Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonvir And Another on 21 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02/WEST : DELHI
STATE Vs. Sonvir and another
FIR No. : 69/2010
U/SEC : 186/332/353/34 IPC
PS Hari Nagar Delhi
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0180502010
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 1821/II/10 Date of commission of offence 14.03.2010 Date of institution of the case 29.04.2010 Name of the complainant Assistant Superintendent Ramanand
Name of accused, parentage & address 1. Sonvir s/o Sh. Sher Pal
2. Neeraj s/o Sh. Prem Singh
3.Pradeep s/o Jagbir (already pleaded guilty) Offence complained or proved Section 186/332/353/34 IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Date of arguments 17.04.2013 Final order Convicted Date of Judgment 21.05.2013
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by ASI Sudershan Lal (hereinafter referred as IO) on the complaint of Assistant Superintendent Ramanand (hereinafter referred as complainant) against Sonvir and Neeraj (hereinafter referred as accused) for committing offences under sections 186/332/353/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC). FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1 of 11 BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 14.03.2010 at about 09:40 AM at Ward No. 6 Block E in Central Jail No.1, accused Neeraj, Sonveer and Pradeep (already convicted as he pleaded guilty) attacked the jail staff during a search operation which was being conducted in the ward. They used abusive language with the jail staff and refused to offer their search to the party. Accused persons assaulted the search party consisting of TSP staff namely D. Yaseuran, Palani Kumar, B. Ramchandran, AS Ramanand and DS Gyan Singh. They torn their uniform and also inflicted simple injuries on their persons. Complaint was given on 14.03.2010 and case under sections 186/332/353/34 IPC was registered and investigation was handed over to IO.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under sections 186/332/353/34 IPC against the accused persons on 29.04.2010 and copies under section 207 CrPC supplied to accused persons on 06.05.2010. Charge for the offences under section 186/332/353/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 02.06.2010 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was put up for prosecution evidence. EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL:
4. Prosecution has examined twelve witnesses to prove its case against the accused person.FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2 of 11
5. PW1 Gyan Singh Assistant Superintendent, PW2 Ramanand Assistant Superintendent, PW4 Ct. D. Yesruan, PW5 Ct. Palani Kumar and PW7 Ct. B. Ramachandran are the members of the search party and all of them have deposed on the line of prosecution case and fully supported it. PW2 exhibited his complaint as Ex. PW2/A. PW4 exhibited seizure memo of the torn uniform as Ex. PW4/A and the torn uniform as Ex. P1.
6. PW3 Anand Prakash Warder exhibited entries of entry and exit register maintained at Tihar Jail and exhibited the same as Ex.
PW3/A1 to Ex. PW3/A6.
7. PW6 Dr. Alok Kumar exhibited the MLCs of injured Ramanand, Palani Kumar, D. Yesuran and B. Ramachandran as Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/B, Ex. PW6/C and Ex. PW6/D respectively.
8. PW8 Dr. Arvind Kumar exhibit the original evening and night medical register maintained in Central Jail No. 1 dispensary and exhibited the same collectively as Ex. PW8/A.
9. PW9 Ct. Tara Chand exhibited DD No. 30B as Ex. PW9/A.
10.PW10 Sh. B. S. Jariyal exhibited complaint under section 195 CrPC as Ex. PW10/A.
11. PW11 HC Rohtash exhibited copy of FIR as Ex. PW11/A and FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 3 of 11 endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW11/B.
12.PW12 ASI Sudershan Lal exhibited the endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW12/B, site plan as Ex. PW12/C, arrest memos of accused Neeraj, Sonveer and Pradeep as Ex. PW12/D, Ex. PW12/E and Ex. PW12/F respectively.
13.Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 08.03.2011. Statement of accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 22.03.2011 wherein they pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They never refused to give their search to the officials and never abused the TSP staff or the jail officials as alleged. All of them further submitted that there was some language problem between them and TSP staff and TSP staff could not understand what they were conveying in Hindi and TSP staff due to misunderstanding understood that they were being abused by the accused persons. They opted to lead defence evidence. DW1 Satya Prakash and DW2 Ravinder Saini deposed that there was some language difference between the parties and the jail authorities also demanded illegal money from the accused persons and they were falsely implicated in this case on their refusal to accept illegal demand of the jail staff.
14. On 13.03.2013 accused Pradeep was convicted as he pleaded guilty for FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 4 of 11 committing offence under sections 186/332/353/34 IPC.
15.I have heard the final arguments put forth by ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
16.It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention attacked TSP staff who were discharging their functions in the capacity of public servant. Accused persons assaulted them and inflicted injuries on their person. Accused persons have been charged under section 186/332/353/34 IPC. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to reproduce sections 186, 332 and 353 IPC as under:
Section 186 IPC. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
Section 332 IPC. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty. "Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 5 of 11 done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 353 IPC. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
17. Ld. Defence counsel argued that there was a language problem between the TSP staff and accused persons as TSP staff was not able to understand Hindi language. Accused persons were not abusing them but the staff due to misconception got angry with the accused persons and the incident occurred. Another ground pleaded by Ld. Defence counsel is that illegal demands were being made by the jail staff from the accused persons and when they were not accepted, they have been falsely implicated in this case.
It seems that defence is very confused about the reason for false implication. Had it been the case that incident occurred due to language problem only, the story of illegal demand would not have FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6 of 11 been pleaded by the accused persons. Even if we accept the story of illegal demand, it is accepted by the accused persons that they never lodge complaint against those jail or TSP staff who made such demands from them. To support this theory accused persons had examined DW1 and DW2 but their testimony is also not reliable. If a person is not able to understand Hindi language and they conversant in Tamil only then how come the accused persons understood their illegal demand which might be made in Tamil language. Therefore, when accused persons state that illegal demands were made from them by the staff that means parties were able to communicate with each other and this conclusion goes against the second theory of language problem put forth by the defence.
18.It is not disputed that jail staff or TSP staff who were the members of the searching party were not discharging their duties in the capacity of public persons and they received injuries at the hands of accused persons. Accused persons themselves have stated time and again during trial that incident occurred due to language problem. Meaning thereby the incident of assault and scuffle is not denied by the defence. The two defences which have been put forth by the accused persons have been discussed in the earlier para and this court is of the considered view that those defences are sham, baseless and moonshine. All the raiding party members have supported the FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 7 of 11 prosecution case stating that on the date of incident they were conducting search operation in Block E Ward No. 6, Central Jail No.1 and accused persons refused to gave their search and started abusing all the officials. They attacked the staff and torn their uniform and also inflicted injuries on their person. Prosecution has proved the torn uniform as P1 and that has been correctly identified by all the witnesses who were present at the spot. Injuries of the injured persons have been proved by the prosecution and same are not disputed by the defence.
19.The next ground pleaded by Ld. Defence counsel is that CCTV footage of the incident has not been proved by the prosecution with the purpose to brush the truth under the carpet. If CCTV footage had been provided, things would have been cleared. But by not providing the CCTV footage, jail staff withheld the factual position of incident and that shall be read against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.
It is clear that CCTV footage has not been provided by the jail staff and this is not the first time, same has not been provided due to one reason or other which are not acceptable by any stretch of imagination. But the point needs consideration is that whether deposition of prosecution witnesses can be ignored merely because CCTV footage is not provided by the jail staff. The answer is No. FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 8 of 11 Defence has not denied the fact that accused persons were involved in the alleged incident. It is also not the case of the defence that accused persons were attacked by the TSP Personnels and then they retaliated. Had it been the case suggestions would have been given to the prosecution witnesses to this effect. All the prosecution witnesses have deposed that accused persons became furious without any rhyme or reason and inflicted injuries on their persons and that is enough to prove the allegations against them. Absence of CCTV footage is not so strong a ground so that accused persons can be acquitted.
20.The defence that accused persons did not abuse the jail staff and there was a misunderstanding between the parties, is also without any substance. A person can assess the conduct and intention of other person even if he does not understand his language. Intention of a person can be gathered by way of gesture itself. Language is a medium to convey thoughts and intentions of one person to another but it cannot be said that in absence of this medium, a person cannot understand other's feelings. If a person abuses another person in a language which is not known to him, even then he can understand those feelings whether they are out of anger, hatred or not. All the witnesses have stated in unequivocal manner that it is correct that they are not able to understand Hindi language but they can assess the conduct and intention of a person. They further stated that they are FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 9 of 11 able to identify and understand 'Hindi abuses' as they are working in the jail for a considerable time. Therefore, the plea that incident occurred due to misunderstanding of jail staff is misconceived and not tenable.
21. Hence, keeping in view the above discussion and material available on record, it is proved by the prosecution that all the accused persons attacked the TSP personnels by using criminal force when they were discharging their duties in the capacity of public servants without any rhyme or reason and inflicted injuries on the person of Ramanand, Palani Kumar, D. Yesuran and B. Ramachandran in furtherance of their common intention. Prosecution has proved its case against both the accused persons to the hilt. Therefore, both the accused persons are convicted for committing offences under section 186/332/353/34 IPC.
22.Before parting with this case, I would like to comment on the working condition of CCTV cameras in Jail premises. This is a matter of concern for the system that CCTV footages are not being provided by the jail staff as and when such uncalled incidents are reported to the police. When the entire Tihar jail is covered by the CCTV cameras, then how come these cameras stops working at the time of incident and jail officials merely states that cameras were not working at that time and no CCTV footage is available of the incident. The purpose of FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 10 of 11 installation of CCTV cameras in the jail premises is seems to be defeated. I have not seen even a single instance where CCTV footage has been provided by the jail authorities so that truth can be find out. In case CCTV footage is not available due to nonfunctioning of camera's, liability of the officer or agency concerned shall be fixed who are responsible/incharge of CCTV camera's maintenance at that particular time. In the present case, the incident occurred in high risk ward but CCTV footage has not been provided. This court has sent the judgment in case FIR No. 14/12 titled as State Vs. Kulwinder and State Vs. Furkan etc. FIR No. 76/2012 to the worthy DG, Prison, Tihar to look into the matter but no communication has been done till date by the Jail Administration.
23.Copy of this order be sent to worthy DG, Tihar Jail and Home Secretary, Delhi Government for their perusal and necessary action on their part. Non functioning of CCTV cameras at crucial moments are matter of great concern. Therefore, worthy DG Prison and Home Secretary, Delhi Government are advised to look into the matter at priority basis and take necessary action at their end.
24.Matter be listed for arguments on sentence on 24.05.2013.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DHIRENDRA RANA
ON 21st May, 2013 MM02/WEST DELHI
FIR No. 69/2010 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 11 of 11