Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Shyam Narain on 7 February, 2012
:1:
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 40/11
Unique ID No. : 02401R0082542011
State versus 1) Shyam Narain
S/o Hari Shankar
R/o Khayalsi Pur Tala Ganj
Grant Post Gayghat
PS Chhappiya Distt. Gounda
UP.
2) Santosh Kumar S/o Kishan
Mohan R/o H.No.265,
Gali No.4,
Sahibabad, Near Railway
Station,
Distt. Ghaziabad, UP.
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 01/10
Police Station : Sarai Rohilla Railway Station.
Under Section : 328/511/34 IPC
Judgment pronounced on : 07.02.12
JUDGMENT
1. It is borne out from the charge sheet that on 08.01.2010 the complainant SI Gulshan Satija, Railway Protection Force gave a :2: complaint to the SHO/GRP, Delhi Sarai Rohilla Railway Station that he was on duty along with Ct.Ramesh Kumar and Ct.Amit Kumar at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station on that day. While checking Jan Sadharan Train No.2388, they found some people sitting in coach No.08415 EC talking loudly to each other. He also found that they were trying to make each other eat something. When he reached the said place along with other police staff, two of the said persons started trying to escape. They were however overpowered. The person who was sitting disclosed his name as Ilyas Ahmed and his statement was got recorded separately. From his personal search one Cadbury Diary Milk Eclairs Toffee was also recovered and on questioning the two accused persons who were apprehended, it was revealed that their names were Santosh Kumar and Shyam Narayan @ Ramesh and upon cursory search of accused Santosh Kumar 3 Cadbury Diary Milk Eclairs Toffees and four tablets of Clonotril2 were recovered, whereas from the cursory search of accused Shayam Narayan, 5 tablets of Clonotril2 and two Cadbury Diary Milk Eclairs Toffees were recovered.
:3:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that Ilyas Ahmed was travelling by Jansadharan Mail, which he had boarded from Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, Delhi for going to Bihar. While he was sitting in the train, two persons approached him and started inquiring from him about his residence, employment, salary etc. They were also offered food by Ilyas Ahmed. One of the said persons namely Santosh Kumar took out 45 toffees from the pocket of his pant and offered one to Ilyas Ahmed. Ilyas Ahmed however refused to eat the toffee but accused Santosh Kumar continued to insist him to consume the said toffee. In the meantime, accused Shyam Narayan got down from the train and brought some tea for Ilyas Ahmed stating that if he does not want to have the toffee then have a cup of tea. Both the accused insisted him to have the tea brought by Shyam Narayan. The tea however got spilled and in the meantime, the aforesaid officers of RPF reached the place of occurrence and apprehended both the accused persons and recovered the toffees and tablets of Clonotril2 from them. On the basis of the statement of Ilyas Ahmed and SI Gulshan Satija, the present case was registered against the accused persons.
:4:
3. During the course of investigation, the tablets recovered from the possession of accused were also sent for expert analysis. On the basis of material on record, both the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable under Section 328/511 IPC for having attempted to compel the complainant Elias Ahmed to consume a stupefying thing after mixing the same in a toffee with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of offence of robbery. The chemical analysis of the tablets recovered from the possession of the accused was found to be contained 'Clonazepam'.
4. The prosecution examined the Senior Scientific Officer from FSL as its first witness, who deposed that the tablets recovered from the possession of the accused persons were found to be containing 'Clonazepam'. His detailed report to this effect is Ex.PW1/A.
5. The complainant Ilyas Ahmed was brought into witness box as PW2 today. He deposed that in the Month of January, 2010, he :5: had gone to Sarai Rohilla Railway Station for boarding Jan Sadharan Train for going to his native village at Bihar. He further deposed that when he sat down in the train, one person came up to him and started making inquiries from him regarding his residence, employment salary etc. He further stated that he took out his lunch and offered it to that person and that person also had lunch with him. One policeman in civil dress was noticing the whole incident. After sometime, the policeman started taking search of the person who was talking to him and upon his search one strip of ten tablets was recovered.
6. This witness however failed to identify either of the accused as the person who had approached him on the date of occurrence. He also denied that he was offered toffees by accused Santosh. He also denied recovery of toffees of Cadbury Milk and Clonotril tablets from the possession of accused persons in his presence.
7. Today when the case was listed for further PE, no other :6: witness was present. However, on going through the statement of PW2, Ilyas Ahmed, it was apparent that he being a star witness of the prosecution has failed to identify any of the accused persons as the person who had approached him in the train on the date of incident in question. Having gone through his testimony in its entirety, I find that he has totally failed to support the case of the prosecution. The remaining witnesses cited by the prosecution including SI Gulshan Satija, Ct.Ramesh and Ct.Amit are merely corroborative in nature. A perusal of their statements under Section 161 Cr.PC itself would reveal that the said three witnesses had inquired from the complainant Ilyas Ahmed who had stated to them as per the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had tried to compel him to consume the aforesaid tablets and Cadbury Eclairs Diary Milk toffees.
8. Both the accused persons as aforesaid have not been identified by the complainant Ilyas Ahmed as the offenders of the present case. In these circumstances, I find that no fruitful purpose would be served to examine the remaining PWs who would not be able :7: to throw any light as regards allegations against the accused persons. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution evidence is hereby closed. Further in the light of the deposition of PW2 Ilyas Ahmed who has completely turned hostile, I find that there is no incriminating material on record against the accused persons and accordingly recording of their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC are hereby dispensed with. Further, for the foregoing reasons and considering the deposition of PW2, I find that there is no ground for convicting both the accused for the alleged offences. Both the accused viz., Santosh and Shyam Narain are accordingly acquitted of the offences for which they were charged. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the Open Court on February 07, 2012 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi