Delhi District Court
State vs . on 8 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH TEWARI ASJVI (OUTER),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. 219/10
FIR NO. 148/08
U/S 489 C IPC & 489 B/34 IPC
PS Nangloi
Unique Case ID No. :02404R0015312008
State
Vs.
1. Surender @ Naresh
S/o.Sh.Rameshwar Mehto.
R/o. Village Surajpur, P.S. Peepara Kothi,
District Mohihari, Bihar.
2. Smt. Shiv Kumari @ Neelam
W/o Sh. Surender @ Naresh
R/o. C block, Gali No.7, Dass Garden,
Baprola, Delhi.
Permanent R/o. Village Surajpur,
P.S. Peepara Kothi,
District Mohihari, Bihar.
3. Smt. Jubeda Khatoon @ Sangeeta
W/o. Mohd. Riyaz
R/o.Village Laxmipur,
P.S. Raksaul, District Motihari, Bihar.
Date when committed to the court of Sessions : 31.05.2008.
Date when case reserved for judgment : 28.09.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 08.10.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.03.08, ASI SC No.219/10 Page 1/12 Omprakash, HC Phool Kumar, Ct. Rajesh, Lady Ct. Sarita was on patrolling and crime detection duty and was present at Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar and at about 7.45 p.m., a secret informer informed that one male and two females who were residents of Dass Garden and were dealing in counterfeit currency notes would deal in the same on that day at about 8 p.m. and would come in a bus from the Najafgarh side and would alight of the bus at Baprola Bus Stand and would be having counterfeit currency notes in plenty and they would be caught by dealing in the said currency notes with the police and on this information, the ASI requested 4/5 passers by to join the raid party but none agreed and thereafter, the raid party was organized consisting of the said police officials and including the secret informer and at about 8.20 p.m. reached at the said bus stand Baprola and HC Phool Kumar was deputed as decoy customer and on the happening of the deal he should give a prefixed signal and remaining members of the raid party hide themselves behind a wall and at about 8.30 p.m. one male and two females alighted of the bus with whom the decoy customer carried out the deal in the said currency notes in a gali by the side of a temple and as per which the said three persons agreed to sell the counterfeit currency notes worth Rs.70,000/ for a sum of Rs.35,000/ and SC No.219/10 Page 2/12 the said male whose name was accused Surender @ Naresh was having a polythene containing one packet, his wife accused Shiv Kumari @ Neelam and his sister accused Jubeda Khatoon @ Sangeeta were also having polythenes in their respective hands containing three packets of the said counterfeit currency notes which were shown to the decoy customer on which the said HC Phool Kumar gave the prefixed signal and at about 8.40 p.m., the said three persons were apprehended and on inquiry, their names revealed as mentioned above who were searched and the polythene taken from the hand of the accused Surender @ Naresh were containing the said fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/ each were 30 in numbers starting with serial number 9AG three in number and 6DN, 27 in number and from the polythene in the hand of accused Shiv Kumari @ Neelam the twenty fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/ each out of which 12 currency notes were having series of 6 DH and 8 currency notes of series 8AT and from the polythene in the hands of accused Jubeda Khatoon, 20 fake currency notes were recovered out of which 13 currency notes were of the series 9 AT and 2 currency notes were of the series 4AC and 1 currency note was of the series 8BN and the said currency notes recovered from the said three accused were kept SC No.219/10 Page 3/12 in the same polythenes and three parcels were prepared which were sealed with seal of OP and seal after use was given to HC Phool Kumar and were seized and thereafter, a rukka was prepared which was given to constable Rajesh to be taken to the PS for registration of the FIR.
2. During further investigation, the said ASI prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of witnesses, arrested the three accused and recorded their respective disclosure statements and they were produced in the court and police custody remand was obtained so that the supplier of the said currency notes could be arrested and when accused Jubeda Khatoon was taken to Bihar at her native place and when the train reached at Sitapur Railway station at about 3.30 a.m. accused Jubeda Khatoon after pushing the lady constable Sarita escaped from the police custody and disappeared regarding which FIR no.6/08 u/s.224 IPC at PS Sita Pur, GRP (UP) was got registered and the ASI along with the said police official came back to Delhi and matter was brought to the notice of the senior police officials and thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to SI Raj Kumar who obtained the police custody remand of accused Surender and he was taken in search of the said absconded accused Jubeda Khatoon but she could not be traced out and thereafter, the said fake currency SC No.219/10 Page 4/12 notes were sent to Government Printing Press, Nasik, Maharashtra regarding which the report was placed on the record subsequently and the charge sheet was filed against the accused.
3. On the basis of the said evidence and the charge sheet vide order of my Ld. Predecessor dated 15.09.08, charge was framed against the accused Surender @ Naresh and accused Shiv Kumari @ Neelam u/s.489B/34 IPC and separate charge u/s.489C IPC was also framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide my order dt. 16.12.11 amended charge was framed u/s.489 C against accused Jubeda Khatoon @ Sangeeta and a separate amended charge u/s.489 B/34 IPC was also framed against all the three said accused persons as accused Jubeda Khatoon was subsequently arrested and produced in the court after her said escape from the said railway station, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has produced as many as seven witnesses, relevant of which have been discussed below.
5. The statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded wherein they pleaded their innocence and denied the SC No.219/10 Page 5/12 incriminating evidence against them as false and did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the state, Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Advocate for the accused and perused the record.
7. PW 1 is the HC Jai Bhagwan who was the duty officer who proved the FIR Ex.PW1/A. PW2 SI Raj Kumar was the subsequent IO who deposed regarding search of the accused Jubeda Khatoon after obtaining the police custody remand of accused Surender @ Naresh and he further deposed that he took the priority letter Ex.PW2/A to FSL Calcutta to collect the result and sample seal which was sent through Ct. Rajesh to the said official and he prepared the report u/s. 173 Cr.P.C. PW3 HC Narender Kumar was the MHC(M) who deposed regarding deposit of the said currency notes in the malkhana and sending the said parcels of currency notes to Nasik, Currency Note Press , Maharashtra of the Government of India and on 14.12.08, the result of the said Government Press along with one sealed parcel was received back and the result was given to the ASI Abhinandan to deposit in the court and said parcel was deposited in the malkhana. PW 7 HC Satyapal deposited the said parcel of the currency notes at the said government press at Nasik Road, SC No.219/10 Page 6/12 Nasik Maharashtra.
8. The report of the said Government Press was placed on record on 28.10.09 which is dt.12.12.08 and is signed by Assistant Works Manager, Gazetted Officer, Class I for General Manager, Currency Note Press, Nasik Road, Maharashtra which is admissible u/s. 292/293 of the Chapter XXIII Cr.P.C. and as such it was not required to be exhibited formally which is otherwise admissible in the evidence.
9. PW 4 Lady Ct. Sarita, PW5 ASI Phool Kumar, PW6 Ct. Rajesh Kumar were the witnesses who were members of the raid party and they deposed in their respective examination in chief about the facts on the lines on the basis of which the said FIR reproduced above was registered and they proved 30 currency notes recovered from accused Surender collectively as Ex.P1/ 1 30, the twenty currency recovered from accused Shiv Kumar as Ex.P2/120 and currency notes recovered from accused Jubeda Khatoon as Ex.P3/130 but their respective cross examination is full of such material contradictions which can not be reconciled at all, making the recovery doubtful and examples of the same may be given as mentioned below.
10. PW4 Lady Ct. Sarita is almost silent on every aspect of the case SC No.219/10 Page 7/12 in her cross examination as she did not remember the time of their leaving the PS for patrolling duty and even she could not tell as to whether it was afternoon or evening whereas PW 5 gave the time of leaving the PS at about 7/ 7.15 p.m. but for PW 6 this time was 7 p.m. .
11. For PW4 the patrolling police party was on foot whereas for PW5 they left the PS for patrolling on two motorcycles and one scooter and he was on his motorcycle along with Ct. Rajesh and lady Ct. Sarita was along with ASI Omprakash on his motorcycle but again, PW 6 gave another story that they left the PS on three motorcycles and he was on his motorcycle along with Lady Ct. Sarita.
12. For PW4, they all were present when the secret informer told them about the said information regarding the accused but PW5 and PW6 maintained that the secret information was given by the informer to the IO separately which was not reduced into writing nor given to the senior police officials and IO verbally narrated the said information to them.
13. Regarding the departure DD while leaving the PS, PW4 was having no knowledge of the same but PW5 maintained that a departure entry was made by the DD writer but he did not SC No.219/10 Page 8/12 remember its number and he did not remember if he put his signatures on the DD register or not but PW6 says that the departure entry was made by ASI Omprakash but he did not remember its number and that he (the witness) had put his signatures on the DD register.
14. Again, PW4 claimed that she was in police uniform but she did not remember about the other members of the raid party whereas for PW5, they all were in plain clothes and yet for PW6, he was wearing his uniform but he could not tell if ASI Omprakash was also in uniform or not.
15. All the three witnesses have claimed that the place where accused were apprehended was thickly populated area but PW4 answered in her cross examination that she did not count the public persons present at the Baprola Bus stand which was situated on the main Rohtak Road and no notice was given to public person who refused to join the raid party and she did not remember if there were shops near the place of information and she further answered that the Shiv Mandir was just near the bus stand but none was called from the Shiv Mandir to join the raid party but the persons present at the said bus stand were asked to join the raid party who refused. PW5 in this regard answered SC No.219/10 Page 9/12 that there were houses as well as shops on the one side of the said bus stand but no public person was called from the houses and the shops to join the raid party and that there were 4/5 public persons present at the bus stand at that time and that no one was called from the said Shiv Mandir and yet PW6 has another story to tell about the said fact who admitted that place where information was received was a residential area and there were some shops also in the said colony at that time and from the said houses no one was called by the IO to join the raid party and he answered that the place where the accused were apprehended was a busy road and there were houses as well as shops in front of the said Mandir and ASI Omprakash called some public persons from nearby shops but none joined and since the public persons did not disclose their names, no action was taken against them.
16. Regarding the time when the said police officials finally left the spot after all the proceedings, PW4 could not tell the exact time when they left the spot and PW5 gave the time of leaving the spot finally at about 1 a.m. and the said time of leaving the spot finally for PW6, was 1.30 a.m.
17. Apart from the said material contradictions, there are some SC No.219/10 Page 10/12 unusual things which are against the ordinary course of human conduct and are not appealing to the common sense. Admittedly, there was no previous information that accused would deal with some known or specific person and it is most unlikely that suddenly they would agree to sell the currency notes to the said decoy customer PW5 who was admittedly unknown to them and that too, while carrying the said fake currency notes in polythene in their respective hands as they are carrying not the fake currency notes but some vegetables or chattels for their use. Surprisingly, the accused were not even hiding those currency notes before the alleged deal took place and even without ensuring that the decoy customer was having Rs.35,000/ or some other real money to give their consideration for selling the said fake currency notes. No bus number or its route number is mentioned in any of the statements of the said three PWs which is a surprising fact which can not be believed as such and for the further reason that in their respective cross examinations, the PW4 and PW5 answered that it was a Blue Line bus whereas PW6 maintained that it was a private bus of route 708 from Najafgarh to Narela. Admittedly, ASI Om Prakash, the IO has not been examined in the case who stated to have suffered a paralytic attack and was not in a position to speak properly and SC No.219/10 Page 11/12 the documents were allowed to be proved by way of secondary evidence by PW6 Ct. Rajesh by way of his reexamination. Thus, the evidence if read in totality, gives the only inference that the true picture of the whole case has not been produced before the court by way of the said charge sheet.
18. In view of my above said discussion, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus, they are acquitted of the charges u/s. 489B and 489C/34 IPC. Their personal bonds and surety bonds are hereby discharged. The file be consigned to the Record Room. (Announced in the open court on 08.10.2012) (RAKESH TEWARI) ASJ06(OUTER) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No.219/10 Page 12/12