Delhi District Court
State vs Chaman Kumar on 28 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
AC No.01/2014
Unique Case ID No.02402R0292802014
FIR No.517/2014
Police Station Jagat Puri
Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act
State Versus Chaman Kumar
S/o Sh. Talewar Singh
R/o Village Imlani, PO Khan Alampur
PS Hardua Ganj, District Aligarh, UP.
Date of Institution : 22.09.2014
Date of judgment reserved : 14.07.2015
Date of judgment : 28.07.2015
JUDGMENT
Accused Chaman Kumar has been sent to face trial by the police of Police Station Jagat Puri in FIR No.517/2014 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act( herein after referred to as the P.C.Act).
2 Briefly stating the facts of the present case are that on AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 1 of 12 17.08.2014, on receipt of DD No.7A Ex.PW13/A, ASI Subhash Chand Pandey(PW5) along with HC Satpal(PW6) reached Arjun Nagar Picket where complainant Amit Sharma(PW3) met them. Statement Ex.PW3/A of complainant was recorded in which he stated that on 17.08.2014 in the night at about 3.15 am, he was going from Hedgewar Hospital to his house at Sant Nagar, Burari. When he was passing through Arjun Nagar Picket, two police officials were found checking vehicles. On of the police officials asked the complainant to show the documents of motorcycle. Complainant showed NCR of the registration certificate. On seeing the same, police official told that its time had expired. When complainant said that he had only old NCR, then police official asked him that he would be challaned for Rs. 2,000/. When complainant told that he was not having money but having ATM Card, then police official told him that ATM machine was right behind him and he should withdraw money from the same. After withdrawing money from ATM, complainant handed over Rs. 500/ to police official and he was allowed to go home. When complainant asked for receipt of Rs.500/, he was returned Rs.300/ and then Rs.100/. When complainant asked for receipt of Rs.100/, he was refused. After moving a little ahead, complainant informed the AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 2 of 12 police at No.100.
3 IO made endorsement Ex.PW5/A and got the case registered vide FIR Ex.PW4/A and Qyami Entry Ex.PW4/B. Thereafter, investigation was transferred to Inspector Sudhir Kumar(PW16). IO prepared rough Site Plan Ex.PW5/B. ASI Subhash Pandey told the IO that complainant had identified HC Chaman Kumar to be the person who had taken money. Statement of Ct. Chander Pal(PW7) was recorded. Search of accused Chaman Kumar was got conducted and Rs.700/(one note of Rs.500 and two notes of Rs.100 denomination) were recovered in jamatalasi and same were seized after putting them in an envelope vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. Complainant was called at the spot. Complainant handed over the IO slip of withdrawal of money from ATM. IO seized receipt of NCR of RC vide memo Ex.PW3/B and ATM receipt vide memo Ex.PW3/C. Complainant had identified accused in the Police Station. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/D and his personal search Ex.PW3/D was conducted. Disclosure statement Ex.PW3/F of accused was recorded. CD Ex.P1 containing footage of ATM was handed over to Police vide Forwarding Letter Ex.PW1/A. Statement of account Ex.PW2/B of complainant was obtained vide Forwarding AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 3 of 12 Letter Ex.PW2/A. Sanction Ex.PW8/A for prosecution of the accused was obtained. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused.
4 After hearing Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. PP for the State, charge under section 7 of the P.C.Act was framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed a trial.
5 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. PW3 Sh. Amit Sharma is the complainant in this case. PW6 Ct. Chander Pal Singh was with the accused. PW1 Ms. Suraksha had forwarded CD of the ATM to the Police vide forwarding letter ExPW1/A. PW2 Sh. Bhole Shankar had produced statement of account Ex.PW2/B of complainant to the Police vide Forwarding Letter Ex.PW2/A. PW4 HC Mahipal Singh was working as Duty Officer, who had recorded FIR Ex.PW4/A in this case. PW5 ASI Subhash Chand Pandey was first IO of the case. PW6 HC Satpal Singh was Chittha Munshi who had deployed accused and PW7 Ct. Chander Pal Singh on the night intervening 16/17.08.2014 at Arjun Nagar Picket from 9.00 p.m. to 9.00 a.m. He had handed over copy of Duty AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 4 of 12 Roaster to IO Inspector Sudhir Kumar. PW8 Sh. Pushpender Kumar Addl DCP had granted sanction under Sanction 19(1)(c) of the P.C.Act for prosecution of the accused. PW9 Sh. Raja Ram Yadav, Retired ACP, had recorded supplementary statement of complainant and other witnesses, prepared chargesheet and filed the same in the Court. PW10 Ct. Sandeep Yadav had served copy of notice U/s 97 Cr.P.C. on Manager, SBI, Vijay Nagar, Delhi and handed over the envelope given by Manager to the IO. PW11 HC Pramod Kumar was working in PCR and had filled in CPCR form and proved certified copy thereof as Ex.PW11/A. PW12 HC Satpal was working as Duty Officer in PS Farsh Bazar and on the basis of information received from District Control Room, he recorded DD No.5B as Ex.PW12/A. PW13 HC Sheesh Pal Singh was working as Duty Officer at PS Krishna Nagar and had recorded DD No.7A on the basis of information received from District Control Room. Copy of DD No.7A has been proved as Ex.PW13/A. PW14 HC Digambar had made departure entry of ASI Chander Pal, HC Chaman Kumar and other police staff vide DD No. 49B Ex.PW14/A regarding their deployment on the night of 16.08.2014. PW15 SI Chander Pal Singh was Night Checking Officer on 16.08.2014. PW16 Inspector Sudhir Kumar is IO of the case. AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 5 of 12 After completion of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied the allegations against him and stated that he was innocent.
6 I have heard Ld. Chief PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through record of the case.
7 In the present case, star witness of the prosecution is PW3 Sh Amit Sharma from whom the money was allegedly demanded and accepted by the accused. He has testified that on 17.08.2014 at about 2.45 a.m.(night), he was coming from Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan. At about 3.00 a.m., PW3 reached Arjun Nagar Point where 23 persons in civil dress and 23 persons in police uniform stopped his motorcycle. PW3 was asked to show the documents of motorcycle; he showed all the documents; he had NCR regarding missing RC and that date of application had already expired. PW3 was told that he would be challaned for Rs.2,000/. PW3 told that he did not have money at that time, then those persons told him that he had to face Court proceedings. Those persons took out his purse and one of those persons, who was in civil dress, told him to go to ATM and bring money. That person also accompanied PW3 to PNB ATM. PW3 AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 6 of 12 withdrew a currency note of Rs.500/ from ATM and handed over the same to that person. When PW3 asked for receipt of Rs.500/, he was pushed by those persons. Those persons returned him Rs.300/ and when PW3 again insisted for receipt, they again handed him over Rs. 100/. PW3 again demanded receipt of Rs.100/ but they refused. PW3 went ahead some distance and made a call to Police at No.100. After sometime, Police came and made inquiry from PW3. Statement Ex.PW3/A of PW3 was recorded. PW3 handed over NCR of RC to the Police which was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B and ATM receipt vide memo Ex.PW3/C. 8 At night on 17.08.2014, when PW3 went to Police Station, he was handed over copy of the FIR. Supplementary statement of PW3 was recorded. This witness stated that he could identify the person whom he handed over Rs.500/. He categorically stated that accused Chaman Kumar, present in the Court, was not that person to whom he had handed over the money.
9 PW3 in his cross examination by Ld. Addl PP has denied the suggestion that after reaching Police Station, he had identified accused Chaman Kumar and told the IO that he was the same person who had demanded Rs.500/ from him and received the AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 7 of 12 same. PW3 has also denied that it was accused Chaman Kumar who said that PW3 would be challaned for Rs.2,000/. He has also denied that it was accused to whom he had given Rs.500/ after withdrawing from ATM or that when PW3 demanded for receipt, accused returned him Rs.300/.
10 In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, he has stated that his signatures were obtained by the Police on 56 documents but contents thereof were not read over to him. 11 From the entire evidence of PW3 Amit Sharma, nothing incriminating came against the accused. His testimony is completely of exonerating nature and does not in any way help the prosecution.
12 Another important witness examined by the prosecution is PW7 Ct. Cander Pal Singh, who was on duty with accused at the relevant time. He has testified that on the night intervening 16/17.08.2014, he was on duty with HC Chaman Kumar at Arjun Nagar Picket on road No.57. At about 3.00 p.m., HC Chaman Kumar stopped one motorcyclist and he started checking his documents. He was present at barricade No.1 which was at some distance, when PW7 heard some shouting. After sometime, PCR came AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 8 of 12 and thereafter IO Inspector Sudhir Kumar also reached there. 13 In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for the accused, PW7 has stated that it was about 2.00 or 3.00 a.m. and he was at the distance of 300 feet from the place of hot exchange. No demand was made in the presence of PW7. He had not seen accused Chaman taking any amount from the complainant. Complainant left the spot after 57 minutes.
14 According to the prosecution, this witness was an eye witness but except the fact that HC Chaman had stopped one motorcycle and started checking his documents, PW7 has not stated anything that accused demanded or received money from the complainant. Therefore, again there is nothing in the testimony of PW7 which goes against the accused.
15 PW5 ASI Subhash Chand Pandey is the initial IO of the case, who on receipt of information received the spot, prepared rukka Ex.PW5/A and got the case registered. Thereafter investigation was assigned to Inspector Sudhir Kumar(PW16), who prepared rough plan Ex.PW5/B. PW5 has stated that personal search of accused was taken in his presence in which Rs.700/( 1 note of Rs.500/ and 2 notes of Rs.100/ each) were recovered. Currency notes were kept in an AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 9 of 12 envelope and were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/C. 16 In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW5 has stated that the complainant was not present at the time of sending Rukka. He has also stated that when Inspector Sudhir Kumar reached at the spot, complainant was not present at that time also. Notes were sealed at the time of their recovery. He has admitted that complainant was not present at the time of recovery of currency notes from the accused.
17 Surprisingly, no effort was made by the Police to get the currency note of Rs.100/, allegedly retained by the accused, identified from the complainant for the reasons best known to them. Hence, even recovery of currency notes from the possession of accused does not go to prove that the currency note of Rs.100/ allegedly given by the complainant to accused was recovered from him.
18 PW16 Inspector Sudhir Kumar had stated that he got conducted personal search of accused Chaman Kumar through HC Satpal in which Rs.700/ were recovered from in. He contacted the complainant who reached at the spot. Complainant handed over him NCR of RC, ATM receipt. He has also stated that complainant had AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 10 of 12 identified HC Chaman Kumar to be the person who had demanded money from him. But the fact remains that complainant(PW3) himself has not identified accused Chaman Kumar. Therefore, statement of PW16 Inspector Sudhir Kumar also does not help the prosecution. 19 On the basis of above discussion, nothing incriminating has come on record which goes against the accused. There is nothing on record to connect the accused with the offence alleged against him. From the evidence of the complainant and other Police Officials who were on duty with the accused and testimony of the IO, it does not stand proved on record that it was accused who had demanded money from the complainant or received the same. It also does not stand proved on record that currency note of Rs.100/ allegedly handed over by the complainant and retained by the accused, was recovered from him or that Rs.700/ recovered in personal search of accused, consisted of that currency note of Rs.100/. Hence, there is nothing on record which connects accused with the offence alleged against him.
20 In view of above discussion, I come to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence in the present case. I hold that prosecution has AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 11 of 12 failed to prove its case against accused. Hence, accused Chaman Kumar is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Accused is directed to comply with provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open Court ( TALWANT SINGH )
Dated: 28.07.2015 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.01/14 State Vs. Chaman Kumar Page 12 of 12