Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Singh Etc. on 8 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. RAM SINGH ETC.
FIR No. 837/1991
PS: MOTI NAGAR
U/S: 186/353/34 IPC
Sr. no. of the case : 1043/1
Unique Case ID no. : 02401R0330722001
Date of commission of offence : 03.11.1991
Date of institution of the case : 09.03.1992
Name of the complainant : Sh. Man Singh
Name of accused and address : 1). Ram Singh
S/o Sh. Raghunath Singh
R/o N-39, Kirti Nagar,
Delhi. (Since Expired)
2). Ramesh Singh
S/o Sh. Samar Bahadur
R/o N-39, Kirti Nagar,
Delhi
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 186/353/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 08.09.2014
*******************************************************************************************************************************
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION:
THE FACTS :
1. As per the prosecution, on 03.11.1991 at about 09:15 PM at Karam Pura Bus Terminal, accused Ramesh Singh alongwith co-accused Ram Singh (since expired) in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed ATI Man Singh an employee of DTC while he was discharging his public function as public servant and also assaulted and used criminal force against him to deter him from discharging his duty as public servant. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused persons.
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused persons. After FIR No. 837/1991, PS Moti Nagar Page 1/8 hearing arguments, charges Under Section 186/353/34 IPC were framed upon the accused persons by Ld. Predecessor of this Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial of the present matter, accused Ram Singh expired, proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 15.07.2013.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
3. The Prosecution in support of their case has examined 6 witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh. Man Singh has stated that on 03.11.1991 he was on duty at Karampura Terminal as time keeper. It is stated that on that day accused Ram Singh came to him to notify round of his bus no.6777 route no. 85. That accused Ram Singh had given a proforma to this witness to sign as on completion of rounds they used to get money from DTC. It is further stated that when accused Ram Singh asked the witness to sign on the proforma witness/victim directed him to first take the passengers who were present at the spot in the bus and only then he would sign on the proforma, on that it is stated by accused Ram Singh (since expired) that he (Man Singh) should sign on the round but he (Ram Singh) will not take the passenger. It is stated that on refusal by witness Man Singh, accused Ram Singh started fighting with him. It is stated that at that time another time-keeper Ram Kumar was also present there. It is further stated that thereafter accused Ram Singh run away from the site with his bus. It is stated that thereafter he reported in the PS Moti Nagar. It is further stated by this witness that accused Ramesh, who was the conductor of the bus, had also joined accused Ram Singh in the fight. It is stated that his statement made to the police is Ex.PW1/A. In his cross examination, it is stated by this witness that at the time of the incident, there was one or two (ek aadh) passenger present there. It is stated by him that he had asked the passenger in which bus they would go, on that they had apprised him that they are waiting for route no.85. It is stated by him that they generally do not ask the passengers but sometime passengers themselves come and ask for the buses. It is stated by him that he does not remember description FIR No. 837/1991, PS Moti Nagar Page 2/8 of any of the passenger. It is stated that he had not asked name of any of the passenger. It is stated by this witness that he had not received any injury though the parties had grappled each other. This witness denied the suggestion that he used to ask for bribe from the private bus operators for granting routes to them.
5. PW2 ASI Mahavir Singh has stated that on 03.11.1991 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Duty Officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 Mid Night. It is further stated that at about 09:45 PM Sh. Man Singh came in the PS and gave a statement and this witness recorded his statement and marked the investigation to ASI Hira Lal. This witness exhibited the carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/A. In his cross examination, it is stated by this witness that complainant Man Singh had not given any duty slip to him for lodging the FIR
6. PW3 Ct. Jitender has stated that on 12.11.1991 he alongwith IO ASI Heera Lal reached at Karampura Terminal route no.85 where one bus no.6777 was standing and the accused persons Ramesh and Ram Singh were sitting on the bench of one tea shop, who were interrogated by the IO and they were arrested and their search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/A & B. In his cross examination, it is stated that one public witness had told them regarding driver and conductor of bus no.
6777. It is stated by him that at the time arrest and interrogation of the accused persons no DTC employee was not present.
7. PW4 Sh. Ram Kumar has stated that on 03.11.1991 he was working as ATI of DTC in Karampura. That at 09:15 PM a bus no.6777 was driven by Ram Singh and Ramesh was conductor. Time keeper Man Singh asked him to sign a prescribed proforma. It is further stated that the ATI Man Singh asked the accused persons to pick up the passengers for route but they refused to allow the passengers to get into the bus and they also refused to sign the proforma. It is further stated that both the accused gave beatings to Ram Singh and then both of them fled away and he and Ram Singh went to Police Station to get the case registered. In his cross examination, it is stated by this witness that victim Man Singh had sustained scratches, however, this FIR No. 837/1991, PS Moti Nagar Page 3/8 witness could not remember if victim Man Singh was medically examined or not. It is stated by him there were 10 to 15 passengers present and waiting for the bus but they left on the next bus.
8. PW5 Sh. Matu Ram has stated that in 1991 he was posted as Assistant Traffic Superintendent in Delhi Transport Corporation, West Checking Office, Moti Nagar, Delhi. It is further stated by this witness that Man Singh ATI and Ram Kumar ATI were on duty on 03.11.1991 from 1400 to 2230 hours at Karampura as a time keeper and he certified vide Ex.PW5/A. ATI Man Singh and Ram Kumar were assaulted by Ram Singh bus driver and conductor Ramesh Singh on route no.85 bus no.DEP-6777 on 03.11.1991 and he made complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C in this respect vide Ex.PW5/B.
9. PW6 SI Heera Lal stated that on 03.11.1991 he was handed over copy of FIR by the Duty Officer through Ct. Mahavir Singh for investigation on the direction of SHO PS Moti Nagar. It is further stated that he alongwith Ct. Mahaveer and complainant Sh. Man Singh went to the spot at Karam Pura Terminal. It is further stated that at the instance of complainant he prepared site plan Ex.PW6/A, he recorded statement of witnesses, arrested both the accused persons namely Ramesh and Ram Singh and prepared their jamatalashi memo. This witness correctly identified both the accused persons. It is further stated that he obtained duty slip of the ATI Man Singh and also obtained the permission of 195 Cr.P.C against the accused persons from the competent authority. In his cross examination, it is stated by him that accused was arrested 12.11.1991, it is stated by him that he did not record statement of any public witness on that day. It is stated that he had received the complaint under section 195 Cr. P.C to prosecute the accused which is Ex. PW5/B. It is accepted by him that there was cutting at mark X on Ex. PW5/A regarding the time of duty. However it is explained by him that there is initial on the cutting. It is stated by him that he cannot say if Ex. PW5/A is a manipulated document or not. It is stated by him that he reached the spot on the day on complaint in the late hours and there was no public witness available. It is stated by him FIR No. 837/1991, PS Moti Nagar Page 4/8 that he had not carried out any investigation in this case from 03.11.1991 to 12.11.1991. it is stated by him that he did not notice any injury on the person of the complainant Man Singh. It is stated that both the accused persons were arrested from bus terminal but no one had pointed out regarding there identity. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of DTC officials he has booked a false case against the accused persons.
THE DEFENCE :
10. Statement of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they pleaded there innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons opted to lead defence evidence. Shri Mahesh Pratap examined as DW1.
11. It is stated by DW1 Shri Mahesh Pratap that he knew both the accused persons. Since he was unemployed, the accused persons kept him as helper in the bus in the year 1991. It is stated that around Diwali in the year 1991, some ATI was checking the vehicles at about 09:00pm, there was some talk between said ATI and the accused persons. It is further stated by him that there was no quarrel or fighting occurred. However, it is stated that ATI threatened the accused persons that he will not permit the accused persons to do there job. It is stated that on the next day accused persons were taken away by the police officials. In his cross examination, it is stated by him that bus no.
DLP6777 was plying on the route from Karampura to Pragati Maidan and he was working on the bus from 10 days prior to the incident. It is stated by him when accused persons were arrested he was present there.
THE ARGUMENTS:
12. Ld. APP for state has argued that eye Witnesses have supported the prosecution and their testimony has remained unrebutted. That on a combined reading of prosecution witnesses testimony, offence U/s 186/353 r/w 34 IPC are proved beyond doubt..FIR No. 837/1991, PS Moti Nagar Page 5/8
13. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused. Even the statement of eye witnesses do not implicate the accused Ramesh. The case is based on circumstantial evidence at best and there is no incriminating evidence against the accused Ramesh.
THE FINDINGS:
Offense U/s 186/353/ 34 IPC:
14. Arguments led by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel are heard. The evidence and documents on record are carefully perused.
15. The prosecution in this case had to prove the following :
1. Firstly, the accused Ramesh had voluntarily obstructed ATI Man Singh while he was discharging his public function;
2. Secondly, the accused Ramesh had assaulted and used criminal forced against ATI Man Singh to deter him from discharging his duties.
16. At this stage, it would be fruitful to remember that it is 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. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that 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.
Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
17. In the present matter, though it is stated by victim Man Singh that he was obstructed and assaulted by accused Ramesh and Ram Singh (since expired) and his testimony is also supported by the testimony of witness Ram Kumar. However, following facts shows that the FIR No. 837/1991, PS Moti Nagar Page 6/8 prosecution story has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused Ramesh:-
i). That star witness / victim PW1 Man Singh has elaborately deposed regarding the incident, however all the allegations imputed by him were against accused Ram Singh (since expired). He has not described role of accused Ramesh in the entire incident. As it is stated by him that accused Ram Singh came to him to notify round of his bus no.6777 route no. 85. That accused Ram Singh had given a proforma to this witness, that witness/victim directed him (Ram Singh) to first take the passengers who were present at the spot, on that it is stated by accused Ram Singh (since expired) that he (Man Singh) should sign on the round but he (Ram Singh) will not take the passenger, it is stated that Ram Singh started fighting with him, it is stated that thereafter accused Ram Singh run away from the site with his bus. It is stated that thereafter he reported in the PS Moti Nagar. Thus PW1 Man Singh has categorically described the role of accused Ram Singh (since expired) and he has not mentioned any act done by accused Ramesh, however, in the end of his statement he simply stated that accused Ramesh who was the conductor of the bus had also joined accused Ram Singh in the fight. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that it used to be the duty of the driver to got the perform signed from the DTC officials and conductor had no role to play in the same. From the testimony of PW1 Man Singh (since expired) it appeared that whatever may be the incident, it was happened with accused Ram Singh, however accused Ramesh who was the conductor in the bus has been falsely implicated alongwith accused Ram Singh though he has not done any such criminal act and that is why PW1 Man Singh could not impute any particular act to be done by accused Ramesh while he has vividly described the role of accused Ram Singh (since expired).
ii). It is stated by PW1 Man Singh that there were one or two (ek aadh) passenger present there. On the other hand it is stated by PW4 Ram Kumar that 10 to15 passengers were present there. Thus there is apparent contradiction in the testimony of two eye witnesses.FIR No. 837/1991, PS Moti Nagar Page 7/8
iii). None of the passenger who were waiting for the bus of route no 85 has been made a witness in the present matter. The DTC officials PW1 Man Singh and PW4 Ram Kumar had not noted down name of any such passenger. They cannot even tell any description of anyone of those passengers. Thus the very bone of contention that accused persons had refused to take the passengers with them has not been proved, as presence of any such passengers remained unproved.
Which is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case.
18. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Ramesh had committed the offences as alleged against him. The evidence coming on record entitles the accused for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, accused Ramesh is hereby acquitted of all the charges in present case.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 08.09.2014 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 8 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 837/1991, PS Moti Nagar Page 8/8