Delhi District Court
State vs . Kapil Grover on 14 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL PAHUJA, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. KAPIL GROVER
FIR NO. 82/2008
PS: MOTI NAGAR
U/S: 279/186/332/353/506 IPC, 117/119 MV ACT & 3 OF PREVENTION
OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT
JUDGMENT
New Case no. : 71438/16
Date of commission of offence : 07.03.2008
Date of institution of the case : 18.04.2009
Name of the complainant : HC Sanjeev
Name of accused and address : Kapil Grover
S/o Sh. Ravinder Kr. Grover
R/o H.No. H-16, Bali Nagar,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi
Offence complained of or proved : 279/186/332/353/506 IPC,
117/119 MV Act & 3 of
Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 11.12.2018
Date of judgment : 14.12.2018
************************************************************************************* FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 1/12 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused namely Kapil Grover pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS Moti Nagar U/s 279/186/332/353/506 IPC, 117/119 MV Act & 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 82/2008.
2. As per the prosecution, on 07.03.2008 at about 05:45 PM at Road Najafgarh from Moti Nagar Chowk towards Raja Garden, Delhi, accused while driving car make Skoda bearing registration no. DL-3CY-
3656 jumped the red light Bali Nagar in rash and negligent manner. The accused did not stop the car at halting station/red light which is authorized by State Govt and did not drive his vehicle in conformity with indication given by mandatory traffic sign. Further, near H.No.16, the accused voluntarily obstructed, assaulted, used criminal force to the complainant HC Sajeev and HC Narender Singh in discharging of their public functions/exercising their duties and caused simple hurt to them. The accused further threatened to kill the complainant HC Sanjeev and HC Narender Singh. The accused also snatched the challan book i.e. public property from HC Narender Singh and torn the same. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable U/s 279/186/332/353/506 IPC, 117/119 MV Act & 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, charge for offence punishable under section 279/186/332/353/506 IPC, 117/119 MV Act & 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 2/12MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. The prosecution in support of present case has examined 13 witnesses in total.
5. PW1 HC Narender deposed that on 07.03.2008 he was posted at Patel Nagar Circle Traffic and on that day was on patrolling duty along with HC Sanjeev in between Moti Nagar to Raja Garden to stop the violation of traffic by the vehicle. It is stated that at about 05.30 PM, when they were present near the red light signal of Bali Nagar, they saw one Skoda car bearing no. DL-3CY-3656 coming from the side of Najafgarh Road in a wrong side with a fast speed. It is stated that they make an indication to stop the car but the driver of the car did not stop and went away towards gali on the wrong side. It is stated that they chased the car and the driver that reached at his house in Bali Nagar. The name of the accused was known as Kapil. It is further stated that the accused came down from the car and raised alarm and started abusing them. It is stated that the accused started beating HC Sanjiv. PW1 tried to pacify them, but the accused tried to snatch the challan book from the hand of PW1 and torn the book and threw away. It is stated that the accused criminally intimidated them by saying 'chale jao nahi to jaan se maar dunga'. PCR call was made that reached the spot. ASI Balwan alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar from the PS came at the spot. It is stated that IO recorded the statement of HC Sanjiv and prepared rukka and the case was got registered. The car was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. The torn challan book Ex.PW1/C was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. It is stated that the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. The photocopy of the duty roaster is Mark X and the route chart of duty is Mark Y. PW1 correctly identified the photographs of car as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. This witness was cross- examined on behalf of accused.
FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 3/126. PW2 HC Sanjiv deposed on the same lines as that of PW1. In addition to the documents relied upon by PW1 this witness exhibited on record his statement as Ex.PW2/A and site plan Ex. PW2/B. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
7. PW3 HC Naresh Kumar was posted as MHC(M) on 07.03.2008 and on that day ASI Balwan Singh deposited one car bearing no. DL-3CY- 3656 in malkhana and the same was released on 11.03.2008. The copy of the said entry is Ex. PW3/A. PW3 was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
8. PW4 ASI Umrab Singh was posted as Duty Officer, he exhibited on record DD entry no. 27A as Ex. PW4/A, computer generated copy of FIR as Ex.PW4/B and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW4/C. This witness was cross-examined by the accused.
9. PW5 HC Raj Kumar stated that on 07.03.2008 at around 07.00 PM he was on patrolling duty at Bali Nagar Red Light. It is further stated that IO ASI Balwan Singh apprised him about the present incident so he accompanied him to the place of occurrence. It is further stated that PW5 met HC Narender and HC Sanjiv at the spot. There IO recorded the statement of HC Sanjiv on the basis of which FIR was registered. It is further deposed that the IO arrested the accused at the spot and seized the torn challan book. This witness relied upon the documents already exhibited on record by PW1 and PW2. This witness was cross- examined by the accused.
10. PW6 ASI Tejpal Singh deposed that during the investigation of the present case the photocopy of the duty roaster were given by Rajender Prasad, Traffic Inspector, Patel Nagar Circle to the IO of the present case on 07.03.2008. The copy of duty roaster is mark X and Y. It is FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 4/12 stated that as per the duty roaster which is on record as Mark Y, HC Narender and HC Sanjeev were on patrolling duty from point Moti Nagar to Bali Nagar on the motorcycle number DL-1SN-5226, this portion is mentioned at Point A on Mark Y. This witness placed on record the copy of order pertaining to destruction of old record of Patel Nagar circle traffic unit, bearing no. 23826 dt. 21.07.2015. The copy of order is marked as Mark 6/A. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
11. PW7 Sh. Ravinder Grover deposed that he is the registered owner of car bearing no. DL-3CY-3656 and accused is his son. It is stated that the car was being driven by the accused and later on PW7 took the car on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW7/A. The photographs of the car are Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused and thereafter re-examined by Ld. APP. This witness did not support the case of the prosecution.
12. PW8 ACP Rajender Prasad exhibited on record the duty roaster qua HC Narender and HC Sanjeev as Ex.PW8/A. This witness was cross-examined by the accused.
13. PW9 IO SI Balwan Singh deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the investigation being the IO of the case on the same lines as that of PW5. This witness relied upon all the documents exhibited on record by PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW8. In addition to the said documents, this witness exhibited on record tehrir/rukka as Ex. PW9/A. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
14. PW10 SI Pratap Singh marked the permission u/s 195 Cr.P.C. from the concerned DCP as Mark 10/1. However, testimony of this witness cannot be read in evidence as he has not appeared for the purpose of cross-examination by the accused.
FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 5/1215. PW11 Dr. Dhananjay Kumar exhibited on record MLC bearing no. 3819 in respect of Narender Kumar and 3818 in respect of Sanjeev as Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused.
16. PW12 SI Suresh Chand deposed that on 14.02.2009 he was entrusted with the present case file and he filed the charge sheet before the Court. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
17. PW13 Sh. Rupinder Kumar, Additional CP, Security, exhibited on record sanction order u/s 195 Cr.P.C. as Ex.PW13/A. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused.
18. No other witness was examined, hence PE was closed vide order dated 22.10.2018.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
19. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him to which he pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is stated by him that the police officials did not conduct proper and fair investigation. There was no fault on his part as no signal was jumped by him and on the alleged date, the car (make Scoda) was not driven by him on wrong side. No challan book was torn by him as the police officials PW-1 and PW-2 themselves torn the challan book for falsely implicating him in the present case. Further, no threat was advanced by him to the police officials i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. It is stated by accused that he was taken out from his car by the aforesaid officials by use of force and when he asked as to why they are behaving in such manner then PW-1 and PW-2 stated to him that 'bada sayana banta hai, aaj tujhe sudhar dete hai'. It is further stated by accused that at the relevant time, local residents and shopkeepers FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 6/12 gathered at the spot and stated to PW-1 and PW-2, if there is any fault on the part of accused then execute the challan but not to behave in bad manner. Despite request by public persons and also by accused, PW-1 and PW-2 did not pay heed and later on after stating false story, he has been falsely implicated. It is also stated by accused that in addition, there was no chance of wrong side driving on the road as alleged by PW-1 and PW-2 by reason that the road is congested. PW-1 and PW-2 also demanded currency from him for saving him from the challan but when he stated that their demand is not lawful, they became aggressive due to which they alleged false allegation against him. Accused opted to lead DE, however, did not lead any evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
20. Ld. APP for state has argued that on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses testimony, offence U/s 279/186/332/353/506 IPC, 117/119 MV Act & 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are proved beyond doubt.
21. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused. It is argued that prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely and implicated the accused in the present case for extraneous reasons. It is submitted that there are material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witness raising a strong doubt, hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted.
FINDINGS:
22. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.
FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 7/1223. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused is indicted for the offences U/s 279/186/332/353/506 IPC, 117/119 MV Act & 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Section 279 IPC punishable for offence of driving a vehicle in a manner "so rash or negligent" as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Section 186 IPC provides punishment for causing obstruction to any public servant while discharging of his public functions. Section 332 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty or with intend to prevent or deter person from discharging his duty as such public servant. Section 353 IPC provides punishment for assault or using of criminal force to a person being public servant in the execution of his duty as such or with intend to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as public servant. Section 117/119 MV Act provides the provision for violation of traffic rules specifically not obeying the traffic signs punishable u/s 177 MV Act. Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act provides punishment for committing mischief by doing any act in respect of public property.
24. After appreciating the evidence and going through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses this Court finds the accused not guilty for any offence charged herein and he deserves acquittal for the following reasons:-
25. There are vital discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which render the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. The complainant PW2 HC Sanjiv made several contradictory statements during his cross-examination vis-a-vis the testimony of other eye witness namely PW1 HC Narender which renders their testimony highly unreliable. As per examination in chief of PW1 HC Narender when the accused was being chased he again came back driving at the signal of FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 8/12 Bali Nagar and crossed the red signal whereas this fact is not mentioned in the chief examination of PW2 HC Sanjiv and as per him when they started chasing the accused he directly reached his house at Bali Nagar. Further, PW2 HC Sanjiv during his cross examination stated that there was a service road alongside the main road whereas when confronted with the site plan Ex. PW2/B no service road is reflected in the same. Another material contradiction in their statements is that PW1 HC Narender claimed to have called 100 number from the spot and the proceedings were conducted by the police at the spot whereas as per testimony of PW2 during his cross examination they called PCR at 100 number after reaching back at the red light and statement of PW2 is also stated to have been recorded at red light and not at the place of incident. As per PW1 the statement was recorded by the IO before his medical examination whereas as per PW2 his statement was recorded after his medical examination and he remained at the spot till 09.00 PM. On the contrary PW9 IO SI Balwan Singh claim to have recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 before their medical examination at around 10.00 PM. PW2 during his cross examination even denied to have any knowledge whether HC Narender was beaten by the accused or not. This statement of PW2 in evasive manner again creates a strong doubt w.r.t. the happening of the alleged incident as it is not expected from a police official to be evasive when he himself is the victim of the incident and the other person is present beside him at the spot.
26. Few of the circumstances and the statements of the prosecution witnesses are highly improbable to be believed which does not rule out false implication of the accused. Firstly, it is the claim of PW1 and PW2 that PW2 was beaten up by the accused in the presence of PW1 whereas PW1 has not given any explanation as to why he has not intervened and tried to save PW2 from the clutches of the accused. Police officials being two in number could have easily overpowered the accused in case of scuffle. The beating of PW2 is also not believable for FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 9/12 the reason that PW2 has not received any injury as such as per the MLC on record whereas if he would have been beaten up by the accused there must be at least some abrasions etc. on the body of PW2 which is not the case herein. The star witnesses of the prosecution PW1 and PW2 in their testimony stated that they fled away from the spot fearing beating by the accused and also seeing the public gathering at the spot. This statement of the prosecution witnesses is again highly unbelievable as they were in their uniform and generally no public person or an individual would ever think to put his hands over the police officials who are more in number. It is admitted by the PW1 and PW2 that none of the public persons gathered there had touch them or tried to assault them, so the version of PW1 and PW2 does not inspire confidence.
27. Secondly, no independent public witness has been joined by the IO in the investigation when admittedly, the alleged incident took place at a public area and general public persons were present at the spot. No notice has been given by the IO to the public persons asking them to join the proceedings. Non joining of public witnesses also causes a dent in credibility of prosecution version and had public witnesses witnessed the alleged incident the claim of police officials would have been fortified. In the instant case huge number of public persons were present, non examination of any one of them is very fatal to the case of the prosecution as the allegations of assault are that made by the police officials. The genuineness of the version of the police comes under cloud of doubt.
28. Lastly, the duty roaster of PW1 and PW2 has not been proved on record in accordance with the law as the original registers have not been produced. Further, in the testimony of PW9 IO SI Balwan Singh during the cross examination it has come on record that specific duty hours of HC Narender is not mentioned in the documents / duty roaster FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 10/12 filed on record. Hence, it cannot be said to be proved on record by the prosecution that PW1 and PW2 were actually on duty at the relevant day and time when the alleged incident occurred. In view of the aforesaid material discrepancies in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 a strong cloud of doubt appears that fails to prove the case of the prosecution.
29. Another material discrepancy is reflected in the testimony of PW4, PW5 and PW9. As per PW4 the DD entry through Ct. Raj Kumar i.e. PW5 was sent to ASI Balwan Singh i.e. PW9 who is the IO in this case whereas PW5 in his examination in chief stated that he was on patrolling duty when he met ASI Balwan Singh who further apprised him about the present case incident on which he accompanied the IO to the place of occurrence. Meaning thereby the joining of investigation by PW5 HC Raj Kumar at the spot is also doubtful. Above all the prosecution witness PW7 did not support the case of prosecution in any manner rather he deposed against the police officials and claimed that his son i.e. accused has been falsely implicated by the police. No material contradiction even came out in his re-examination by the Ld. APP for the state.
30. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in case there is fallacy in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted.
FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 11/1231. In view of the above stated facts and discussion, this Court is of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witness. The story of the complainant is highly doubtful and the false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, it is a fit case in which benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons, which is accordingly given. Hence, the accused is hereby acquitted of offence U/s 279/186/332/353/506 IPC, 117/119 MV Act & 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
32. Requirements of Section 437A Cr.P.C have been complied with. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date:
2018.12.14
15:07:34 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA)
COURT ON 14.12.2018 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 12 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date:
2018.12.14
15:07:40 +0530
(VISHAL PAHUJA)
MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
FIR No. 82/2008, PS Moti Nagar Page 12/12