Delhi District Court
State vs Mahipal Singh Etc on 10 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN: ASJ
( ELECTRICITY):NW DISTRICT:ROHINI: DELHI
FIR no. 75/07
Unique Case ID no. 02404R0044592008
Police station : Prashant Vihar
U/S 170/171/465/471/474/384/34/511/120BIPC
& 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003
State V/s Mahipal Singh etc
1. Session Case no. : SC no. 122/08
2. Name of the 1. Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Richpal R/o 185
accused and parentage : West Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi
2. Raj Kumar S/o Shri Chatur Singh R/o
Gali no. 12,Surender Colony, Jharoda,
Delhi.(expired, proceedings abated vide
order dt. 19/05/2014)
3. Panna Lal @ Raj Bhatia S/o Shri Jai
Singh R/o House no. 12, Surender
Colony, PartII, Village Jharoda, Delhi.
4. Sunil S/o Raju R/o H. no. 16, Gali no.
15, Bangali Colony, Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi.(Proclaimed offender)
5. Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Salik Chand R/o
Gali no. 12, Jharoda Village, Delhi.
(expired, proceedings dropped vide
order dt. 22/09/2010)
6. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Kumar
R/o T1/06, BudhVihar, Delhi.
3. Date of commission : 27/01/2007
of offence
4.Arguments : 22/05/2014
concluded on
5. Date of Judgment : 10th July, 2014
6. Final Order : Accused Panna Lal @ Raj Bhtaia is Acquitted.
Accused Sandeep Garg and Mahipal are
convicted.
FIR no. 75/07
State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 1 / 29
JUDGMENT
(1) According to the prosecution case on 27/01/2007 at about 5pm three persons came to the house of Sh. Sandeep Jain/complainant at Flat no. 875, Vir Apartment, Sector13, Delhi and told him that they were employees of NDPL; those boys told the complainant to check the meter and its load and accordingly he went alongwith them to check the load of the meter. While checking the meter those boys broke open the seals of it and told him that seal was already broken and meter was tampered. Those boys asked the complainant to pay Rs. 8 lacs as penalty otherwise he would be in difficulty. They told the complainant that they will get the matter settled otherwise six months imprisonment was possible as he has broken the seals and thus they demanded Rs. 4 lacs as bribe from the complainant and when complainant asked to show the search warrants or raid warrants, one of those boys gave him a mobile phone number and asked him to talk to one Sh. Raj Bhatia, J.E at Lawrence Road, Delhi and he had talked to the complainant and Raj Bhatia also and asked him to cooperate with them otherwise he would be in difficulty. The complainant became suspicious and insisted them to show the warrants or to call their officer. Those boys continuously talked to someone on FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 2 / 29 mobile number 9210869026, 64584812 and 9210873088. When no one came, one of those boys pretended to go for toilet and gone to the house of the complainant at 7th floor and slipped away in the toilet and run away through the pipe of the toilet and was chased by the complainant and others at Parwana Apartment and the said boy had thrown the bricks upon the chasers and the said boy was accused Ajay who had slipped away from the toilet and run away by breaking the grill and sustained injury in his hand. The complainant came to know those two boys as Ajay Chauhan and Sandeep Garg and informed the IO that he could identify the other persons accompanying them and made a complaint in writing to the police and on the basis of his complaint a case FIR was registered in Police Station Prashant Vihar u/s 170/171/465/471/474/384/34/511/34/120B IPC & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
(2) During investigation, forged identity cards of NDPL and other documents were recovered from the possession of Ajay Chauhan and Sandeep Garg. Both of them were arrested and made their disclosure statements stating that alongwith them Sunil, Balkishan and Raj Kumar were also present at the time of incident who had run away from the spot and at their instance Raj Kumar and Mahipal were also arrested who refused to join the FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 3 / 29 Test Identification Parade. The documents recovered from their possession were got verified from the NDPL who confirmed the forgery of the documents so recovered.
(3) After completion of investigation a chargesheet was filed against accused Mahipal Singh, Raj Kumar, Sandeep Kumar and Ajay. Accused Panna Lal @ Raj Bhatia and Sunil were kept in column no. 2 as investigation was pending against them. (4) On 28/03/2007 the chargesheet was filed before Shri Amit Bansal, Ld MM, Delhi wherein it is mentioned that NBWs were already issued against accused Sunil and Panna Lal shown in column no. 2.
(5) On 17/05/2008 accused Panna Lal @ Raj Bhatia was produced in Judicial custody before the Ld MM, Delhi. Other accused were on bail. Ld MM, Delhi transferred this case to the Ld Judge Incharge, Rohini, Delhi for transferring it to the Special court because cognizance was taken u/s 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Case was assigned to my Ld Predecessor Shri D.K.Malhotra on 22/05/2008. Ld Predecessor Shri Ramesh Kumar issued proceedings u/s 82/83 CrPC against accused Sunil which remained unexecuted for a long time. (6) On 26/05/2010 Ld Predecessor Shri Ramesh Kumar declared accused Sunil as Proclaimed offender. In the meantime FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 4 / 29 accused Ajay expired and proceedings were dropped against him on 22/09/2010. Accused Raj Kumar also expired and proceedings against him abated on 19/05/2014.
(7) On 19/04/2012 after hearing Ld counsel for the accused persons, a charge for the offence u/s 120B/170/384/511 IPC and Section 138 (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(8) In support of its case prosecution has examined in total 9 witnesses in total.
(9) PW1 HC Rishi Prakash was Duty Officer on 27/01/2007 and recorded DD entry no. 30A as Ex. PW1/1. (10) PW2 Shri Sandeep Jain is the complainant who has fully supported the prosecution case and proved his complaint as Ex. PW2/A. (11) PW3 Shri Satish Yadav was posted as HOG (Enforcement) in the office of NDPL on the date of incident. At the request of IO, he has checked the identity cards of Sandeep and Ajay from HR department and confirmed that same were fake identity cards and not issued by them. He has proved his report marked as mark PW3/X. (12) PW4 HC Banwari Lal was working as duty officer on FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 5 / 29 28/01/2007 from 1.00pm to 9.00am and on receiving the rukka sent by SI K.P.Tomar through Ct. Surender Dev he has recorded the FIR Ex. PW4/A vide DD no.6A.
(13) PW5 Ct. Surender Dev has joined the investigation on 27/01/2007 with the IO SI K.P. Tomar and has fully support the prosecution case by proving arrest of accused Ajay and Sandeep vide memo Ex. PW 5/A and Ex. PW5/B and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW5/C and Ex. PW5/D; he has proved the Icards of both the accused which were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F; he has proved the recovered identity cards as Ex. PW5/P1 and Ex. PW5/P2. He has also proved the disclosure statements as Ex. PW5/G and Ex. PW5/H respectively.
(14) PW6 Ct. Raja Ram who has recorded the DD no. 58B in Police Station Prashant Vihar and gave the same to SI K.P.Tomar for necessary action and proved the same as Ex.PW6/A. (15) PW7 Shri Deepak Jain is the eye witness to the incident and has fully supported the prosecution case stating that two persons including accused Sandeep were apprehended by the public at the main gate of Vir Apartment on 27/01/2007 at about 5.00pm as they claimed themselves to be officer of NDPL and FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 6 / 29 carried fake identity cards on which Ajay Chauhan and Sandeep were typed and proved the said identity cards as Ex.PW5/P1 and Ex. PW5/P2 respectively. He has further deposed that in the similar manner on 22/01/2007 accused Ajay alongwith other persons had come and extorted Rs. 75,000/ from him on a false plea of meter tampering and accused Ajay was accompanied by accused Mahipal, Panna Lal and Raj Kumar present in the court. (16) PW8 Inspector K.P. Tomar is the Investigating Officer of the case and deposed that on 27/01/2007 on receiving DD no. 58B pertaining to a quarrel; he alongwith Ct. Surender reached at Parvana Vihar Sector9, Rohini, Delhi where no quarrel was found and in the meanwhile Ct. Sunil reached there and handed over to him the copy of DD no. 30A which was to the effect that some persons posing themselves as NDPL officers have been apprehended at Vir Apartment, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Surender reached at Vir Apartment and found a crowd gathered there and where two persons Ajay Chauhan and Sandeep Garg were found among the crowd; Complainant Sandeep Jain also met at the spot and he handed over a written complaint as Ex. PW2/A to him and he made his endorsement on the same and prepared a tehrir as Ex.PW4/B and handed over the same to Ct. Surender Dev and he FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 7 / 29 left the spot for getting the case registered. Meanwhile, he prepared the site plan as Ex.PW8/B at the instance of Deepak Jain. Ct. Surender came there and handed over the copy of FIR and original Tehrir to him; from the possession of accused Ajay Chauhan and Sandeep two Icards of NDPL were recovered and same were seized by him vide seizure memo as Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F; both the accused made their disclosure statements and in pursuance to their disclosure statements, accused Mahipal and Raj Kumar were arrested. After completion of investigation he has prepared the chargesheet and filed the chargesheet in the court.
(17) PW9 Shri D.K. Jangala, Ld ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has conducted the TIP proceedings of accused Mahipal vide Ex. PW9/A. (18) In their statements u/s 313 CrPC accused persons denied all the allegations levelled against them stating that they were innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Accused Sandeep has examined DW1 Smt Savitri in support of his defence.
(19) I have heard Shri S.K. Tyagi advocate Ld counsel for accused Mahipal who has argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated and case of the prosecution is not proved FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 8 / 29 beyond reasonable doubt against them because of the following reasons: I. Three telephone numbers are mentioned in the complaint and IO has stated that accused Mahipal is not connected with the said telephone numbers in any manner.
II. There are contradictions in the statement of the complainant with the IO as complainant stated that he gave the complaint in the Police Station whereas IO stated that complaint was given on the spot.
III. Complainant did not name accused Mahipal in his examination inchief and he was shown to the witnesses in the Police Station when complainant lodged the complaint there.
IV. No public persons despite availability made as witnesses and only reliance of complaint cited as a witness who is complainant in case FIR no. 74/07 was made a witness who has falsely disposed about the incident having happened with him 7 days ago.
V. Accused Mahipal was not arrested at the spot and was falsely arrested from his house and was shown to the witnesses in the Police Station when complaint allegedly FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 9 / 29 given there to lodge a complaint.
VI. Recovery of Rs. 1200/ from accused Mahipal was planted as nothing was recovered from his possession.
(20) I have heard Shri L.S.Saini Advocate Ld counsel for accused Panna Lal @ Raj Bhatia and Sandeep Garg who has argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated and case of the prosecution is not proved against them because of the following reasons: I. There is no evidence against accused Panna Lal at all.
II. PW2 Sandeep Jain (complainant) is not reliable as he has stated that his statement was recorded in the Police Station whereas no statement was recorded in the Police Station and he has deposed falsely in that regard.
III. The story of the prosecution is false because despite gathering of many public persons including complainant, no one was asked to sign the arrest memo, personal search memo and seizure memo prepared at the spot which shows that entire prosecution story is false.
IV. Complainant PW2 Sandeep Jain FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 10 / 29 has deposed extra facts in his examinationinchief which has been confronted in the crossexamination hence not reliable.
V. The deposition of PW5 Ct.Surender Dev is contrary to PW2Sandeep Jain regarding written work done in Police Station as deposed by the complainant (PW2) whereas PW5 Ct. Surender Dev stated that it was done on the spot.
VI. PW5 Ct. Surender Dev is contradicted the deposition of the IO regarding their presence on the spot only at 10.25pm whereas IO stated that they remained there till 3.00am.
VII. PW7 Deepak Jain has stated that incident was of 5.00pm whereas police stated that they came on the spot at 10.30pm.IO PW8 SI K.P.Tomar stated that he had reached at the spot at 11.15pm which shows that the entire prosecution case is false regarding apprehension of the accused persons on the spot.
VIII. There are contradictions in the deposition of PW5 Ct Surender Dev and IO PW8 SI K.P. Tomar about the presence of public persons as there are different versions about the presence of public persons and their numbers by the witnesses as IO has stated that there were 1015 persons and PW5 has FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 11 / 29 stated that there were 100 persons and complainant stated that there were 3040 persons.
IX. PW7 Deepak Jain did not name accused Panna Lal in his deposition.
X. Site plan Ex. PW8/B was not signed by the complainant or any other public person which shows that they were not present on the spot and incident has not been happened as stated in the prosecution case.
XI. IO states that they remained there 34 hours whereas complainant states that they remained on the spot for 2 hours only.
XII. There is material contradiction in the deposition of PW5 Ct. Surender Dev and the IO PW8 SI K.P. Tomar about the preparation of the rukka because PW5 states that it was prepared at 10pm and IO states that it was prepared at about 3.00am.
XIII. Arrest of the accused is illegal as name of his brother who was informed about his arrest not mentioned in the arrest memo.
XIV. Identity card which allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Sandeep Garg does not pertain to accused Sandeep Garg as it did not have his father's name.
FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 12 / 29 XV. No telephone calls record has been collected which creates a doubt in the prosecution story.
It is therefore vehementally argued that there is no cogent evidence led by the prosecution to prove its case and hence accused persons are liable to be acquitted. (21) Ld Addl. PP for the State on the other hand argued that all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to extort money from bonafide consumers of the complainant by tampering the seals of the meters installed in their premises. In pursuance to their criminal conspiracy they were indulged in impersonation as they claimed themselves to be employees of the NDPL and shown bogus identity cards to the complainant and demanded Rs. 4 lacs for settlement from him after allegedly tampering the installed meter in his premises. It is further argued that all the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and their evidence could not be assailed in their cross examination.
(22) Regarding the contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses, it is argued that the contradictions are minor in nature which has not substantially affected the prosecution case as all FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 13 / 29 the prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborated with each other on all material points.
(23) Ld Addl. PP for the State therefore vehementally argued that the case of the prosecution has been established against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and they were liable to be convicted.
(24) I have considered the rival submissions and perused the evidence on record.
(25) Accused persons have been charged for the offence u/s 120B, 171, 384/511IPC and Section 138 (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003. I proceed to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution with reference to each Sections with which accused persons have been charged.
(26) Criminal Conspiracy: The offence of the criminal conspiracy has been defined u/s 120A IPC as under: "120A: Definition of criminal conspiracy:When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 14 / 29 in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
(27) In AIR 1999 SC 1086 titled as Vijayan @ Rajan Vs State of Kerala it was held that: "To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B of the IPC it is necessary to establish that there were an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is no doubt true that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and, therefore, from established facts inference could be drawn but there must be some material from which it would be reasonable to establish a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the said conspiracy. "
(28) In John Pandian Vs State in Criminal appeal no.
452/07 decided on 03/12/2010 it was held in para no. 56 that: "Para no. 56. It is significant stage......................... in order to prove criminal conspiracy, there must be evidence direct or circumstances to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. It was further held that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of the offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. Relying on that. Pasayat,J. in Esher Singh Vs State of A.P FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 15 / 29 [2004(11) SCC 585] observed that the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all 92 means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Further, in para no. 57............................................ It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the 93 conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements: (1) agreement; (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. These decisions were thereafter considered in Navjot Sandhu's case (cited supra). In K.R.Purushothaman Vs State of Kerala [2005 (12) SCC 631] a specific observation was made to the effect that all conspirators need not take active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial act but, mere knowledge, even discussion, of the plan would not constitute conspiracy. It was further observed that each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 16 / 29 reasonable doubt and such circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion is about the guilt of the accused which can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis of the guilt is possible. We respectfully agree with the law laid down in Navjot Sandhu's case and K.R. Purushothaman's case."
(29) In E.K. Chandrasenan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR, 1995, SC 1066, has held: "The conspiracies can be proved even by circumstantial evidence; and it is really this type of evidence which is normally available to prove the conspiracy.
(30) It was submitted on behalf of the prosecution that accused persons have agreed to do illegal act by breaking the seals of electricity meter of Sandeep Jain PW2 and in pursuance to said agreement they have illegally demanded Rs. 4 lacs from him and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy pretended to hold the office of NDPL and they were not the employee of the NDPL and falsely assuming the said status they broke the seals of the meter of Sandeep Jain. There is no direct evidence regarding the said unlawful agreement between the accused persons and it has to be inferred from the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution through its witnesses to find whether the accused persons had done these illegal acts in pursuance to their criminal FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 17 / 29 conspiracy.
(31) PW2 Sandeep Jain/complainant deposed that on 27/01/2007 at about 5pm three persons came to his house and called him from his 7th floor house for checking the meter which was installed on the ground floor of the flat. He further deposed that he got the meter checked and those persons disclosed him that the seals of the meter were broken and the meter was tampered. One person out of three remained present on the ground floor and two accompanied him at his house at 7th floor and told him that the seals of his meter were broken and he had to pay penalty of Rs. 8 lacs and six months imprisonment was also possible. On insistence of the complainant about search warrants or raid warrants they gave him mobile number of one Raj Bhatia, J.E, at Lawrence Road, Delhi to whom complainant had talked on the phone who also told him to settle the said issue by giving Rs.4 lacs, otherwise he would be in trouble. He further deposed that those two boys continued to have talks on phone and pretending to call their seniors. After sometime when nobody came, one boy out of those two went for passing urine in toilet at his house but after ten minutes when he did not come back, he knocked the door of the toilet and he found that said boy had run away from the window of the toilet. He came down and found FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 18 / 29 that many public persons had gathered and saw that said boy had run away after climbing wall of the society and he was chased and apprehended in Parvana apartment. His name was disclosed to be Ajay who has expired and another boy who was present in his house revealed his name as Sandeep. The third boy was also present on the site who is identified as accused Mahipal. (32) PW7 Deepak Jain has deposed that on 27/01/2014 at about 5pm, he was at his house; he heard the noise and came out and saw near the main gate two persons were apprehended by the public including accused Sandeep showing themselves as officer of the NDPL but they were not the officers of the NDPL and they were carrying fake identity cards Ex. PW5/P1 and Ex.PW5/P2. The said identity cards were in the name of Ajay and Sandeep. He identified accused Sandeep stating that accused Ajay has expired. He further deposed that accused persons used to threat the persons and extorted money from them showing their fake identity cards and further saying to the public that the meter was tampered and used to extort money from the public. He further deposed that in the similar manner on 22/01/2007 accused Ajay accompanied by accused Mahipal, Panna Lal and Raj Kumar had extorted Rs. 75,000/ from him on a false plea of meter tampering by him.
FIR no. 75/07
State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 19 / 29 (33) PW5 Ct. Surender Dev deposed that on 27/01/2007 at
about 9.30pm he alongwith SI K.P. Tomar went to Dhir Apartment where crowd was gathered and they came to know that two fake NDPL officers were apprehended by the residents. Both the fake NDPL officers were handed over to the IO who made enquiry from both the fake NDPL officers and they disclosed their names as Ajay and Sandeep. They were arrested by the IO and recovered Icards of both accused were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F respectively. (34) PW8 Inspector K.P. Tomar is the Investigating Officer of the case who has corroborated the version of the complainant as well as PW5 Ct. Surender Dev who has accompanied him during investigation. He further deposed that from the possession of accused Ajay and Sandeep two fake Icards were recovered which were seized by him vide seizure memo as Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F respectively. Further he proved the Icards which were recovered from both the accused are Ex.PW5/P1 and Ex.PW5/P2. He has also deposed that he has sent the Icards recovered from the possession of the accused persons to the office of NDPL for verification and NDPL has given reply Ex.PW8/H in that regard. The said letter is written by Sh. Satish Yadav HOG Enforcement clarified to SHO Prashant Vihar stating FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 20 / 29 that both Icards sent to them by the IO Sh. K.P.Tomar were found forged and not issued by NDPL. He has also filed subsequent inspection carried out by the NDPL officers on the request of the complainant of this case for establishing the tampering of the meter by the accused persons and photocopy of those documents proved by the IO PW8 SI K.P.Tomar and the original of those documents has been proved by PW3 Satish Yadav as Ex. PW3/X collectively. From these documents, it has been established that meter installed in the premises of the complainant was found tampered which was inspected on the request of complainant by the official of the NDPL. The deposition of the complainant is supported by witnesses PW7Deepak Jain, PW3 Satish Yadav and IO PW8 SI K.P. Tomar and the circumstances in which accused persons used to enter the premises of the consumer of the NDPL on the pretext of checking their meter claiming themselves employee of the NDPL showing their fake Icards and in that process breaking the seals of the electricity meter and then alleging the tampering of the meter by the consumers and then extorted money stands established beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances proved undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that all the accused persons were acting under a conspiracy to commit the criminal offence by FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 21 / 29 tampering the meter of the bonafide consumers and then extorted money from them. The evidence as discussed above has sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons were involved in the offence of the criminal conspiracy as defined u/s 120A IPC and punishable u/s 120B (2)IPC. (35) Impersonation by pretending to be NDPL officers by the accused persons: All the accused persons are facing trial in this case has been charged for the offence u/s 170 r/w/s 120B IPC on the allegations that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy they pretended to hold the office as employees of NDPL and in that process they broke the seals of the meter bearing no. 961691 of K. no. 44302134485 of Shri Sandeep Jain. It has been deposed by all the material witnesses including PW2 Sandeep Jain, PW5 Ct. Surender Dev, PW7 Deepak Jain and Investigating Officer PW8 SI K.P. Tomar that fake identity cards Ex. PW5/P1 and Ex.PW5/P2 containing name of accused Ajay Chauhan (since expired) and accused Sandeep Garg (facing trial) were seized from their possession. Both these accused persons were apprehended at the time of alleged offence and the third accused Mahipal manged to run away and was later on arrested and identified by PW2 Sandeep Jain as the third person who came to his house claiming themselves NDPL officers and broke upon the FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 22 / 29 seals of his meter. It has already been held by me that all the accused persons were acting in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hatched by them wherein they used to approach the bonafide consumers claiming themselves NDPL employees and in that process they used to break open the seals of the meter and thereafter blackmailed or extorted money from these bonafide purchaser as was done in this case by them. It was argued on behalf of accused persons that the identity cards recovered from the possession of accused Sandeep Garg and Ajay Chauhan does not pertain to them as they were not containing father names of these accused persons.
(36) I have seen both the identity cards which are on record. Ex.PW5/P1 which is showing the name of accused Ajay Chauhan and Ex. PW5/P2 is showing the name of accused Sandeep Garg. The photographs of accused persons is also pasted on the said identity cards and for that reasons claim of Ld counsel for accused person that the said identity cards does not contain father's name of accused persons does not hold good and I do not find any force in the said arguments. It is so because an ordinary person on seeing the identity cards of a person with photographs and insignia of NDPL shall accept and presume the person holding the said identity card as employee of the NDPL as is FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 23 / 29 believed by the complainant in this case. Ex.PW8/H sent by PW3 Satish Yadav clearly mentioned that the identity cards recovered from the accused persons Ajay Chauhan and Sandeep were sent to the office of NDPL for verification and found to be forged and not issued by the NDPL. Thus, the deposition made by the witnesses remained unassailed and unchallenged in their cross examination and it has sufficiently established that all the three accused persons Ajay Chauhan (now deceased), Sandeep Garg and Mahipal had impersonated as NDPL employees for the purpose of tampering the meter of the complainant and thereafter extorted money from him on the pretext that complainant would face dire consequence including arrest if he did not pay the money to them. Though no identity card was recovered from the possession of accused Mahipal as such, since he was accompanying other two accused persons and run away from the spot and was acting in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by them and as such offence u/s 170IPC r/w/s 120BIPC has also been proved against them beyond reasonable doubt. (37) Extortion i.e for the offence u/s 384/511IPC r/w/s 120B IPC: The offence as defined u/s 384IPC is having the basic ingredients that accused intentionally puts the complainant in fear of any injury to complainant or to any other person, and FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 24 / 29 thereby dishonestly induces, the said person so put in fear to deliver any person any property or valuable security. The complainant PW2 Sandeep Jain has deposed that both the boys who has broken the seals of his meter told him that since seals were broken he has to pay the penalty of Rs.8 lacs and six months imprisonment was also possible. He further deposed that they asked him to settle the case with them and told him to pay Rs. 4lacs to them. He further deposed that when he asked those persons to show the search/raid warrants they gave mobile number of Raj Bhatia J.E. Lawrence Road to him and pretended to call their senior officers to the spot but nobody came; one boy out of those two boys went for passing urine in toilet at his house and run away from the window of the toilet and chased by the public persons at Parvana Apartment when he tried to flee away. His this deposition remained unchallenged in his cross examination. Thus, deposition of the complainant PW2 Sandeep Jain has sufficiently established that accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy had attempted to commit the offence of extortion by demanding money from him after breaking the seals of his meter and told him that he has to pay penalty of Rs. 8 lac to the NDPL.
(38) Offence u/s 138 (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003: All
FIR no. 75/07
State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 25 / 29
the accused persons have been chargesheeted for the offence of breaking the seals of the meter of the complainant Sandeep Jain in furtherance of criminal conspiracy.
(39) The offence u/s 138 (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides as under: "(d) Maliciously injures any meter, indicator, or apparatus belonging to a
licensee or wilfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering; "
(40) PW2 Sandeep Jain/complainant has deposed that on 27/01/2007 at about 5pm accused persons came to his house in a maurit van and called him from his 7th floor house for checking the meter installed on the ground floor of the building. He got checked the meter and they disclosed to him that the seals of the meter were broken and the meter was tampered. He further deposed that those two boys had broken the seals as he had seen while touching the seals (unone seal ko pakad kar bar bar hilaya aur woh tut gai). Ld defence counsel for accused Panna Lal @ Raj Bhatia has tried to stress that the said deposition of the complainant has been assailed in his crossexamination because FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 26 / 29 he has admitted in his crossexamination that there was no mention of maruti van in his complaint Ex. PW2/A and further that in his complaint Ex. PW2/A he has stated that seals of the meter were OK. Witness however voluntarily clarified that he has mentioned the facts in the complaint broadly and has not given the minute details in his complaint to the police. He has stated in his complaint to the police that he told those two boys that the seals of his meter were OK but he has mentioned in his complaint that they have broken the seals. Confrontation as alleged by the Ld counsel in the crossexamination is not major but minor confrontation and has not assailed the examination in chief of the witness who has categorically stated that in his presence the accused persons continued to press the seals of the meter till the same were broken. It is further proved that accused persons has broken the seals of the meter while assuming a false character of the NDPL employee. It is also established that subsequent inspection of the meter of the complainant were carried out by the NDPL in which it was established that the meter was tampered and seals were broken. Thus from the above deposition of the complainant and material on record the basic ingredients of Section 138 (d) of The Electricity Act, 2003 as discussed above has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 27 / 29 the accused persons who were acting in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy.
(41) Regarding accused Panna Lal @ Raj Bhatia, IO SI K.P.Tomar PW8 in his crossexamination by his Ld counsel stated that he has not carried out any investigation in respect of accused Panna Lal except taking his NBWs and he was not aware of any investigation about him. Ld counsel for accused Panna Lal therefore argued that there is nothing on record against accused Panna Lal in this case and nothing has been deposed by any witness regarding his involvement. Ld Addl. PP for the State on the other hand argued that accused Mahipal has refused to participate the Test Identification Parade. (42) I have considered the evidence on record and nothing has been deposed against accused Panna Lal by any witness including IO and NBW have been got issued by the IO because he is one of the main accused in another case FIR no. 74/07.
Therefore, he is accordingly acquitted. (43) Accused Ajay Chauhan has already expired and proceedings against him already stood abated vide order dated 22/09/2010.
(44) Accused Raj Kumar also expired after recording statement of accused in this case and proceedings stood abated FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 28 / 29 vide order dated 19/05/2014, (45) The deposition of all the witnesses as discussed above and because of the facts and circumstances as discussed by me, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against accused Sandeep Garg and Mahipal beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 120B IPC, u/s 384/511IPC r/w/s 120B IPC and u/s 138 (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003. I, therefore, hold accused Sandeep Garg and accused Mahipal guilty and convict them for the offence under Section 120BIPC, u/s 384/511/120B IPC and u/s 138(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 July, 2014.
th (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ (ELECTRICITY) NORTH WEST DISTRICT ROHINI :DELHI FIR no. 75/07 State Vs Mahipal etc Page no. 29 / 29