Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Lochab on 15 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS RUCHIKA SINGLA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -04, ROOM NO.212
DWARKA, DELHI
STATE versus Deepak Lochab
FIR No.165/13
PS: Dwarka South
U/s- 224 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02405R0204092013
2. Date of commission of offence : 05.06.2013
3. Name of the complainant : HC Anirudh Singh No. 7166
DAP IIIrd B.N. Vikaspuri, New Delhi
4. Name of the accused, and his : Deepak Lochab s/o Sh. Devender Lochab
parentage and residence r/o RZ-31/C, Maksudabad Colony,
Najafgarh, Delhi
5. Date of Reserving Judgment : 31.03.2014
6. Date when judgment was : 15.04.2014
pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : U/s-224 IPC
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Order : Acquittal
10. Date of Order : 15.04.2014.
-:: JUDGMENT ::-
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2013 at Dwarka Courts, the accused was being taken to attend his hearing in case FIR no. 441/10 PS Najafgarh and while he was being taken there, he attempted to escape from the custody of HC Anirudh Singh, who was escorting him to the court from the lock up and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 224 Indian Penal code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
State v. Deepak Lochab FIR No. 165/13 P.S.: Dwarka South Page 1 of 5
2. The investigation commenced on the information of HC Anirudh Singh. FIR was registered. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed under Section 224 IPC on 18.07.2013. Cognizance was taken against the accused under Section 224 IPC and provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused. After hearing arguments, a Notice for the offence under Section 224 IPC was framed on 23.09.2013 against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution has examined five witnesses namely PW1 HC Rajender, who proved the DD entry regarding the departure of the accused from the lock up and the DD entry regarding his escape. PW2 is HC Anirudh Singh from whose custody the accused allegedly escaped. PW3 Ct. Satyapal aided the IO in the investigation of the present case. PW4 Ct. Subhash aided PW2 in catching hold of the accused. PW5 HC Ram Avtar is the IO of the case. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places. PE was closed vide order dated 15.03.2014. Statement of the accused was recorded and all the incriminating evidence was put to him, wherein the accused pleaded false implication. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Hence, DE was also closed on the same day. Thereafter, the final arguments were heard on 31.03.2014 on behalf of both the parties.
4. Ld. APP for the State addressed useful and pertinent arguments. Ld. APP has prayed for conviction of the accused stating that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is submitted that it is proved on record that on 05.06.2013 at Dwarka Courts, the accused was being taken to attend his hearing in case FIR no. 441/10 PS Najafgarh and while he was being taken there, he attempted to escape from the custody of HC Anirudh Singh by throwing some chilli powder in his eyes. In this regard, Ld. APP has relied upon the testimony of PW2 HC Anirudh. He has deposed the above-mentioned facts on Oath. Further he deposed that when he raised alarm, PW4 Ct. Subhash reached at the first floor. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended when he went into the bathroom. Thereafter, he deposed that on the formal search of the accused, one white plastic bag was recovered which contained some spice powder. Ld. APP submits that PW4 Ct. Subhash has deposed in corroboration with PW2 HC Anirudh.
State v. Deepak Lochab FIR No. 165/13 P.S.: Dwarka South Page 2 of 5 Hence, it is stated that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused may be convicted for the said offence.
5. Ld. Counsel for accused on the other hand prays for acquittal of the accused stating that the accused has been falsely implicated. He submits that on the day of incident, the accused merely wanted to go to the washroom and he made repeated requests to PW2 HC Anirudh in this regard. But the same fell on deaf ears. When the accused could not control his urge to go to the bathroom any longer, he broke free from the custody of HC Anirudh only for the purpose of going to the washroom and not for escaping. Ld. Counsel submits that this is apparent from the fact that accused was apprehended from the bathroom only. It is stated that if the accused really wanted to escape, he would have headed towards the exit of the court complex and not towards the bathroom. Ld. Counsel further submits that whenever under trial prisoners are brought from the Jail to lock up, they are formally searched twice; once at the time of exiting the jail and once at the time of arrival at the lock up. Each morning, the lock up is also checked for any foreign substance. Further when the under trials are taken outside the lock up for taking them for court hearing, then also they are checked. It is submitted that in the present case also, all the above-mentioned searches had taken place but nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused at that time. These facts have been admitted by the PWs in their evidence. Also, Ld. Counsel submits that PW2 admits in his cross-examination that no person made contact with the accused while he was being taken to the concerned court. Hence, Ld. Counsel submits that in view of the above conditions, there is only one possibility that the alleged chilli powder was planted upon the accused. Also he submits that the said powder was not sent to the FSL. Hence, scientifically it has not come on record as to what is the effect of that powder.
6. Secondly, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that in the present matter, as per the testimonies of the witnesses, PW4 Ct. Subhash came from lock up to the first floor on hearing the alarm raised by PW2 HC Anirudh. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the same is highly improbable unless he was specifically called on telephone. Further he submits that PW4 Ct. Satish stated in his cross-examination that one public person had come to the lock up who State v. Deepak Lochab FIR No. 165/13 P.S.: Dwarka South Page 3 of 5 informed about the escaping of the accused. He further points out that PW4 admitted in his cross-examination that no private person can come to the lock up without permission. Even otherwise, that private persons has not been examined by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution version is not believable and is false.
7. Ld. Counsel further submits that PW2 Ct. Anirudh admitted in his cross-examination that at that time, two pullandas were prepared but at the time of the production of the case property in the Court, only one pullanda was produced. Hence, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel that even the case property has been tampered with and hence the prosecution's version inspires no confidence.
8. I have perused the entire record. As pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused, certain facts alleged by the prosecution seem to be highly improbable. As submitted, the accused allegedly escaped from the custody of PW2 from the 3rd floor by putting some powder in the eyes of PW2. It has not been explained by prosecution as to what was the composition of that powder and what were its effects. PW5 HC Ram Avtar stated in his cross-examination that when he met PW2, his eyes were still itching. If that was the extent of the effect of the said powder, it is incomprehensible as to how he followed the accused, immediately and accurately after his alleged escape. It is pertinent to note that no one else except PW2 and PW4 apprehended the accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that any public person helped them in the apprehension of the accused. Furthermore, the version which has been given by PW4 is that one private person reached on the lock up and informed the lock up officials of the escape of the accused. Then, PW4 reached at the spot and apprehended the accused. The version is difficult to believe. As stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that private person has not been examined by the prosecution. Even for the sake of arguments, if this version is also accepted then still it is hard to believe as to how that person come to know of the details of the accused so as to inform the lock up officials of the accused. Further this also not been explained as to how PW4 went at the exact spot where the accused was allegedly hiding when he never saw the movement of the accused. In this scenario, the version as put forth by the accused is more probable and believable, particularly in view of the fact that the accused was finally apprehended in the State v. Deepak Lochab FIR No. 165/13 P.S.: Dwarka South Page 4 of 5 washroom.
9. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that despite repeated checkings of the accused, no banned substance was recovered from his possession. It is a matter of record that no person contacted the accused while he was in the custody of PW2. Then, allegedly, the accused took out the powder from his pant's pocket. It is not the case where the powder was hidden secretly, at an unaccessible place. If the same was in his pocket, it could have been easily found at the time of the checking. Hence, this also creates a doubt in the veracity of the prosecution version. If the prosecution story is to be believed, then that implies that either the accused was not checked properly in the lock up or PW2 was not doing his duty diligently that he did not notice some person giving the powder to the accused while he was in his custody.
10. In view of the above discussion, out of the versions of the prosecution and accused, the version of the accused seems more probable. The Court is of the opinion that a benefit of doubt be extended to the accused. Hence, the accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 224 IPC. The bail bond already furnished by the accused is accepted further for the purposes of Section 437A, CrPC. The same shall remain in force for a period of six months.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RUCHIKA SINGLA)
COURT ON 15.04.2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
State v. Deepak Lochab
FIR No. 165/13
P.S.: Dwarka South Page 5 of 5