Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Sant Ram on 3 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS SANT RAM
F.I.R. No: 327/99
U/s 186/353 IPC
P.S. Defence Colony
Date of Institution of Case : 14.03.2000
Judgment Reserved for : 03.07.2012
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2012
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 54/2/2000
(b) The date of commission of offence : 05.04.1999
(c) The name of complainant : HC Sher Singh
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : Sant Ram Saini s/o
Ram Kishan Saini, R/o
House no. 232, Masjid
Moth, New Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 186/353 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 1/26
(g) The final order : Accused Convicted
u/s 186/353 IPC
(h) The date of such order : 03.07.2012
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 05.04.1999 at about 09.35 p.m. in front of 229, Masjid Moth, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Defence Colony accused Sant Ram voluntarily objected HC Sher Singh of PCR, Delhi Police i.e. a public servant from discharging his official duties as a public servant and assaulted him while he was discharging his official duties and thus thereby accused committed an offence punishable under Section 186/353 IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. accused was supplied the documents. Thereafter vide order dated 15.04.2004 charge u/s 186/353 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 2/26 examined 8 witnesses. After the PE was closed, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case and he examined two witnesses in his defence.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
4. PW1 ASI Sukhdev deposed that on 05.06.1999 he was posted as DO at PS Defence Colony and on that day at about 10.50 p.m. he registered the case FIR No.329/99 i.e. Ex. PW1/A.
5. PW2 Const. Virender Pal deposed that on 05.04.1999 he was posted at PCR Van South Distt. and on that day he was on duty from 08.00 p.m. to 08.00 a.m. He deposed that he was driver of PCR no. E16. He deposed that at about 09.30 p.m. one call was received to HC Sher Singh in charge of the PCR regarding theft of water motor. He deposed that they reached at spot at Masjid Moth, House no. 229 and found one Rajbir there who informed that his water motor was stolen and in the meantime accused Sant Ram came there. He deposed that accused was under drunk position and he started abusing HC Sher Singh. He deposed FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 3/26 that accused also torn off his shirt and on this HC Sher Singh informed the control room about the incident. He deposed that SHO P.S. Defence Colony came to the spot. He deposed that IO recorded the statement of HC Sher Singh and got lodged the FIR. He deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A and PW2/B respectively. He deposed that accused had obstructed HC Sher Singh while he was discharging his official duty and also assaulted him. He deposed that accused only put his hand on the collar of the shirt of HC Sher Singh and did not torn his shirt.
6. During his crossexamination he stated that he does not know the name of public persons who gathered at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. He denied the suggestion that accused has been lifted from his house. He denied the suggestion that accused did not obstruct HC Sher Singh while discharging his official duty or that the accused did not abused HC Sher Singh.
7. PW3 HC Bengali Ram deposed that on 05.04.1999 he was posted at PCR no. E16 from 08.00 p.m. to 08.00 a.m. and on that day at about FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 4/26 09.30 p.m. an information was received by HC Sher singh regarding theft of water motor from house no. 229, Masjid Moth and they reached there. He deposed that one Rajbir met them and when HC Sher Singh was interrogating him, accused Sant Ram came there and he was under the influence of liquor. He deposed that accused started abusing HC Sher singh. He also held the collar of HC Sher singh and also abused police. He deposed that on this HC Sher Singh informed the control room and Addl. SHO came there. He deposed that IO recorded the statement of HC Sher Singh and got lodged the FIR and he arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/A and personal search memo Ex. PW2/B. He deposed that IO recorded his statement.
8. During his crossexamination he denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case or that accused has been lifted from his house or that accused did not consume liquor. He denied the suggestion that accused did not obstruct HC Sher Singh while discharging his official duty or that the accused did not abused HC Sher Singh. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
9. PW4 HC Sher Singh deposed that on 05.04.1999 he was posted as FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 5/26 Incharge on PCR van no. E16 and on that day he was on duty from 08.00 p.m. to 08.00 a.m. and on that day at about 09.30 p.m. they received information regarding theft of water motor from house no. 229, Masjid Moth. He deposed that they reached there and one Rajbir met them and when he was interrogating him, in the meantime accused Sant Ram started abusing him. He deposed that accused was in drunken condition. He deposed that he caught hold of his collar. He deposed that he tried to make understand the accused not to caught hold him but he continued abusing him and on this he informed the control room. He deposed that SHO/IO of this case came there and he recorded his statement Ex. PW4/A. He deposed that IO prepared rukka and got registered the case. He deposed that IO arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/A and personal search memo Ex. PW2/B.
10. During his crossexamination he stated that he received the message from the control room regarding theft of motor of Rajbir. He stated that public persons also gathered there and they also tried to make the accused understand to not to do so, but he declined their request. He stated that IO did not record the statement of accused at the spot. He stated that there were 3 persons in PCR Van including him. He stated that FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 6/26 SHO took the accused to PS. He stated that IO did not prepare site plan at the spot in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that the accused was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in this case. He denied the suggestion that accused did not abuse him.
11. PW5 Kapur Singh deposed that on 18.09.1999 he was posted as ACP South Zone, PCR and on that day he submitted the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. in the court of Ld. ACMM, copy of same is Ex. PW5/A. He deposed that accused Sant Ram had obstructed HC Sher singh while he was discharging his official duty as Incharge PCR Van E16.
12. PW6 Const. Jagdish deposed that on 05.04.1999 he was posted as Constable at PS Defence Colony and on receiving DD no. 28A he along with HC Babudin reached at the spot at 229, Masjid Moth at about 09.40 p.m. and there they found that PCR Van E16 was present and HC Incharge PCR van namely Sher Singh was also present along with driver namely Const. Virender and Gun Man Bangali Ram. He deposed that HC Sher Singh produced the accused Sant Ram to them and HC Sher Singh also made complaint against accused Sant Ram regarding obstructing him FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 7/26 while he was discharging his duties. He deposed that IO HC Babudin recorded his statement and prepared rukka. He deposed that he took the same to PS for registration of the case and after registration of the case he returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka. He deposed that he also brought HC Sher Singh to the hospital for medical examination and returned back at the spot. He deposed that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/B. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO.
13. PW7 Insp. H.M. Bakshi deposed that on 05.04.1999 he was posted as SHO, P.S. Defence Colony and on that day he received a wireless call regarding the quarrel taken place at Masjid Moth between the PCR staff and the public. He deposed that he reached at the spot along with his staff. He deposed that PCR staff was also present at the spot. He deposed that after giving the relevant instruction he returned back to the PS. He deposed that he prepared the challan on 20.09.99 and the same was put in the court.
14. During his crossexamination he stated that he remained at the spot FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 8/26 for 5 to 7 minutes only. He stated that HC Babudin had examined the complainant before his reaching at the spot. He stated that IO did not record the statement of any witness in his presence till he remained at the spot. He stated that he came to know the name of the complainant HC Sher Singh from the PCR Staff. He stated that when he reached at the spot he came to know that the FIR was not registered by that time. He stated that 5 to 7 public persons were present at the spot. He stated that the place where he reached i.e. spot was near the residential area. He stated that he could not recollect whether the shamiyana (tent) was installed at the spot or not. He stated that he give directions to the IO and he returned back to the PS.
15. PW 8 SI B.D. Khan deposed that on 05.04.1999 he was posted as HC at PS Defence Colony and on that day on receipt of DD no. 38 A, he along with Ct. Jagdish reached at the spot i.e. 229, Masjid Moth at about 9.40 pm where they met HC Sher Singh Incharge PCR Van, driver Ct. Virender, Gunman Ct. Bangali Ram along with the PCR Van Eagle 16 I/C. He deposed that they handed over accused Sant Ram who was already apprehended by them. He deposed that HC Sher Singh made a complaint to him regarding the obstruction made by accused Sant Ram in FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 9/26 performance of his duties which is Ex.PW4/A. He deposed that on this, he prepared the rukka i.e. Ex.PW8/A. He deposed that at about 10.35 pm, he handed over the rukka to Ct. Jagdish who took the same to PS and came back to the spot along with the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/A and original rukka. He deposed that thereafter, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A. He deposed that he also conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo Ex.PW2/B. He deposed that he also prepared the site plan at the spot i.e. Ex.PW8/B. He deposed that he recorded the statement of driver Ct. Virender, Gunman Ct. Bangali Ram and Ct. Jagdish at the spot u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He deposed that he also took accused Sant Ram for medical examination to AIIMS Hospital. He deposed that he also received the complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. from ACP Sh. Kapoor Singh Dalal which is Ex.PW5/A.
16. During his crossexamination he stated that he received the DD entry no.38A, but he does not remember the exact time at which he received the DD entry. He stated that he reached at the spot at about 9.35 pm. He stated that when he reached at the spot, he met HC Sher Singh, Ct. Virender, Gunman Ct. Bangali Ram with PCR Van along with apprehended accused Sant Ram. He stated that he recorded the FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 10/26 statement of all the above said police personnel at the spot. He stated that he remained at the spot for around one and half hour. He stated that PCR Van went there for the investigation of the offence of theft of water motor. He stated that one Rajbir was also present there who made the call for the theft of water motor. He stated that he cannot say whether there was any tent. He stated that he has not seen the log book of PCR Van. He stated that he does not remember whether he has taken any entry from the PCR log book. He stated that he has not taken on record any complaint of water motor theft made by one Rajbir. He stated that he has seen wrinkle on the uniform of HC Sher Singh. He stated that when he reached at the spot 12 public persons were there on the spot. He voluntarily added that he asked them to join the investigation but they refused and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. He admitted that he got conducted the medical examination of the accused at AIIMS hospital. He voluntarily added that the doctor who conducted the medical examination of the accused gave his opinion on the application for medical examination itself in which he stated that accused had consumed Alcohol. He stated that he has not taken any MLC on record. He stated that he also recorded the statement of HC Sher Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C. but he does not remember the exact date and place where he recorded the statement. He FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 11/26 denied the suggestion that the accused Sant Ram was not drunk and PCR official called him from his house and asked some question about the theft of the water motor and he explained everything but police officials misbehaved with the accused Sant Ram and falsely implicated him in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
17. This so far is the prosecution evidence in the matter. The accused also examined two witnesses in his defence.
18. DW1 Subhash deposed that on 05.04.1999 at about 09.0009.30 p.m. 34 police officials came at the house of accused Sant Ram and they brought accused out of the house and started abusing and beating him. He deposed that police officials were also under the influence of liquor and they called police personnels from local police station and thereafter they all left the spot to their respective places.
19. During his crossexamination he stated that he does not know the names of police officials. He stated that the police officials who came first at the house might be the PCR police officials or the one who patrol the area. He stated that police officials who came to the residence of Sant FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 12/26 Ram did not give any reason of their arrival. He again said police officials came on the complaint of some neighbor regarding some previous enmity/quarrel between the accused and his neighborer. He stated that on that day it was tervi of grandmother of Sant Ram. He stated that today he has not brought the death certificate of grandmother of Sant Ram. He denied the suggestion that accused was drunk on the day of incident. He denied the suggestion that the accused had assaulted the police officials however certain altercations took place between the accused and the police officials. He stated that he does not remember the exact altercation which took place between them. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
20. DW2 Raj Kumar deposed that on 05.04.1999 it was the tervi of grandmother of the accused and at about 08.0009.00 p.m. he had attended the ceremony. He deposed that he heard certain noises and when he went out he saw 45 police officials grappling with the accused i.e. they were assaulting him. He deposed that he along with others intervened and tried to save the accused but the police officials pushed them also and thereafter they went back to their house.
FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 13/26
21. During his cross examination he admitted that the tervi ceremony is over by 34 p.m. i.e. before sunset. He stated that his house is at a distance of 400500 meters. He stated that police came to the spot as there was some theft complaint. He stated that he does not know who had given the complaint. He stated that police had not come to the house of Sant Ram but to some other neighbors house. He stated that he does not know whether the accused was drunk or not. He stated that he does not know whether the police personnels were drunk or not. He stated that he did not ask the accused as to the why police was quarreling with him. He stated that till date he does not know why the police had quarreled with the accused. He denied suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
22. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the learned defence counsel as also learned APP and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
23. After going through the material on record and giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at bar I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against the accused.
FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 14/26
24. It stands proved from the deposition of complainant HC Sher Singh who was examined as PW4 and whose deposition was duly corroborated by PW2 and PW3 i.e. other PCR officials and the police witnesses that on 05.04.1999 accused Sant Ram had voluntarily obstructed HC Sher Singh from discharging his public/official duty and also used criminal force against him in the process.
25. Complainant HC Sher Singh was examined as PW4 and he categorically proved that on 05.04.1999 while he was posted at PCR E16 on receipt of a theft complaint he reached at house no. 229, Masjid Moth and while he was interrogating one Rajbir accused Sant Ram who was drunk started abusing him. He proved that he caught hold of him and kept abusing him on which he informed the control room and the SHO and the IO came there and recorded his statement Ex. PW4/A. He also proved the arrest of the accused vide Ex. PW2/A and B.
26. His testimony was duly corroborated by the other PCR officials i.e. PW2 Const. Virender Pal and PW3 HC Bengali Ram who were posted as driver and gunman on PCR no. E16. Both these eye witnesses proved the incident dated 05.04.1999 and consistently deposed against the accused FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 15/26 and corroborated the testimony of PW4 on material particulars. I find no flaw/inconsistency in their testimonies.
27. Further credence to the prosecution story was lend by PW6 Const. Jagdish and PW8 SI B.D. Khan i.e. the IO who corroborated the claims of complainant and other PCR officials as well as proved the arrest of the accused at the instance of complainant from the spot vide documents Ex. PW2/A and B. IO further proved rukka Ex. PW8/A which was recorded on the complaint of HC Sher Singh i.e. Ex. PW4/A as well as site plan of spot as Ex. PW8/B.
28. The FIR regarding the incident was further proved by PW1 ASI Sukhdev as Ex. PW1/A.
29. During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence counsel vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. It was argued that no independent public person was joined in the investigation by the IO though admittedly numerous public persons had gathered at the spot at the time of alleged incident. It was argued that the prosecution is relying solely on the testimony of PCR/ police officials who FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 16/26 are hand in glove. It was argued that even the person namely Rajbir upon whose complaint the police had reached the spot was not joined in the investigation/not made a witness. It was argued that no conviction can be based upon the sole testimonies of the above officials witnesses once there is no independent corroboration.
30. However, I do not agree with the above contentions of the Ld. Defence counsel.
31. I have no reasons to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. No motive could be assigned to the complainant or other witnesses by the Ld. Defence counsel for false implication of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant i.e. HC Sher Singh or the other PCR officials or the investigating officer were inimical to the accused or had any reasons/motives to falsely implicate him. Even the cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel failed to impeach the credit of any of the prosecution witnesses.
32. As far as non joining of independent public witnesses is concerned, it is well settled principle of law that it is the quality of evidence that matters FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 17/26 and not the quantity/number of witnesses. Section 134 of the Indian Evi dence Act does not require any minimum number of witnesses to be exam ined for proving a particular fact ( Sunil Kumar V. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi SC 2004 (1) Criminal CC 524, Krishna Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6SCC 81).
33. The court/judges cannot sit in an ivory tower of isolation and ignore the fact that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to wash off their hands/desist from joining/assisting the investigation. The Court has also held that civilized people withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante and they keep them selves away from the Court unless it is in evitable. (Ambika Prasad and others Vs. State, (2002) 2 CRIMES 63 SC) and (AIR 1988 SC 696).
34. In Jawahar v. State, (Delhi) 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 336 it was further observed that (1) It is very hard these days to get association of public witnesses in criminal investigation and (2) Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any inconvenience for the sake of society. Re liance may also be placed upon the law laid down in Amar Singh V. Bal winder Singh (SC) 2003 (1) RCR Criminal 701) FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 18/26
35. Further more, there is no rule of law that police official/official wit nesses ought not to be believed/relied upon. Police official/official witness es do not suffer from any disability to give evidence and their official ca pacity by itself does not create any doubt about their credit worthiness. They cannot be presumed to be less or more reliable then any other nor mal public witness. Reliance may be placed upon Izzazul V. State (Delhi) 2007 (4) RCR Criminal 315, Kala Singh v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1995 A.I.R. (SC) 1948 and J awahar v. State, (Delhi) 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal)
336.
36. In the case at hand the testimony of complainant HC Sher Singh is itself sufficient to nail the accused. I find no reasons why he would falsely implicate the accused. Merely because the IO did not join any indepen dent public person including Rajbir that by itself does not rendered the tes timony of complainant unreliable. Moreover, in incidents like the one at hand the locality people/neighborers do not help the police or the investi gating agency and instead they support the local resident.
37. It was also one of the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that the IO even did not collect any documents from PCR/control room i.e log book etc FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 19/26 to corroborate the claims of HC Sher Singh and other PCR officials that they had reached the spot upon receipt of a theft complaint. It was argued that this itself proves that the entire story is concocted one. However I find no merit in the above submissions of the Ld. Defence Counsel. No doubt, IO did not collect the above documents/information which was es sential/important however just because the IO carried on a negligent inves tigation or his investigation lacked professionalism it cannot be presumed that prosecution case was false or the complainant was lying. The law is well settled that an accused should not be allowed to go scott free or the complainant be disbelieved for defective investigation (Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1995 A.I.R. (SC) 84 and Amar Singh Vs. Bal winder Singh 2003 AIR SCW 717). An accused should not be allowed to go scot free merely on account of faulty/negligent investigation. Every faulty investigation or padding in evidence cannot by itself lead to total de molition of prosecution case if it can otherwise stand ignoring these falla cies. (Lakshmi v. State of UP (SC) 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 82). Mere faulty investigation cannot be made basis of acquitting the accused when sufficient evidence is available to nail him (Ram Parshad v. State of Haryana, (P & H) (DB) 1992(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 231). In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujrat (SC), 2004 (4) S.C.C 158 and FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 20/26 State of UP v. Jagdeo (SC) 2003 A.I.R. (SC) 660 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that accused should not be acquitted solely on account of the defect in investigation. To do so would tantamount to playing into hands of investigating officer if investigation is designedly defective.
38. HC Sher Singh had given his complaint Ex. PW4/A regarding the in cident to the IO and the moment he gave his complaint his role was over. Thereafter it was upto the IO to collect the evidence/necessary documents in support of the complaint of HC Sher Singh as well as to join independent witnesses of the locality. But as it is evident the IO failed to do so. Howev er as discussed above HC sher Singh cannot be blamed or disbelieved for the same.
39. It was also argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that though the prosecu tion claimed that accused was drunk at the time of incident however the prosecution did not examine any doctor and could not prove any MLC or other medical documents in support of its claim which itself proves that the complainant was deposing falsely and the prosecution story was a false and fabricated one. This line of argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel too is devoid of merit. The complainant as well as the other PCR officials cate FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 21/26 gorically proved that at the time of incident the accused was in drunk con dition. IO SI B.D. Khan in his deposition stated that he had taken the ac cused for medical examination at AIIMS hospital. No doubt there is no MLC on record however as was explained by the IO that he had taken the accused for medical examination and moved an application before the CMO AIIMS and after examining the accused the doctor gave his opinion upon his application itself. The said application of the IO is DD no. 38 and opinion of doctor which appear on it makes it crystal clear that the accused had smell of alcohol in his breath. Furthermore, a suggestion was given to IO SI B.D. Khan in his crossexamination which read as "It is correct that I got conducted the medical examination of the accused AIIMS". Hence the defence could not dislodged the prosecution story that the ac cused was got medically examined and the prosecution on its part duly proved that the accused was medically examined and that at the time of examination he smelt of alcohol.
40. At this stage I would like to highlight the answers given by the ac cused Sant Ram during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Sant Ram during his examination gave the following answer to question no. 3 as was put to him:
FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 22/26 "..... ...... They dragged me till the spot i.e. house no. 229, Masjid Moth and inquired about the motor theft and I told them I do not know anything. And thereafter they took me to PS and after medical examination I was arrested."
41. The above answer is admissible in evidence against the accused in view of sub clause 4 of section 313 Cr.P.C. and the law laid in cases titled as Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh, (SC) 2002(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 842, Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (SC) 1997 A.I.R. (SC) 768, Sh. Mith kalitha V. State of Assam 2006 Cr.l.J. 2570, State of Rajasthan V. Ganesh Dass 1995 Cr.L.J. 25 (Raj.), Bishwas Prasad Sinha V. State of Assam 2007 (1) Crimes 147 (SC), Anthoney Disuja V State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 258, State of H.P. V. Wazir Chand AIR 1978 SC 315 and it goes on to prove that the complainant/PCR officials had indeed reached the spot in pursuant to the complaint of theft. It also goes on to prove that the accused was indeed medically examined after the incident. The above answer itself weakens the defence/arguments advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel regarding the theft complaint and the medical examination.
FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 23/26
42. The last line of argument adopted by Ld. Defence counsel was that the manner in which sanction/complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. was drafted/written by the then ACP and filed in the court of Ld. ACMM i.e. Ex. PW5/A itself proves that the prosecution story had no basis and was full of lies. It was argued that though on the first page of the complaint name of accused Sant Ram appeared however on the second page the name of accused finds no mention and instead it is written "accused Satish may kindly be put on trial ".
It was argued that this proves the complaint was drafted in a routine manner without applying the mind and that the accused has been falsely implicated. However I do not agree with the Ld. Defence counsel as firstly the then ACP Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW5) who had given the complaint Ex. PW5/A was not crossexamined by the defence during the trial. Secondly, the name of Satish which appears on the second page seems to be merely an error which does not demerit the complaint or the depositions of the complainant and other witnesses as recorded in the court. The complaint is a formal in nature and the outcome of trial depend more upon the depositions/statements of parties as recorded in the court rather than the formal complaint i.e. Ex. PW5/A. Moreover, the first page of complaint elaborately narrates/discusses the entire incident dated 05.04.1999 and establishes the identity of the complainant as well as that FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 24/26 of accused. The error on the second page i.e. name of Satish instead of Sant Ram can be easily ignored. It may have appeared for numerous reasons for example human error or slipping of name etc. which need not be discussed herein at length.
43. As far as the defence evidence is concerned the testimony of de fence witnesses did not inspire confidence and was full of material incon sistencies. Though DW1 claimed that police officials were under the influ ence of alcohol however DW2 stated that he does not know whether the police personnels were drunk or not. DW1 claimed that he does not know the reasons why the police came to the spot. However DW2 stated that the police had come to inquire about a theft complaint. Both of them failed to give the names of police personnels. Moreover though the witnesses claimed that they were present at the spot/house of the accused as it was tervi of his mother however the same does not inspire confidence as the in cident is of 9/09.30 p.m. and tervi ceremonies usually get over in the noon or positively before the sunset.
44. Thus, in view of my above discussion accused is held guilty and con victed u/s 186/353 IPC FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 25/26
45. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost and the matter be now listed for arguments on the point of sentence. Announced in the open Court on 03.07.2012 (Gaurav Rao) MM/SD/ New Delhi.
FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 26/26
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: SOUTH: DELHI
In Re: STATE V/s SANT RAM
F.I.R. No.: 327/99
U/s 186/353 IPC
P.S. Defence Colony
ORDER ON SENTENCE
20.07.2012
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Sant Ram is present along with his counsel. Vide judgment announced on 03.07.2012 accused Sant Ram was convicted u/s 186/353 IPC.
The learned defence counsel has submitted that convict has been facing trial for the last more than 13 years and the same itself has been enough punishment for him. It was submitted that the convict is a government servant working as Assistant Sanitary Inspector, MCD and if FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 27/26 he is sent behind the bar it shall have an adverse affect on his service/ career. It was submitted that he has clean antecedents and is not involved in any criminal activity. It was submitted that he has a large family including two minor children to look after. It was also prayed the accused be given benefit of probation of offenders Act.
Per contra, learned APP has very vehemently argued that the act of the accused is unpardonable and the accused is despite being a government servant assaulted police officials while they were discharging their officials duties.
After giving my thoughtful to the submissions made at bar and in particular the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that taking into account:
1) the age of the accused he is around 47 years old and his clean antecedents,
2) His family responsibilities, he being the sole bread earner and three other lives dependent upon him,
3) He is a government servant,
4) The long drawn trial, It shall meet the ends of justice if the accused is given the FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 28/26 benefit of Section 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. I accordingly grant him benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He be released on a probation of good conduct for a period of six months subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with one surety in the like amount with directions to maintain peace and be of good behavior. If he fails to do so then he will be sentenced as per the punishment provided u/s 186/353 IPC.
Benefit of Section 12 automatically accrues to the accused. At the same time, I am of the opinion that it is also in the interest of justice that the accused deposits a sum of Rs. 30,000/ with the DLSA as costs of the proceedings in terms of Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He is directed to deposit the amount as a condition precedent for obtaining benefit of Section 4 as awarded above.
I order accordingly.
A copy of this order be given to the convict free of cost. Amount deposited vide receipt no. 64140.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Gaurav Rao) on 20.07.2012 MM (SD): Delhi FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 29/26 FIR No.327/99 State Vs.Sant Ram 30/26