Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay on 15 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH: ACMM-02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. SANJAY
New Case No: 297976/16
FIR N0. : 173/11
U/S : 170/384/411/34 IPC
PS : Old Delhi Railway Station
Date of Institution : 24.01.2013
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 15.04.2019
Date of Judgment : 15.04.2019
JUDGMENT
1. FIR No. of the case : 173/11
2. Date of commission of offence : 26.11.2011
3. Name of the accused : Sanjay
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Singh,
R/o H. No. C-16/10, Nihar
Vihar Phase-2, Nagloi, Delhi.
4. Offence complained of : 384/170/411/34 of IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
6. Final order : Convicted
FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 1 of 21
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2011 at about 11.00 PM at platform of ODRS, Delhi withing the jurisdiction of PS Old Delhi Railway Station, accused Sanjay alongwith his accomplice intentionally put the complainant Mohd. Aitwari and Mohd. Ashique, Mohd. Jakir, Mohd. Sarafat, Rupad Alam, Mohd. Noor, Mohd. Samim, Mohd. Nayim, Mohd. Injar, Mohd Shahid, Mohd Abunu, Mohd Ansar, Mohd. Ali Hasan, Mohd Sohid, Mohd Mansoor, Mohd Amam, Mohd Etatram and Mohd. Ahmed in the fear of injury and pretended to be authorized to check train tickets and checked the tickets of the above named complainant and victims under the colour of such office and dishonestly retained or received the said amount of above said complainant and victims as mentioned in the seizure/recovery memo knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 384/170/411/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of a complaint, present FIR was registered. After carrying out the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused was summoned. After compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C, charge under Section FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 2 of 21 170/384/411/34 of IPC was framed 25.11.2014 against accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses in total.
4. PW-1 Sh. Mohd. Etwari deposed that on 26.11.2011, he alongwith 16 other persons came at Old Delhi Railway Station at about 10:00 PM. All of them purchased railway tickets for Bhagalpur and at about 11:00 PM they were standing at platform no.3 and 4 as Brahamputra Express Train was scheduled to arrive at platform no. 3 and 4. Thereafter, 3-4 persons came there and asked them to come with them for checking of railway tickets. They left the railway station at the direction of above said 3- 4 persons who checked their railway tickets and said that the tickets are fake. They demanded Rs.1,000/- from each of them on account that the tickets are fake and accordingly they handed over a total sum of Rs.17,000/- to the said persons. They came back again at the place of incident and they saw the accused Sanjay tried to ran away from the spot. FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 3 of 21 They chased accused Sanjay and thereafter apprehended him. Police officer coming from opposite side helped them in apprehension of accused Sanjay (correctly identified by witness in the court). Police officer recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A. Police arrested the accused Sanjay vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW1/B, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/C and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW1/D, all bearing his signatures at point A. IO seized Rs.8,000/- from accused Sanjay vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E, bearing his signatures at point A. This witness was cross-examined by Legal Aid Counsel however, his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
5. PW-2 ASI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 26/27.11.2011, he was posted as ASI at PS ODRS from 8:00 PM to 9:00 AM. He had received a rukka from SI Rajinder at about 2:00 AM. He registered the FIR and handed over Tehrir and copy of FIR Ex.PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A to HC Shree Krishan for further course of action. He has also made endorsement on rukka from point A1 to A2 which is Ex.PW2/B, bearing my signatures at point A. FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 4 of 21 This witness was not cross-examined by accused despite opportunity being given.
6. PW-3 Sh. Mohammad Jakir deposed that on 26.11.2011, he alongwith 16 other persons was coming from Panipat, Haryana to Old Delhi railway Station in order to visit his village Bigachhi, District Purnia, Bihar. They deboarded at Old Delhi railway station at about 9:00 PM and went to ticket counter and get ticket for Bhagalpur railway station as they had to board in Barhmputra train and after collecting ticket, they were going towards platform, meanwhile 3 to 4 persons came towards them and asked them to come with them for checking of railway tickets. They left the railway station at the direction of abovesaid 3 -4 persons. The above said 3 to 4 persons checked their railway tickets and said the tickets are fake and they demanded Rs.1,000/- from each of them. The above said 3 to 4 persons threatened them and on which they all handed over Rs.1,000/- each to above said 3 to 4 persons. They all 17 persons handed over Rs.17,000/- to accused persons. They could not board inside the train as the train had already left. Thereafter, they met with one of their known person i.e. Ahmad and informed all incident to him. They alongwith Ahmad FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 5 of 21 went to the place of incident but no accused persons were present at the spot. They saw one of the accused person, who took money from them near the spot where he was hiding. They informed police and police recovered money from accused Sanjay (correctly identified by witness in the court). He correctly identified the case property.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel however, his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
7. PW-4 Mohd. Sharafat deposed that on 26.11.2011, he alongwith other persons of his village came from Sonepat after cutting of crop. They reached at ODRS at 9.00 PM. On that day, at about 10.00 PM, they purchased general ticket for Bhagalpur and at about 11.00 PM, when they proceeded to board Brahmputra Mail, 3-4 persons came and told them to come outside and open their luggage for checking. They took them near wall of railway station and took their tickets from them and told that their tickets are not genuine. They demanded Rs.1,000/- from each of them. They took from them Rs.17,000/- i.e. one Rs.1,000/- from each and went away from the spot. The name of co-passengers were Mohd. Itwari, Mohd. Ashiq, Mohd. Zakir, Mohd. Seyyad Alam, Mohd. Noor, Mohd. Itezar, FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 6 of 21 Mohd. Shahid etc. They took them to platform but they could not board the train. He informed one Sh. Mohd. Ahmed who was also resident of his village. He came to railway station and from platform they reached near the wall where they apprehended one of the person who had taken money from them after threatening. He correctly identified accused Sanjay in the court, who was apprehended by them and they handed over accused Sanjay to PCR officials who were standing nearby. Police officials recovered Rs.8,000/- from possession of accused. IO recorded his statement. The case property is already Ex.P1.
This witness was not cross-examined by accused despite opportunity being given.
8. PW-5 Sh. Noor Mohd. deposed that around 7 years back, he alongwith other persons of his village came from Sonepat after cutting of crop. They reached at ODRS at 8.00 PM. On that day, they purchased general ticket till Bhagalpur. When they proceeded to board Brahmputra Mail, 3-4 persons came and told them to come outside and open their luggage for checking. They took them near wall of railway station and took their tickets from them and told that their ticket is not genuine. They FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 7 of 21 demanded from them Rs.1,000/- each. They took from them Rs.17000/- i.e. one Rs.1,000/- from each and went away from the spot. The name of co-passengers were Mohd. Itwari, Mohd. Ashiq, Mohd. Zakir, Mohd. Seyyad Alam, Mohd. Sharafat, Mohd. Itezar, Mohd. Shahid etc. They took them to platform but they could not board the train. He informed one Sh. Mohd. Ahmed who was also resident of his village. He came to railway station and from platform they reached near the wall where they apprehended one of the person who had taken money from them after threatening. He correctly identified accused Sanjay in the court, who was apprehended by them and they handed over accused to PCR officials who were standing nearby. Police officials recovered Rs.8000/- from possession of accused. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused however, his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
9. PW-6 Sh. Mohd. Shameem, PW-7 Sh. Mohd. Naeem, PW-8 Sh. Mohd. Injar, PW-9 Sh. Mohd. Shahid, PW-10 Sh. Mohd. Abunu, PW-11 Sh. Mohd. Ansar, PW-12 Sh. Mohd. Ali Hassan, PW-13 Sh. Mohd. Sohid, PW-14 Sh. Mohd. Mansoor, PW-15 Sh. Mohd. Etat @ FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 8 of 21 Tasam, PW-16 Sh. Mohd. Aman and PW-17 Sh. Mohd. Ahmad deposed that around 7 years back, they came from Sonepat after cutting of crop. They reached at ODRS at 8.00 PM. On that day, they purchased general ticket till Bhagalpur. When they proceeded to board Brahmputra Mail, 3-4 persons came to them and told them to come outside and open their luggage for checking. The accused persons took them near wall of railway station and took their tickets from them and told that their tickets are not genuine. Accused Sanjay demanded Rs.1,000/- each from them. Accused took Rs.17,000/- i.e. one Rs.1,000/- from each of them and went away from the spot. Accused took them to platform but they could not board the train. They informed one Sh. Mohd. Ahmed who was also resident of their village. He came to railway station and from platform they reached near the wall where they apprehended one of the person who had taken money from them after threatening. They identified accused Sanjay in the court, who was apprehended by them and they handed over accused to PCR officials who were standing nearby. Police officials recovered Rs.8,000/- from possession of accused. IO recorded their statements. The case property is already Ex.P1.
These witnesses were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 9 of 21 accused however, their cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
10. PW-18 Retired HC Mahavir Singh deposed that on 26.11.2011, he was posted as HC with PCR van Sugar-36 from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM as Incharge. On that night at about 12.00 midnight when their PCR van was on the road in front of railway station, they saw public persons gathered and they were shouting and public apprehended one person namely Sanjay. He correctly identified the accused Sanjay in the court. He enquired some public persons and they told that accused Sanjay had snatched Rs.1,000/- each from many passengers after threatening them. From the possession of accused Rs.8,000/- (currency notes of Rs.500/-) were recovered. He handed over accused and recovered money to the IO. IO recorded his statement. The case property is Ex.P1.
This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel however, his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
11. PW-19 ASI Sri Krishan deposed that on 27.11.2011, he was posted as HC with PS ODRS. On that day Duty officer handed over him FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 10 of 21 Tehrir and copy of FIR and he took the same and handed over to IO at exit gate, near EP hall, ODRS, Delhi. IO arrested accused Sanjay (correctly identified by the witness). Rs.8000/- were also recovered from possession of accused (currency notes of Rs.500/- each). IO kept the same in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of RD. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex.PW1/D, bearing his signatures at point B. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel however, his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
12. PW-20 Sh. Ratan Singh deposed that their office was summoned with the record of tickets having no. 97192530, 97187839, 97192533, 97187840, 97192529, 97192519, 97192524, 97192518, 97192543, 97192516, 97192517 as they were general tickets. As per their office, the records of the said tickets are not with their office/station as the record for only 5 years is maintained. The report of Sh. Surgyani Meena, Chief Booking Supervisor is Ex.PW20/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel despite opportunity being given.
FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 11 of 21
13. PW-21 Inspector Rajender Dabas deposed that on 27.11.2011, he was posted as SI with PS ODRS, Delhi. On that day, PCR officials from PCR Sugar 36 came in the PS alongwith complainant Mohd. Etwari and accused Sanjay (accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court). He recorded statement of complainant and endorsed the same at point B. He prepared rukka which is Ex.PW21/A, bearing his signatures at point A and got the FIR registered. He alongwith complainant and accused reached the spot i.e. in front of booking counter, ODRS. HC Sri Krishan came to spot and handed over him the original rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter he arrested accused Sanjay and conducted his personal search and also recorded his disclosure statement. From the possession of accused, Rs.8,000/- (notes of Rs.500/- each). He kept the same in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of RD. He also seized the photocopies of the tickets of the 17 victims to whom accused had threatened and extorted money. He tried to search co-accused persons but all in vain. He recorded statement of witnesses. They returned to police station and he deposited the case property in the malkhana and accused was put behind bars after medical examination. He filed the chargesheet before Hon'ble Court. He identified the case property which is Ex.P1. FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 12 of 21 This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Legal Aid Counsel however, his cross examination is not being repeated for sake of brevity.
14. Upon completion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C was recorded on 26.03.2019 wherein accused has pleaded innocence and he had opted not to lead any defence evidence. Final arguments heard.
15. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION
16. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the day of incident i.e. 26.11.2011, at platform of Old Delhi Railway Stations, accused Sanjay alongwith other accomplices (since not apprehended) intentionally put the complainant Mohd. Itwari and many others in the fear of injury and thereby extorted Rs. 1,000/- each by impersonating as public servant i.e. Ticket Collector (TC) and did offence of extortion under the colour of such office FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 13 of 21 in furtherance of their common intention and thus committed offence punishable under Section 384/170/34 of IPC. It is further alleged that the extorted money was also recovered from the accused and hence the accused was also charged with Section 411 of IPC.
17. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined complainant as well as other persons who were travelling with him and thus in total 21 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
18. Before examining whether the case of the prosecution has been proved or not, it is necessary to state the law/ essential ingredients of extortion which is defined under Section 383 IPC which are as follows :-
1. The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.
2. The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional.
3. The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 14 of 21 converted into a valuable security.
4. Such inducement must be done dishonestly.
19. The law/ essential ingredients of Section 170 IPC which are as follows :-
1. A person (a) pretending to hold a particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office, or (b) falsely personating any other person holding such office.
2. Such person in such assumed character must do or attempt to do an act under colour of such office.
20. The law/ essential ingredients of Section 411 IPC which are as follows :-
(1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.
FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 15 of 21 In case of Mahabir Vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1972 S. C. 642 wherein the Apex Court observed as under: The essential requirement of the offence of receiving stolen property is that the property seized from the possession of the accused must be proved by the prosecution to be stolen.
21. Essential ingredients of Section 34 IPC are as follows:
(1) That there must be a criminal act; (2) The act must have been done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention;
22. With regard to prove the offence as mentioned above, the prosecution has mainly examined PW-1 as complainant and his fellow travellers who had purchased railway tickets for Bhagalpur on the day of incident. Complainant Mohd. Itwari stated that on the day of incident, he alongwith others were standing at platform no. 3 & 4 as train namely Brahmputra was scheduled to arrive. Suddenly, 3-4 persons came there FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 16 of 21 and asked them to accompany them for checking of their railway tickets. The complainant alongwith 16 others followed those 3-4 persons and they stated that the railway tickets in the possession of the complainant and others were fake. Thereafter, they demanded Rs. 1,000/- each from all the travellors after threatening them and telling them that the tickets were fake. He deposed that he handed over total sum of Rs. 17,000/- to the said persons. He stated that thereafter he came at the platform however, they could not board the train when they again came back to the place of incident they saw that accused Sanjay was present at the spot and tried to run away (correctly identified by the complainant). Accused Sanjay was apprehended after being chased and was handed over to police officials. Complainant gave his statement Ex. PW1/A and identified his thumb impressions at point A. He also identified his thumb impressions on the arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement of accused Sanjay and seizure memo of Rs. 8,000/- which was recovered from accused Sanjay and he also stated that accused persons threatened them that if they did not hand over Rs. 1,000/-, they will be put behind bars and hence they handed over the demanded money. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Defence counsel. However, no major FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 17 of 21 contradictions could not be noted in his cross examination.
23. When the testimony of PW-1 is compared to his original statement Ex. PW1/A, no major contradictions could be noted.
24. It was argued by the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused that the details of the incident have not been properly given by the complainant. In this regard it is to be noted that the complainant as well as other persons who were accompanying him are daily wages labourers and can not be expected to haul a photogenic memory of the incident. The complainant had adequately given the description of the entire event leading to the extortion and consequent apprehension of accused Sanjay. Though, there is no explanation as to why the other accused persons could not be apprehended however, their presence has been confirmed by the testimony of other witnesses who were examined as PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-14, PW- 15, PW-16 and PW-17. All the public witnesses who were exrtoted by the accused persons have given corroborative statements and have deposed similarly and also identified accused Sanjay in the court. There is no FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 18 of 21 contradiction whatsoever in the testimony of all the 17 witnesses.
25. Apart from the 17 public witnesses, the prosecution has also examined the investigation officer and the accompanying Constable who was on duty in the PCR Van. The seizure memo of the case property and the sealing of the same has been proved by the IO and PW-19 ASI Sri Krishan. The case property was duly identified. The other documents prepared during the investigation were proved by the IO Inspector Rajender Dabas who was examined as PW-21 who prepared site plan Ex. PW1/F and also identified his signatures on the other documents prepared during the course of investigation. He also filed chargesheet in the court and deposited the case property in the malkhana.
26. A perusal of the testimony of all the public witnesses and the complainant that the accused Sanjay alongwith his accomplice who has not been apprehended in furtherance of their common intention acted as ticket collector and induced the complainant and his fellow travellors to part with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each by putting them in the fear being put them behind bars for carrying fake tickets.
FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 19 of 21
27. In case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1984 SC 1622, the apex court had laid down the test which are per-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:-
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (2) The circumstances concerned "must or should"
and not "may be" established;
(3) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (4) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
(5) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (6) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must so that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
28. Considering the totality of the circumstance, I am of the opinion FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 20 of 21 that the guilt of accused Sanjay has been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt and he is required to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 170/384/34 IPC. Hence, accused Sanjay is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 170/384/34 IPC.
29. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed CHETNA by CHETNA SINGH SINGH Date: 2019.04.16 15:44:09 +0530 Announced in the open court on 15.04.2019 (Chetna Singh) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02 Central/THC/Delhi/15.04.2019 FIR No . 173/2011 State Vs Sanjay PS ODRS Page No. 21 of 21