Delhi District Court
State vs R.L. Mehta on 16 March, 2007
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS
ROHINI DELHI
SC No. 93/06 dated 03/02/2006
Date of Decision: 16-03-2007
State
Versus
1. R.L. Mehta,
S/o Sh. K. R. Mehta,
R/o 2/6, Railway Colony,
Kishanganj, Delhi.
2. Sadruddin (since P.O.)
S/o Mohd. Amin
R/o Village Yunushpur,
PO Kheta Sarai,
Distt. Jaunpur (UP).
FIR No. 52/96
PS Shalimar Bagh
u/s.379, 420 & 328 read with section 34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
R.L. Mehta and Sadruddin were sent up for trial for offences punishable u/s 379, 420 & 328 IPC read with section 34 IPC. They have been facing trial for offences u/s -:2:- 379, 328 read with section 34 IPC. During trial Sadruddin (accused) absconded when the case was pending and ultimately he had to be declared proclaimed offender. That is how, only R.L. Mehta accused is before this court.
2. In brief, case of prosecution is that Mst. Bhoori Begum and her daughter Ms. Rehana were away to Pakistan for about 10-12 days. They started their return journey to India on the night intervening 4/5th January, 1996. At about mid night, they boarded train from Atari Railway Station and reached Railway Station Ambala Cantt. At that time, they were having two quintals of kismis, three quintals of munakka, 10 kg of almonds giri, and other articles, packed in bags and other items tied in Chadar, which in all were 18 items. R.L. Mehta accused, was serving as Ticket Traveller Examiner (T.T.E.) Northern Railways. He was on duty in the train, when it started its journey from Ambala for Delhi, at about 8 p.m.
3. Case of prosecution is that R.L. Mehta accused was accompanied by two males and one female at the time he at Ambala Cantt entered the compartment where Mst. Bhoori Begum and Ms. Rehana were present. He enquired -:3:- from both of them about luggage charges, whereupon a sum of Rs.1000/- was paid to him by them. At that time, he is also alleged to have received about 3 kgs of Munnaka from them. When the two ladies asked R.L. Mehta accused to issue receipt for Rs.1000/-, he had charged from them, he refused to issue any such receipt and rather advised them not to worry. He is further said to have offered help in removal of their luggage when the train reached Azadpur Railway Station. He then insisted both of them to get down at Azadpur Railway Station and not at the destination i.e. Old Delhi Railway Station.
4. It is also case of prosecution that as per the advice of R.L. Mehta accused, Mst. Bhoori Begum and her daughter Ms. Rehana alighted from the train at Azadpur at about 09:30 a.m. on 05/01/1996. At that time, the two males and one female, referred to above helped, Mst. Bhoori Begum and her daughter in unloading their luggage from the train at that Railway Station. It is alleged that R.L. Mehta accused was well acquainted with those two males and the female.
5. It is also case of prosecution that after the luggage was unloaded at Azadpur Railway Station, the -:4:- aforesaid two males and one female, helped in removal of their luggage upto a distance in the area falling under the area of PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Ms. Rehana intended to engage tempo so as to carry their luggage to her residence but in the meanwhile one of the aforesaid two male persons offered tea to Ms. Rehana and her mother, and they took the same. After sometime, R.L. Mehta went to bring tempo while her mother waited behind alongwith the luggage, but she did not return. Case of prosecution is that the aforesaid persons brought a tempo and loaded all the luggage belonging to the two ladies and asked Mst. Bhoori Begum to go to her residence i.e. at Sambhal in Moradabad (UP). At that time, Mst. Bhoori Begum became senseless and the aforesaid persons left with luggage of the two ladies. It is also case of prosecution that on regaining consciousness Mst. Bhoori Begum found herself in a park. Somehow she reached Sambhal on 10/01/1996. Her daughter Ms. Rehana also reached there and narrated as to how she had become unsconsious and remained admitted at Hindu Rao Hospital.
6. It was on 11/01/1996 that Mst. Bhoori Begum and her daughter came to the spot where their luggage was kept -:5:- after they had detrained at Azadpur Railway Staion. Inquiries revealed that one Shiv Charan S/o Baswan, labourer, had loaded their luggage at Azadpur Mandi. Ultimately, on 13/01/1996, Mst. Bhoori Begum submitted complaint to the SHO P.S. Delhi and also to the Incharge of Old Delhi Railway Station which led to registration of this case at P.S. Shalimar Bagh. Mst. Bhoori Begum and Ms. Rehana offered to identify Shiv Charan.
7. SI Narender of P.S. Shalimar Bagh accompanied Mst. Bhoori Begum, the complainant, to the area in front of Banana Godown, within the jurisdiction of that Police Station and prepared rough site plan. On 19/02/1996, the SI accompanied by the complainant, her daughter and Ct. Bharat Singh reached Railway Station Naya Azadpur and apprehended Sadruddin accused (since proclaimed offender) at the pointing out of two ladies. On 20/02/1996, Sadruddin was taken to Ambala but no facts could be ascertained. On 21/01/1998, R.L. Mehta accused was arrested by SI Suresh Kumar. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court.
8. After compliance with provisions of Section 207 -:6:- Cr.P.C., case came to be committed to the Hon'ble Court of Session. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offences u/s 379, 328 read with section 34 IPC was framed against both the accused. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was directed to lead its evidence. Prosecution examined following nine witnesses:
PW-3 Ms. Rehana and her daughter Mst. Bhoori Begum (PW-4) have narrated the manner in which the occurrence took place and the case was got registered.
PW-2 Subey Singh has been examined to prove recording of FIR.
PW-1 Head Constable Bharat Singh, PW-6 Ct. Ishwar, PW-7 Ct. Daya Nand, PW-8 SI Suresh Kumar and PW-9 SI Narender have deposed about the investigation part of the prosecution story.
Medical evidence is available in the statement of PW-5 Dr. Manisha Sharma who medico legally examined, an unknown lady, aged 40 years, at Hindu Rao Hospital on 05/01/1996, when brought by SI Rama Nand while the patient was drowsy.
9. In his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, R.L. -:7:- Mehta accused admitted the factum of his posting as Ticket Traveller Examiner in the train bound for Delhi. He also admitted that Mst. Bhoori Begum and Rehana boarded Atari Express bound for Old Delhi, Railway Station, Ambala. But he could not remember the date when they had so boarded the train and he was on duty from Ambala Cantt to Delhi. Defence plea put forth by R.L. Mehta accused reads as under:
Plea put forth by accused R.L. Mehta is as under:
"During those days train used to reach Ambala Cantt railway station from Atari at about 2.30/3 a.m. Both the PWs Bhuri Begum and Rehana Begum met me in the said train at Ambala Cantt railway station. It is incorrect that Sadruddin was accompanying me. He was in the same compartment in which Bhuri Begum and Rehana Begum were travelling. I asked PW3 and PW4 to pay charges for booking of luggage being carried by them but they did not pay. They told me that they were carrying fruit. I checked their luggage but did not book the same as they failed to pay any -:8:- charges. Rather, they represented that they had already got booked their luggage and receipt shall be produced during the journey as the same was with their companion.
It is correct that PWs 3 and 4 forcibly gave me about 1 kg. Munakka although I was refusing to accept the same as they were not paying the booking charges and representing that the booking receipt was with their companion travelling in the same train.
It is correct that goods of PW3 and PW4 were unloaded at Azadpur railway station but I did not help in unloading of the luggage and the goods. A police inspector of UP police had helped them in unloading the same."
All other incrimination circumstances appearing in the evidence against him have been denied. Accused has opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
10. Arguments heard. File perused.
RETURN OF PW-3 & PW-4 FROM PAKISTAN TO INDIA
11. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on -:9:- 05/01/1996 at about 09:30 a.m. at Azadpur Railway Station, Delhi, where PW-3 and PW-4 are stated to have been administered tea leading to their unconsciousness and theft of the luggage i.e. 18 bags. Learned Addl. P.P. submitted that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it stands establised that R.L. Mehta accused and his companions did commit theft of the luggage belonging to PW-3 & PW-4. After they alighted from the train bound for Delhi, at Azadpur Railway Station while his companions administered some stupefying substance to them in tea served outside the Railway Station.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel referred to complaint Ex.PW-4/A addressed by PW-4 Bhoori Begum to the Incharge of Old Delhi Railway Station and SHO P.S. Delhi Junction (Main) and submitted that this complaint having been moved on 13/01/1996 after the same was typed in the Police Station, the prosecution has failed to explain delay in lodging of the report which creates doubt in the version made available therein.
It is also been argued by learned defence counsel that there are various improvements and contradictions in the -:10:- statements of the two material witnesses which create doubt regarding the prosecution version. It has also been argued that conduct of these two ladies further makes the case of prosecution highly doubtful. Reference has been made to MLC Ex.PW-5/A and it has been argued by learned defence counsel that from the medical evidence it does not appear that any such substance was served to PW-3 or PW-4 which led to their unconsciousness.
It has also been argued by learned defence counsel that case has not been properly investigated and that the accused having been falsely implicated, is entitled to acquittal.
As noticed above, occurrence took place on 05/01/1996 at about 09:30 a.m. when PW-3 Ms. Rehana and her mother PW-4 Mst. Bhoori Begum alighted from Delhi bound train at Azadpur Railway Station. It is in the statements of the PWs that both of them boarded train bound for Delhi, on the night intervening 4th/5th January 1996 at Railway Station Ambala Cantt. Both of them were returning after a short stay in Pakistan prior to boarding this train bound for Delhi. Prior to boarding this train both of them alighted -:11:- from the train at Atari Railway Station. It was for the investigating officer to visit Atari Railway Station, to investigate as to whether PW-3 and PW-4 were actually returning from Pakistan on 04/01/1996. Investigation on this aspect was of much significance, keeping in view the version narrated by PW-3 and PW-4 that they were allegedly having 18 bags with them and those bags contained Dry fruits, clothes, bed sheets and other items. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that IO collected any document from Railway Station Atari to verify the version of two PWs regarding their return from Pakistan to India on 04/01/1996. During investigation, the Investigation Officer did not seize any document like passport etc. of the two PWs in support of the version put forth by them regarding their stay in Pakistan and their return from Pakistan. In absence thereof, it can not be said that the two ladies did return from Pakistan and alighted from train at Atari Railway Station on the night intervening 4th/5th January, 1996 as alleged by them in the complaint Ex.PW-4/A and in the statements made in court. BOARDING OF TRAIN BOUND FOR DELHI
12. Case of prosecution is that PW-3 and PW-4 at -:12:- Railway Station Ambala Cantt boarded the train bound for Delhi and R.L. Mehta accused was Ticket Traveller Examiner in that train on 05/01/1996. It may be mentioned here that R.L. Mehta accused has admitted his appointment and posting in Northern Railways. He has also admitted that on 05/01/1996 he was serving as TTE in the train from Railway Station Ambala Cantt for its destination at Delhi. He has also admitted that during those days train on which he was acting as a Ticket Traveller Examiner, used to reach Ambala Cantt from Atari at about 02:30-3 a.m.; that both Mst. Bhoori Begum PW-3 and Ms. Rehana PW-4 met him at Railway Station Ambala Cantt. This admission on the part of the accused reduces the field of controversy to this extent.
According to Ms. Rehana (PW-3), accused R.L. Mehta asked her for checking of her luggage. According to her, she was having a receipt in respect of luggage which she was carrying in the compartment and that she showed that receipt to R.L. Mehta accused. It is in her statement that at that time R.L. Mehta accused was accompanying two others i.e. two males and one female. She further explained that Sadruddin accused (since proclaimed offender) was one of -:13:- them. According to PW-3, on seeing the receipt shown by her, R.L. Metha accused tore away that receipt, which she had got from Railway Station Atari for carrying luggage with her. After that, R.L. Mehta accused demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- (two thousand) for transportation of the goods in the train, but she refused to pay this. She further stated that she offered only Rs.1000/- (one thousand) which R.L. Mehta accused accepted. It is also in her statement that R L Mehta accused refused to issue any receipt against this payment of Rs.1000/- (one thousand only).
On this aspect when we refer to statement of PW4 Mst. Bhoori Begum, it transpires that according to her, R.L. Mehta accused accompanied by a male or a female came in their compartment. PW-4 did not state that two male persons were accompanying R L Mehta. On this aspect, she has contradicted the statement of her daughter PW-3 as according to her (PW-3), R. L. Mehta accused was accompanied by two male persons. Furthermore, PW-4 was not sure about Sadruddin accused (since proclaimed offender). On this aspect, PW-4 deposed that 'perhaps' Sadruddin accused was one of the companions of R.L. Mehta -:14:- accused.
PW-4 further deposed that at Ambala Railway Station, R. L. Mehta accused checked their luggage and demanded money whereupon she supplied to him 5 k.g. of Munnaka. She further deposed that R.L. Mehta accused received a sum of Rs.1000/- (one thousand) from her daughter. Further, she displayed ignorance if R.L. Mehta accused, issued any receipt against a sum of rs.1000/- (one thousand) collected from her daughter. Thus, on this aspect PW-4 has not supported the statement of her daughter who specifically stated that on payment to R.L. Mehta, accused she demanded receipt but accused refused to issue any such receipt. Furthermore, PW-3 nowher stated that her mother supplied 5 k.gs. of Munnaka to R.L. Mehta accused. It is a different matter that R.L. Mehta accused in his fairness, while replying to question number 4 of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. admitted having received one k.g. of Munnaka, but at the same time tried to explain that it was forcibly given to him. It is true that R.L. Mehta accused while serving as Govt. employee, should not have accepted any such item from any of the two ladies but he is not facing trial on account of this -:15:- allegation of receiving dry fruits or money from the two ladies. The allegation against him is that theft of the luggage of the two ladies was committed by his co-accused Sadruddin and others at Azadpur Railway Station after the two ladies were administered stupefying/intoxicating substance. In this respect when we advert to the statement of PW-3, to see if there was any conspiracy or dialogue between R.L. Mehta accused and anyone else, it transpires that neither PW-3 nor PW-4 stated any fact on this aspect.
It is in the statement of PW-3 Ms. Rehana that both the accused and their accomplices took seat in the train near their seats. On the way, R.L. Mehta accused advised that they should alight at Azadpur Railway Station instead of Old Delhi Railway Station on the pretext that the Ticket Traveller Examiner at Old Delhi Railway Station could put them to trouble. PW-4 deposed that R.L. Mehta accused and his companions took seats in the same compartment. But there is nothing in the statements of PW-3 & PW-4 that R.L. Mehta accused had any conversation with anyone else within the hearing of PW-3 or PW-4 to show that he was having any common intention or conspiracy with anyone else to commit -:16:- theft of the luggage of the two ladies on their detraining at Azadpur Railway Station.
It is in the statement of PW-3 and PW-4 that they were to de-train actually at Old Delhi Railway Station. In this respect, they could not produce on record or before the police their travelling tickets. Investigation Officer could collect evidence from Railway Station Atari that actually these two ladies were to detrain at Old Delhi Railway Station. The version put forth by PW-3 & PW-4 for non production of travelling tickets is that the tickets were also in the bags which were stolen away. Ordinarily, females carry purse and travelling tickets are so carried by passengers that the same are handy for being produced before T.T.E. on demand. So it is not believable that the two ladies had kept their travelling tickets also in the luggage. It is true that it was duty of R. L. Mehta accused, he being ticekt traveller examiner in the train, to check receipt regarding payment of luggage charges and the travelling tickets. R.L. Mehta accused has come forward with the plea that the two ladies represented to him that their companion travelling in the same train were having booking receipts. Evidence reveals that the two ladies alighted from -:17:- the train at Azadpur Railway Station. In case the two ladies could not show any booking receipt or any travelling ticket upto Azadpur Railway Station, it was duty of R.L. Mehta accused to detain these two ladies atleast on reaching Azadpur Railway Station or not to allow them to go away or he could hand over them to the Govt. Railway Police at Azadpur Railway Station, for the reason that they had not been able to produce any booking receipt or travelling ticket. But the fact remains that R.L. Mehta accused failed to take any such steps. It can be said that R. L. Mehta accused did not discharge his duty under the rules. It also appears that for some reasons or the other he allowed the two ladies to alight at Azadpur Railway Station. But this does not mean that he participated in commission of theft of the luggage of the two ladies.
It is available in the statement of PW-3 that the train halted at Azadpur Railway Station and their goods were kept on the platform. It is also in her statement that R.L. Mehta and Sadruddin accused (since proclaimed offender) helped in unloading their luggage on the platform. She further stated that R. L. Mehta accused accompanied to serve a cup -:18:- of tea to her and her mother, and it was thereafter that they were served a cup of tea by his companion. Almost to same effect is the statement of her mother (PW-4). There is nothing on record to suggest as to for how much time the train stopped at Azadpur Railway Station. It was for the Investigating Officer to collect evidence in this respect. Although, it is in his cross examination that the train stopped at Azadpur Railway Station without any stoppage on the given date, yet there is no evidence as to what was the duration of stoppage of the train there. Duration of stoppage of the train was of much significance and to be investigated by the police, so as to find as to what act was committed by R. L. Mehta during the stoppage of the train at Azadpur Railway Station. In absence of any evidence regarding the duration of stoppage of train at Azadpur Railway Station and there being no evidence of any conversation between R. L. Mehta and his companions, it cannot be said that he (R.L. Mehta accused) was having any common intention in commission of any crime. Simply because R. L. Mehta accused asked others to serve a cup of tea to the two ladies at the Railway Station and also allowed the two ladies to alight from the train at Azadpur -:19:- Railway Station, it can not be said that he instrumental in commission of theft of the luggage of the two ladies. It can also not be said that any intoxicating substance was administered to the two ladies in connivance with R.L. Mehta accused.
When we advert to the statement of PW-4 Mst.
Bhoori Begum, it transpires that according to her there goods were brought out of railway premises by the ticket traveller examiner and his two companions and two more persons and goods were then placed by the side of the road. However, her daughter PW-3 Ms. Rehana did not so specifically state in court that R. L. Mehta accused had gone to the extent of taking their luggage out of the railway premises. In this respect, the Investigation Officer could join railway employees of Azadpur Railway Station to find out as to whether actually R. L. Mehta accused had assisted anyone else in taking out the luggage of two ladies beyond the railway premises. However, on this aspect no investigation appears to have been conducted. SI Narender (PW-9) conducted investigation on the aspect of posting of R.L. Mehta accused in Northern Railways and as Ticket Traveller Examiner in the -:20:- aforesaid train. In absence of any cogent and convincing evidence on record it can not be said that R. L. Mehta accused assisted anyone else in taking luggage of the two ladies out of the railway premises of Azadpur Railway Station.
As per version narrated by PW-3 & PW-4, they became unconscious after they were served with a cup of tea. There is nothing in their statements that R. L. Mehta accused served tea to any of them. There is also nothing in their statements that they saw R.L. Mehta accused conspiring with any other person before tea was administered to them.
Medical evidence available in the shape of MLC Ex.PW-5/A does reveal that a female patient, aged 40 years, was brought to Hindu Rao Hospital on 05/01/1996 by ASI Rama Nand from Azadpur bus stand and the patient was drowsy at the time she was brought there for medico legal examination. In this respect, prosecution should have associated ASI Rama Nand to find out as to who was the female, aged 40 years, brought by him to Hindu Rao Hospital and from where she was brought by him on that date. However, no investigation in this context appears to have been conducted by SI Narender. In absence of name, -:21:- parentage or other particulars of the patient it can not be said that MLC Ex.PW-5/A belongs to either PW-3 or PW-4. Furthermore, a perusal of MLC Ex.PW-5/A would reveal that patient absconded from the hospital at about 7 a.m.. Even if MLC pertains to PW-3 Ms. Rehana, who claims to have been got admitted at Hindu Rao Hospital, there is no explanation as to why she absconded from the hospital on the following day at 7 a.m. Had she been the victim, there was no reason for her to flee away from the hospital. Rather she would have made statement before the police against the culprits. There is nothing on record to suggest that she went to the Police Station or made statement before the police on 06/01/1997 after leaving the hospital. She wants the court to believe that after regaining conscious, she searched for her mother and their belongings at Railway Station Azadpur and Jama Masjid but she could not locate them.
On the other hand, when we advert to the statement of her mother (PW-4) Mst. Bhoori Begum, it would transpire that according to her, after taking tea, she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found herself in a park. It is not believable that PW-4 -:22:- remained lying unconscious in a park. It is not in her statement as to where that park was situated and where she was lying. This version of PW-4 is not believable. Had anyone noticed her lying in such park, she would have been removed to any hospital by the public or alteast by the police. According to PW-4, she kept on searching for the goods till night. Some persons helped her and accordingly she reached her village Sambhal, Moradabad (UP). Thereafter, her daughter also reached village Sambhal. It was, thereafter, that both of them returned to Delhi and lodged the complaint Ex.PW-4/A. There is nothing in her statement that she got herself medico legally examined from any hospital to lend support to the prosecution version that she and her daughter were administered some intoxicating substance while they were served with tea at Azadpur Railway Station. In absence of her medico legal examination, it can not be said that she was administered any intoxicating substance at Azadpur Railway Station.
CONCLUSION
13. In view of the above discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to bring home -:23:- guilt to R.L. Mehta accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Extending the benefit of doubt, this court hereby order for acquittal of R. L. Mehta accused.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court dated March 16th, 2007.
[NARINDER KUMAR] Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court: Rohini: Delhi 16/03/2007