination of two notes of Rs.500 and two notes of Rs.100 each from the search of accused Ravi.
6. That the boy Nitin who was also present at the spot, identified the mobile phone and the purse as belonging to him and had been robbed from him.
7. That search of the purse was carried out by HC Dalip which was converted into a pulanda by him and the same was sealed with the seal of DSC which seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajender.
The witness has identified the case property in the court and has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW3/A DD No.4A
Ex.PW2/A Statement of Nitin
Ex.PW2/E Seizure memo of mobile phone
Ex.PW3/B Disclosure statement of accused Deepak
Ex.PW2/F Arrest memo of accused Vikas
Ex.PW2/G Arrest memo of accused Deepak
Ex.PW2/H Arrest memo of accused Ravinder @ Ravi
Ex.PW2/I Arrest memo of accused Dalip Kumar
Ex.PW2/J Personal search memo of accused
Ravinder
Ex.PW2/K Personal search memo of accused Deepak
Ex.PW2/L Personal search memo of accused Dalip
Ex.PW2/M Personal search memo of accused Vikas
Observation: This witness has made a false statement on oath in respect of an incident which did not happen St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 29 of 42
4. HC Dalip (PW4) He is also a member of the patrolling party and has corroborated the testimony of PW3 to the extent that:
1. On 09.01.2010 he along with Ct. Rajender, Ct. Sajjan and Ct. Bijender was on patrolling duty vide DD No.4 A and at about 5.15 AM when they reached at Mangal Bazar Chowk, Jahangir Puri, four boys were found running towards them and were followed by one Nitin who was shouting as Pakro-Pakro towards the aforesaid four persons.
2. That on hearing his cry they apprehended all the four persons. He apprehended the accused Ravinder @ Ravi @ Khushi; Ct. Rajender apprehended accused Dalip Kumar; Ct. Sajjan apprehended the accused Deepak and Ct. Bijender apprehended the accused Vikas @ Vicky.
3. That Nitin informed them that the said boys had robbed him on the point of knife by putting the same on his neck after which the formal search of the accused persons were conducted during which one Chhura like knife was recovered from the pocket of the pant of accused Ravinder @ Ravi @ Khushi.
4. That Ct. Sajjan conducted the formal search of accused Deepak on his instructions and took out one mobile phone TATA Indicom of black and brown colour from the pocket of the accused.
5. That Ct. Rajender conducted the formal search of accused Dalip Kumar @ Sonu and took out one purse of black and brown colour from his pocket.
6. That Ct. Bijender conducted the formal search of accused Vikas @ Vicky but nothing could be recovered from his formal search.
7. That the purse recovered from accused Dalip was further checked and found containing two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- and two currency notes of Rs.100/- each and four visiting cards which articles along with the mobile phone were shown to the witness Nitin Kumar who identified the same as belonging to him.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 30 of 42
8. That the churra, mobile phone and the purse were taken into possession after which the statement of Nitin was recorded on the basis of which rukka was prepared and the FIR was got registered through Ct.
Rajender and further investigations were handed over to ASI Umed Singh who also reached the spot.
He has correctly identified the accused persons and the case property in the court. He has also proved the following documents:
Ex.PW2/B Sketch of the Churra
Ex.PW2/C Seizure memo of Churra
Ex.PW2/D Seizure memo of purse, visiting cards and
Rs.12,00/-
Ex.PW2/E Seizure memo of mobile phone
Ex.PW2/A Statement of Nitin Kumar
Ex.PW4/A Rukka
Observation: This witness has made a false statement on oath in respect of an incident which did not happen
5. ASI Umed He is the investigating officer who has deposed on the Singh (PW5) following aspects:
1. That on 09.01.2010 the investigations of this case was handed over to him and he took copy the FIR and original rukka from Duty Officer after which he along with Ct. Rajender reached Mangal Bazar Chowk where HC Dalip, Ct. Bijender and Ct. Sajjan met them.
2. That the complainant Nitin was also present at the spot and HC Dalip produced four accused persons before him.
3. That HC Dalip handed over three sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of DSC and he received the seizure memos, sketch etc. from HC Dalip after which he recorded the statement of HC Dalip and relieved him from the spot.
4. That he has prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Nitin.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 31 of 42 The witness has identified the accused persons in the court and has proved the various proceedings conducted by him. He has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW5/A Site plan Ex.PW2/F to Arrest memos of the accused persons Ex.PW2/I Ex.PW2/J to Personal search memos of the accused Ex.PW2/M persons Ex.PW3/A Disclosure statement of accused Deepak Observation: This witness has made a false statement on oath in respect of an incident which did not happen I have gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses and the statement of the victim. Firstly the complainant before this court Nitin has turned totally hostile. Initially he had supported the case of the prosecution in so far as the incident is concerned but did not identify any of the accused persons in the court. Later he was cross- examined by the Addl. PP and also duly warned by this court regarding the legal consequences of his making a false statement on oath. The complainant Nitin thereafter made another statement on oath and has deposed before this court that no such incident had taken place. He also testified that he had been taken to the police station by one Kuldeep Soni a resident of the same area where he had handed over his empty purse and one mobile which he had taken from his neighbour Vishwajeet to the police officer on the basis of which the FIR was registered and he had signed the various papers in the police station itself. This proves that the complainant Nitin had caused to be instituted criminal proceedings against the accused before this court by falsely charging them of St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 32 of 42 committing an offence punishable for not less than seven years, knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings/ charges against these accused namely Dalip Kumar @ Sonu, Deepak, Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas @ Vicky. He has also committed perjury and had initially made a a false statement on oath despite being legally bound by oath to state the truth only with the intent to procure conviction of the accused persons.
Secondly it is evident from the report of the Crime Branch that the above Kuldeep Soni is a complainant in another FIR bearing No.612/09 under Section 392/397/411 IPC & Section 27 of the Arms Act and his son Deepak Soni is also a complainant in FIR No.637/09, under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC and Vishwajeet is a complainant in two FIRs bearing No.580/09 under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC and FIR No.92/10 under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act, all from Police Station Jahangir Puri.
Thirdly the present complainant Nitin is also a complainant in another FIR No.205/10 dated 10.6.2010 under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC read with Section 25/27 of Arms Act from Police Station Jahangir Puri which is pending disposal before Sh. V.K. Bansal, ASJ on absolutely similar allegations. This court having come to know of it called for the file of the above case it was revealed that not only the allegations made therein are absolutely similar but even the members of the police party i.e. Ct. Bijender and Ct. Sajjan are same.
Fourthly if the incident in question never took place, how is it possible that Ct. Rajender, Ct. Sajjan Singh (PW3), Ct. Bijender and St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 33 of 42 HC Dalip (PW4) have stated before the investigating officer in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and testified before the court (PW3 Sajjan Singh and PW4 HC Dalip) that they were on patrolling duty when they found the accused persons running towards them and the complainant shouting Pakro Pakro on which they apprehended all the accused at the spot itself and made the recoveries. How convenient it is for these officers to have created the story not only in this present case but in the various FIRs as mentioned herein above pending before the various courts of law and also in the various other FIRs duly probed by the Crime Branch whose report has been submitted before this court. All these police officers including PW3 Ct. Sajjan and PW4 HC Dalip have conspired into instituting/ causing to be instituted criminal proceedings against the accused before this court by falsely charging them of committing an offence punishable for not less than seven years, knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings/ charges against these accused. They have also committed perjury and have made false statements on oath despite being legally bound by oath to state the truth only with the intent to procure conviction of the accused persons.
Lastly the report of the Crime Branch placed before this court conclusively proves that the incident in question has been concocted and a false FIR has been lodged. Further, there has been a fabrication of evidence by the police and the statements made by the witnesses of the prosecution including the investigating officer ASI Umed Singh, are totally false and unbelievable. The SHO Police Station Jahangir Puri who has prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 34 of 42 the court, is equally responsible and a part of this conspiracy.
I may observe that after the complainant Nitin turned hostile and informed this court that no such incident had taken place, this court in order to arrive at the truth regarding the registration of false cases at Police Station Jahangir Puri, directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to get the matter probed at the departmental level. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this court the Commissioner of Police, Delhi got conducted an inquiry from the Crime Branch and a report was finalized by Sh. Subhash Tondon, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime) duly forwarded to this court by Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime). Not being satisfied by the manner in which the report had been filed, this court had vide its order dated 24.11.2010 directed the Inquiry Officer to furnish certain clarification in terms of the queries put by this court to the Inquiry Officer. I may also observe that specific queries to the Inquiry Officer were put with regard to the aspect of ownership of the mobile phone stated to be have been snatched from the complainant and also if the present complainant Nitin was a complainant in any other case from Police Station Jahangir Puri. This court had also sought a clarification if Vishwajeet from whom the complainant Nitin is alleged to have taken the mobile or Kuldeep Singh who had taken the complainant Nitin to Police Station Jahangir Puri were also complainants in any other criminal case pertaining to Police Station Jahangir Puri. A clarification was received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) and it was then that the Inquiry Officer reported that the present complainant Nitin was also a complainant in another FIR bearing St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 35 of 42 No.205/10 dated 10.6.2010 under Sections 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act Police Station Jahangir Puri. It was further reported that Vishwajeet from whom the complainant Nitin is alleged to have taken the mobile phone, is working as a Driver in Blue Line Bus and is the husband of Rekha to whom the mobile phone no. 9278968154 (the mobile stated to have been snatched in the present case) belonged. This Vishwajeet is also a complainant in two FIRs of Police Station Jahangir Puri first bearing No.580/09 dated 4.11.2009 under Sections 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code and FIR No.91/10 dated 6.3.2010 under Section 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. It was also reported that Kuldeep Soni who had taken the present complainant Nitin to the Police Station is also a complainant in FIR No. 612/09 dated 28.11.2009 under Sections 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Jahangir Puri and his son Deepak Soni is also a complainant in FIR No.637/09 dated 21.12.2009 under Section 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Jahangir Puri.
The aforesaid report of the Crime Branch only goes to confirm that the present case was falsely registered against the accused persons and the incident in question never took place. It also goes to confirm that all the police witnesses particularly PW3 Ct. Sajjan Singh, PW4 HC Dalip Singh and PW5 ASI Umed Singh have not only given false evidence on oath, despite being legally bound by law on oath to state the truth but also have conspired to institute false criminal St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 36 of 42 proceedings against the accused persons with the intent to injure them knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge against the accused persons and the Station House Officer of Police Station Jahangir Puri who has filed the present charge sheet was a party to the same. The report of the Crime Branch further shows that as many as Thirty Eight cases have been registered at police station Jahangir Puri between 20.7.2009 to 29.8.2010 under Sections 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code (all worked out) all of which are pending trial before the various courts and the second FIR bearing No. 205/10 dated 10.6.2010 wherein the same complainant Nitin is also a complainant, is pending before the court of Sh. V.K. Bansal, Ld. ASJ, Rohini which FIR is under the same provisions of law i.e. under Sections 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code. The file of the said case was summoned by this court today. The perusal of the FIR reveals that not only the allegations made in the same are ditto but the modus operandi in which the accused persons were apprehended is also the same and some of the members of the police party i.e. Ct. Sajjan and Ct. Bijender are also same. Copies of the FIR, statement of the witness Nitin made to the police and also to the court and the list of witnesses have been directed to be placed on record of the present case.
Now coming to the present accused namely Dalip Kumar @ Sonu; Deepak; Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas @ Vicky, they have not been identified by the complainant. In view of what has been transpired and keeping in view the testimonies of the complainant made before this court regarding registration of a false case, all the accused Dalip Kumar St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 37 of 42 @ Sonu; Deepak; Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas @ Vicky are acquitted of the charges under Sections 392/34 Indian Penal Code and the accused Ravinder @ Ravi is acquitted of the charges under Section 397/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27/54/59 of Arms Act. The accused Deepak who is in judicial custody is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds of accused Dalip Kumar @ Sonu, Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas @ Vicky stand cancelled. Their sureties stand discharged. Original documents of the sureties be returned after cancellation of endorsement, as per rules.
Initiating and instituting false criminal proceedings knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for the same is a serious offence. Registration of false cases against suspects is an impermissible method of crime control. In the words of Justice Vrandiees in the case of Olmstead Vs. US (1928) 277 US 438 if the Government agencies become law breakers, it breeds contempt for law "......to declare that in the administration of criminal law, the ends justifies the means - to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court has to resolutely set its face. Further in the same judgment Justice Homes had observed "... we have to choose, and for my part I think it a less evil that some criminal should escape, then that the government should play an ignoble part...."
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 38 of 42 The position in India is not different. There is no duty of the government to lodge false cases in order to book the suspected criminals. I may say that the officers of the State (Police) have failed to act in accordance with law and to perform the duties assigned to them.
Serious constitutional and human right violations have been observed by this court in the present case. None of the accused before this court who all come from very poor families, have any previous criminal record. They have suffered detention and trial for an offence they have never committed. In the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court if civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others to well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that respect for rights of individuals is a true bastion of democracy and therefore, it is necessary for the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the rights of its citizens (Ref:
Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1086).
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the senior officer of the police had been called and suitably advised and submits that such a serious lapse would not be repeated in future. I have duly considered his submissions. The senior officers of the Police having come to know of the false registration of FIRs it was only appropriate that the said cases should have been recommended to the competent authority for reappraisal and withdrawal, which has not been done till date. In so far as this court is concerned, it can only consider the cases so pending before it, but in so far as the cases pending trial before various other courts are concerned, the ends of justice require that St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 39 of 42 such serious Constitutional, Statutory and Human Rights violations are brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the administrative side.
A complaint under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure is also being lodged in the court of concerned ACMM under appropriate provisions of law for the commission of offence of instituting or causing to be instituted any criminal proceedings against the accused Dalip Kumar @ Sonu, Deepak, Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas @ Vicky and who were falsely charged of having committed an offence punishable not less than seven years, knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge against the accused persons Dalip Kumar @ Sonu, Deepak, Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas @ Vicky and for commission of offence of perjury and giving/ fabricating false evidence with the intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for term not less than seven years and also for making false statement despite being legally bound by oath to state the truth. The hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pritish Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2001 (IX) AD (SC) 501 has observed that there was no statutory requirement to offer an opportunity of hearing to the person against whom the court might file a complaint before the Magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings. The court is under no obligation to offer an opportunity (to the person against whom a complaint would be made) to be heard prior to making a complainant and the principles of natural justice would not be hampered by not hearing the person concerned at the stage of deciding whether such a person should be proceeded against or not.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 40 of 42 Accordingly there is no need to issue any show cause notice either to Nitin, Kuldeep Soni, Deepak Soni. Vishwajeet or police officials Ct. Sajjan Singh, HC Dalip, ASI Umed Singh, Inspector S.B. Yadav or any other person or officer connected with the commission of the aforesaid offences, before sending a complaint to the court of Ld. ACMM or to hear them.
Further, time has been sought by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) on behalf of the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) who is reported to be on leave, to answer the specific query put to him by the court on the last date of hearing if any departmental proceedings were initiated against Inspector S.B. Yadav in which major penalty has been recommended, as communicated to this court in his report dated 4.11.2010. On request of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) time is granted. The clarification be placed before this court on the next date of hearing.
Issue notice to the State as to why compensation be not awarded to the accused namely Dalip Kumar @ Sonu, Deepak, Ravinder @ Ravi and Vikas @ Vicky for their false implication in the present case. State also to explain why the cases registered at Police Station Jahangir Puri under Sections 392/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code reflecting similar allegations and same/ common complainants and same members of the investigating team particularly where the accused have no previous criminal record, be not placed before the Chief Secretary, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and for re- appraisal and appropriate action in accordance with law.
St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 41 of 42 In so far as the complainant Nitin is concerned, the police protection granted to him is directed to be continued till further orders by the ACMM concerned on the complaint being sent to him.
Separate file with regard to the complaint and compensation action is directed to be maintained. After filing the complaint under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure and after completion of proceedings in the separate file, the main file be also consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 26.11.2010 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Dalip Etc. FIR No. 10/10, PS Jahangir Puri Page No. 42 of 42