Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/362/2001 on 24 July, 2012
FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, LD.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIII/NORTH, DELHI FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186/506/341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi C/N. 1501/T U. ID No. 02401R0260932001 Date of Institution : 24.12.2001 Date of commission of offence : 27.10.2001 Name of the complainant : SI Ritesh Sharma. Name and address of accused : (1)Ram Lal s/o Mansukhram R/o H. NO. 23, Roshanara Bagh, Roop Nagar, Delhi. (2) Margarette @ Mahalka W/o S.A. Moosa Nizani, R/o 154/49, Basti Nizamuddin, Delhi. Offence complaint off : U/S 186/506/341 IPC Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Acquitted. Date of reserve for order : 24.07.2012 Date for announcing the order : 24.07.2012. U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 1 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi J U D G M E N T :
Brief facts and pre trial proceedings
1. The allegations made in the chargesheet are that on 27.10.2001, complainant / PW4 SI Ritesh Kumar went to Court No. 155, Tis Hazari Courts to produce accused Ram Lal. There were many ladies including the accused Margarette who is the relative of the accused Ram Lal. There, the accused Margarette wrongfully restrained the way of the complainant and obstructed him in discharging of his duty of producing the accused in the Court. Accused Margarette also threatened the complainant / PW5 with dire consequences. In support of accused Margarette, accused Ram Lal also gave threats to complainant / PW4 saying that he will kill him and his family after being released from the Jail. On this complaint, the instant FIR was registered and after completion of the investigation, both the accused persons were U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 2 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi sent up for trial u/s 186/353/506/34 IPC.
2. After necessary compliances, and after going through the chargesheet and documents annexed therewith, only charges u/s 186/506/341 IPC were framed against both the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
3. The prosecution in support of its case, examined seven witnesses in total whose testimonies are briefly touched upon as under:
(i) PW1 HC Vijay Kumar is a witness of formal nature who stated that while being posted as a duty officer, he recorded the instant FIR Ex.PW1/A on receipt of a rukka sent by SI R.P. Singh.
(ii) PW2 SI Jitender Singh deposed that on 27.10.2001 he was conducting the investigation in case FIR no. 242/01, PS Roop Nagar u/s 147/148/307 IPC. He further deposed that accused Ram U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 3 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi Lal was brought to the Court for being produced in Court No.
145. When he was being produced in the Court, one of the relative of accused Margarette threatened SI Ritesh Kumar with injuries to his person and reputation outside the Court. On instigation of accused Margarette, the accused Ram Lal also abused and extended threat to SI Ritesh with injuries to his person and reputation. He correctly identified both the accused persons.
(iii) PW3 SI Chander Parkash deposed that on 26.10.2001 an information was received that the accused Ram Lal was selling liquor and it was a Dashera Day and it was declared dry day also. The accused was booked under Excise Act and Arms Act. He further deposed that he was IO in the Arms Act case against the accused. He further deposed that he also accompanied the accused while he was being produced in the Court and Margarette relative of the accused misbehaved with the SI Ritesh and also U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 4 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi extended threat to SI Ritesh. The accused also abused and threatened SI Ritesh.
(iv) PW4 SI Ritesh Sharma is the complainant in the present case who deposed that on 27.10.2001 he came to Court No. 155 to produce the accused Ram Lal. There were some ladies present outside the Court. One lady namely Margarette threatened him that as he had arrested the accused Ram Lal so they will get his uniform off. He further deposed that accused Ram Lal also threatened him in the same manner and also threatened him that he will kill him and his family after releasing from Jail. He lodged a DD entry No. 50B which is Ex.PW4/A regarding the aforesaid incident. He further deposed that on 28.10.2001, SI Raman Kumar came to him from PP Tis Hazari and recorded his statement and FIR was registered. He further deposed that on 15.12.2001, accused Margarette was arrested vide arrest memo U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 5 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi Ex.PW4/C as he came to Tis Hazari court to inquire about the fate of this case and he identified the accused Margarette in the Court. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court.
(v) PW5 Ct. Balbir Singh deposed that on 27.10.2001, he along with SI Jitender came to Tis Hazari Court to produce the accused Ram Lal. There SI Ritesh and SI Chander Prakash were also present outside the Court room One lady revealed her name as Margarette was also present outside the Court. She threatened SI Ritesh that she would get off his uniform and shall implicate him in false case. On hearing this, accused Ram Lal also threatened SI Ritesh in same manner. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court.
(vi) PW6 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 31.10.01, he along with SI Raman Pratap came to Tis Hazari Courts. On that day accused had been produced from Tihar Jail and SI Raman Pratap U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 6 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi moved an application for formal interrogation of accused which was granted by the concerned Court. Thereafter, the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that accused was sent to J/C. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
(vii) PW7 SI Raman Pratap deposed that on 28.10.2001 he received an information vide DD no. 50B dated 27.10.2001 and thereafter, he reached PS Roop Nagar where he met SI Ritesh Kumar. He recorded the statement of SI Ritesh Kumar which is Ex.PW4/B. He proved his endorsement on the statement as Ex.PW7/A. He came back at PS and got the case registered. He further deposed that he drew the site plan Ex.PW7/B at the instance of SI Ritesh. The DD no. 50B is Ex.PW4/A. Accused Ram Lal was formally arrested after taking the permission of the Court vide memo Ex.PW6/A. Accused Margarette was arrested U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 7 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi on 15.12.01 as she had already been granted anticipatory bail vide memo Ex.PW4/C. He obtained the complaint under Section 195 from ACP Hemant Chopra which is Ex.PW7/C. He also obtained the attested copy of relevant DD entry dated 27.10.2001 of SI Jitender Singh and SI Chander Prakash which are Ex.PW7/D & PW7/E. Statement of accused and defence
4. After concluding prosecution evidence, both the accused persons have been examined u/s 313 CRPC during which they claimed their innocence. They further stated that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of SI Ritesh Kumar and other police officials of PS Roop Nagar in the instant FIR. They chose to lead evidence in their defence and in support of their case, accused Ram Lal examined himself u/s 315 CrPC as DW1.
5. DW1 Ram Lal in his defence evidence, tendered the U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 8 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi following documents which are : Certified copy of order dated 28.12.96 passed by Sh. P.K Dave, Ld. LG of Delhi containing 02 pages is Ex.DW1/A and certified copy of order dated 10.03.04 passed by Sh. Vijay Kapoor, Ld. LG , Delhi is Ex.DW1/B. Photocopy of newspaper cutting from Times of India dated 20.07.09 is Ex.DW1/C. Certified copy of order dated 20.12.2008 passed by Sh. S.S. Rathi , Ld. ASJ in case FIR no. 242/01, PS Roop Nagar is Ex.DW1/D (From pages 4 to 33). Certified copy of order dated 20.12.2008 passed by Sh. S.S. Rathi , Ld. ASJ in case FIR no. 243/01, PS Roop Nagar is Ex.DW1/E (From pages 34
52). Certified copy of order dated 19.12.2008 passed by Sh. S.S. Rathi, Ld. ASJ in case FIR no. 244/01, PS Roop Nagar is Ex.DW1/F (From pages 53 69). Certified copy of order dated 16.07.09 passed by Sh. Girish Kathpalia, Ld. ASJ, Delhi in case FIR no. 118/04 , PS Sarai Rohilla U/S 21/61/85 of NDPS Act is U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 9 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi Ex.DW1/G (From pages 70 89). 16 Photographs in numbers showing the vehicles of Government officials / police officials parked in Roshanara Club are collectively Ex.DW1/H (From pages 90 - 94). Thereafter, after closure of DE, the matter was fixed for arguments.
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions
6. Ld. APP for the State submitted that evidence, particularly the statement of PW4 is sufficient to prove the charges framed against the accused. On the contrary, Ld. Defence counsel highlighted that the accused has been implicated in multiple number of cases in systematic manner. My attention is firstly drawn to the document Ex.DW1/A which is the order of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi. In this order, it was observed that there was a continuous dispute of civil nature between the accused and the Management of Roshanara Club and it was quite U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 10 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi possible that accused was booked several times on the complaint of the Management Committee of the Club. Vide this order, the opinion of the Addl. DCP of taking recourse to Section 47 of Delhi Police Act was held not to be justified and the externment order was set aside. Ld. Defence counsel further highlighted the Judgments passed by Sh. S.S. Rathi, Ld. ASJ in case FIR No. 242/01 and 243/01, PS Roop Nagar. In FIR No. 242/01, accused Ram Lal was acquitted in case u/s 307/143/186/332/353 IPC. In case FIR No. 243/01 accused was acquitted in a case u/s 25 of Arms Act for possessing of a country made pistol. The aforementioned FIRs pertain to the offences committed on 26.10.2001 (The date of the commission of the instant offence i.e. 27.10.2001, when the accused was produced in aforementioned case FIRs). My attention is also drawn to the third Judgment of Sh. S.S. Rathi, Ld. ASJ passed in case FIR no. 244/01 u/s 61 of U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 11 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi Punjab Excise Act of PS Roop Nagar. This case also pertain to 26.10.2001 and accused was acquitted in this case as well.
7. Ld. Defence counsel argued that the police was bent upon to remove the accused from society. They not only implicated the accused in aforementioned three FIRs pertaining to 26.10.2001 but succeeded to lodge the instant case in complete disregard to the personal liberty of persons.
8. After highlighting the aforementioned background, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that charges could not be proved against the accused. Perusal of the statement of PW4 shows that he was not restrained in any manner by the accused persons. In these circumstances, the charges u/s 340 IPC is not proved.
9. As regards Section 186 IPC, Ld. APP for the State argued that the police officials /PW4 was obstructed by the accused persons from discharging his official duties. From the statement U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 12 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi of the witnesses, it can be gathered that at the most accused Margarette threatened PW4 of striping PW4 of his uniform as PW4 arrested accused Ram Lal. Thereafter, accused Ram Lal threatened in the same manner but Ram Lal allegedly threatened to kill PW4. The question to be determined is whether there was any intentional obstruction in discharge of any public function by PW4. In my opinion, the accused persons used certain objectionable words which could not be considered as any voluntary obstruction in discharge of any public function. A police official cannot be expected to be sensitive to such like words or gestures. If seen from the ordinary sense and tamper of a police officer, such words are trivialities u/s 95 of IPC.
10. As there was no voluntary obstruction in discharge of any public function, the charge u/s 186 IPC could not be established.
11. Last charge is u/s 506 IPC. As already opined hereinabove U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 13 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi the words and gestures made by accused persons cannot be considered as a threat as contemplated u/s 503 IPC. It is also very much apparent that hardly any alarm was caused to PW4 because he instantly lodged the instant FIR. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the charge u/s 506 IPC could also not be proved.
12. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the charges framed against both the accused persons could not be proved and both the accused persons are liable to be acquitted for the offences charged against them. Both the accused persons are acquitted for the charges framed against them.
13. I am constrained to give my observation as regards the conduct of the police and the highhanded manner in which they implicated the accused persons. The three FIRs registered against the accused on 26.10.01 could not stand the judicial scrutiny and U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 14 of 15 FIR No. 362/01 S/v Ram Lal etc. U/s 186 /506 / 341 IPC PS: Subzi Mandi resulted into the acquittal of the accused in all cases. The externment proceedings also fall flat on its face while they were dismissed vide order dated 28.12.1996 passed by Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi (Ex.DW1/A). Even the trivial threats, which could be more in nature of curse, were also not spared by the police and were brought to FIR book in the form of present case. The officials of PS Roop Nagar seemed desperate to remove the accused, at least from the locality where he was residing. Such highhandedness by the police is condemnable. Hence, a copy of this Judgment be sent to the worthy Commissioner of Police, Delhi with recommendations to take appropriate action. This Court also expects that action (if any) taken or contemplated would be intimated to this Court.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
today i.e. 24.07.2012 Metropolitan MagistrateIII/N
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
U. ID NO. 02401R0260932001 Page No. 15 of 15