Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashu Singh on 23 August, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI
State Vs. Ashu Singh
CC No. 10/07
PS : RPF/SSB
U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
JUDGMENT
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 136/01
b) Date of Institution : 05.06.2007
c) Name of the complainant : ASI/RPF Ram Niwas
d) The name & add. of accused : Ashu Singh, S/o. Uday Singh,
R/o. Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi.
Permanent Address
Village Barar, PS & Tehsil Bim,
Dist. Udaypur, Rajasthan
e) Date of commission of
offence : 24.05.2007
f) Offence complained of : U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966
g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Date on which judgment
reserved : 23.08.2007
i) Final Order : Convicted
j) Date of Judgment : 23.08.2007
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISIONS :
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 24.05.2007 at about 9.15 hours near K.M. No. 23/14, SSB Railway Station within the jurisdiction of RPF Post SSB accused was apprehended by RPF staff and found in possession of 6 pendrul clips as per seizure memo Ex. PW2/A worth Page No. 1 of Rs. 240/ belonging to Railway department reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and thereby accused committed an offence punishable U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
2. After completion of enquiry complaint was put to the court for trial. The accused was summoned and copy of complaint was supplied to him.
3. Prosecution in all to prove its case cited as many as 5 witnesses and examined 3 witnesses. Before proceeding to any conclusion let we analyse the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
4. In precharge evidence prosecution examined PW1 Shri Vipin Singh, who is examined as an expert. He testified examination of case property conducted by him on 03.06.2007 at RPF Post SSB of 6 pendrul clips. He further testified his report Ex. PW1/A which he issued after examining the case property and in which he opined that the case property is a railway property. He testified the case property in the court.
5. PW2 Ct. Samar Pal Singh is one of the witnesses of the spot. He testified that on 24.05.2007 he alongwith SI Ram Niwas was on duty. When they reached near KM No. 23/12, they saw one person was carrying some heavy article on his shoulder. On having suspicion they enquired that person at about 9.15 hours and 6 Page No. 2 pendrul clips were recovered from him. Accused was explained about accusation and arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/A. Case property was taken into RPF possession and sealed it with the seal of RN. Accused disclosed the facts vide his statement Ex. PW2/B. The pointing out memo is Ex. PW2/C and confessional statement of accused is Ex. PW2/D. Site plan Ex. PW2/E was prepared. Accused was taken to RPF Post and a case was registered against him, copy of which is Ex. PW2/F. His statement Ex. PW2/G was recorded. PW2 identified the case property as well as accused in the court.
6. Thereafter precharge evidence was closed and from perusal of material produced on record and testimony of prosecution witnesses a prima facie case U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act was made out against the accused. Accordingly on 12.04.2007 charge for offence punishable U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966 was framed out against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Accordingly in aftercharge evidence PW1 and PW2 came forward for their cross examination but accused did not cross examine them.
8. Thereafter prosecution examined PW3 ASI Ram Niwas who testified the similar facts as deposed by PW2.
9. During the course of trial accused pleaded guilty for the Page No. 3 crime in question and moved application to this effect. Accusation was duly explained to accused despite that he repeatedly pleaded guilty. Accordingly aftercharge evidence was dispensed with. On 23.08.2007 statement of accused U/s. 313 Cr. P.C was recorded in which accused admitted allegations put against him by the prosecution and stated that it was his fault. He prayed that he is an old man as such lenient view may kindly be taken.
10. I have heard Ld. APP for the RPF and accused in person and have gone through the material on record. APP for the RPF submitted that the prosecution has examined material witnesses and proved its case against the accused as such accused may be convicted in accordance with law. On the other hand accused while recording his statement before the court pleaded guilty and prayed for the lenient view. Accused was explained about the accusation despite that he repeatedly pleaded guilty as such I am of the view that the accused has pleaded guilty voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. I rely upon observations held in case titled as "Sa lim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra" 2001 CRL. L. J. 58, (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) DR. (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J. Cr. Revn. Appl. NO. 243 of 1994 wherein it was held that : " Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act Page No. 4 (29 of 1966), Ss. 3(a), 8(1) - Unlawful possession of railway property - Accused voluntarily confessed that he had purchased stolen property of railway - Confessional statement recorded by RPF officer making enquiry under S. 8(1) - Is admissible in evidence as he is not a police officer under S. 162 CR. P.C. Conviction based on said confessional statement - Not illegal."
11. I also rely upon the observation taken in case titled as "Balk ishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra" and "State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hari & Ors." 1980 CRL. L. J. 1424 (SUPREME COURT) wherein it was observed that : " U/s. 25 - Police Officer - Officer of R.P.F. making inquiry in respect of offence under S. 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (1966), is not Police Officer .
The primary test for determining whether an officer is a Police Officer is : Whether the officer concerned under the Special Act, has been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officerincharge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code qua investigation of offences under that Act, including the power to initiate prosecution by submitting a report (charge Page No. 5 sheet) under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. of 1898. In order to bring him within the purview of the 'police officer' for the purpose of Section 25, Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that the exercises some or even many of the powers of a police officer conducting an investigation under the Code. Constitution of India, Art. 20 (3) "Pers on accused of an offence" Person arrested under S. 6 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 - Incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under S. 8 - Prosecution under S. 20 (3) not available" .
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances accused Ashu Singh, S/o. Uday Singh is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN S.K.GAUTAM COURT ON 23.08.2007. MM:DELHI.
Page No. 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K.GAUTAM :MM :DELHI State Vs. Ashu Singh CC No. 10/07 PS : RPF/SSB U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: APP for RPF.
Accused/Convict in J/C. Heard on the point of sentence. APP for the RPF submitted that the prosecution has examined witnesses and proved its case hence accused may be convicted in accordance with law. On the other accused/convict submitted that he belongs to a poor family. He further submitted that he is in Judicial Custody in this case since 24.05.2007 as such already undergone some imprisonment hence he may be released on undergone imprisonment.
Considering the nature of the offence and socio, economic condition of the accused/convict, accused/convict Ashu Singh, S/o. Uday Singh is sentenced to imprisonment which is already undergone by him in this case U/s. 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with law. File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of order be given to the accused/convict, free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN S.K.GAUTAM COURT ON 23.08.2007. MM:DELHI. Page No. 7 State Vs. Ashu Singh CC No. 10/07 PS : RPF/SSB U/s. 3 RP (UP) Act 1966 23.08.2007 Present: APP for RPF. Accused in J/C.
At this stage accused has requested to dispense with the requirement of recording of further PE on the ground that he is pleading guilty. Accused has been duly explained about the accusation despite that he has repeatedly pleaded guilty, as such I am of the opinion that accused has pleaded guilty voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. Accordingly further PE is dispensed with. Let statement of accused be recorded.
Statement of accused is recorded today separately in which accused admitted the allegations put against him by the prosecution.
Vide separate Judgment and order of today accused Ashu Singh, S/o. Uday Singh is convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable U/s 3 of RP (UP) Act 1966.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with law. File be consigned to R.R. (S.K. Gautam) MM/Delhi 23.08.2007 Page No. 8