Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu (Fir No. 318/11) on 16 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 04
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLND010146122017
SC No. 385/2017
FIR No. 318/11
PS - Vasant Kunj (S)
U/s 327/379/511 IPC
State
Vs
Sonu
S/o Sh. Manu Dev Sharma
R/o Near Talab, Village Ghitorni
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 26.05.2017
Date of Arguments : 16.11.2017
Date of Judgment : 16.11.2017
AND
CNR No. DLND010001892012
SC No. 8837/2016
FIR No. 319/11
PS - Vasant Kunj (S)
U/s 186/353/332/333/34 IPC
State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11)
State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11)
PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 1/20
State
Vs
1. Priyanka
W/o Sh. Sonu
R/o Village Ghitorni
New Delhi.
2. Rakhi
W/o Sh. Lokesh
R/o Village Ghitorni
New Delhi.
3. Sonu Dev Sharma
S/o Sh. Manu Dev Sharma
R/o Near Talab, Village Ghitorni
New Delhi.
4. Jagbir
S/o Sh. Ram Pal
R/o H. No. 135, Mangu Mohalla,
Village Ghitorni, New Delhi.
5. Sonu
S/o Sh. Mahavir
R/o H. No. 139, Mangu Mohalla,
Village Ghitorni, New Delhi.
State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11)
State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11)
PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 2/20
6. Anil @ Lambu
S/o Sh. Rishi Pal
R/o H. No. 139, Gadiya/Mangu Mohalla,
Village Ghitorni, New Delhi.
7. Satpal @ Gullu
S/o Sh. Mahavir
R/o H. No. 139, Mangu Mohalla,
Village Ghitorni, New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 27.01.2014
Date of Arguments : 16.11.2017
Date of Judgment : 16.11.2017
JUDGMENT:
1. This common judgment shall decide the cases arising out of FIR no. 318/11 u/s 327/379/511 IPC and FIR no. 319/11 u/s 186/353/333/332 IPC, both PSVasant Kunj (S).
2. Both the FIRs arose from the alleged incident which took place on the intervening night of 2021/11/11. As per the complaint on which FIR no. 318/11 was lodged, complainant Yogender stated that on intervening night of State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 3/20 2021/11/11, he was returning to his home at Ghitorni, in the night. At about 12.10 am when he reached near Ghitorni pond, accused Sonu along with one Sandeep came there and started abusing him and asked for his laptop. He refused to give his laptop. Accused Sonu and Sandeep, then attempted to snatch his laptop and started beating him. He then called at 100 number to police. Meanwhile one Jagbir Singh, from the village came and he made Sonu and Sandeep, to flee from the spot. Meanwhile, PCR and two constables from the PS came at the spot. PCR people stopped Jagbir and handed over him to police constables. PCR then left from the spot. Thereafter, Jagbir called 34 boys. Meanwhile wife of Sonu Ms. Priyanka and sister Rakhi, also reached at the spot. They all started beating the police officials. Complainant again called PCR at 100 number. Name of police officials who were beaten by Jagbir and his associates was revealed as constable Moinuddin and constable Ashok Kumar.
3. As per tehrir this complaint of Sh. Yogender was sent from the spot at 2.35 am dated 21.11.2011 and the State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 4/20 FIR no. 318 was lodged at 3.10 am dated 21.11.2011 at PSVasant Kunj (S).
4. Another FIR no. 319/11 was lodged on the statement of constable Ashok Kumar, which was recorded on 21.11.2011. As per the original tehrir, prepared on the said statement, the same was recorded at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center (AIIMS) and was sent to PS at 4.30 am and was received in the PS vide DD no. 13A at 5.10 am dated 21.11.2011.
5. In his statement allegedly given to IO, constable Ashok Kumar stated that he was posted at PSVasant Kunj (S) and was on patrolling duty. On 21.11.2011, at about 12.30 am he received an information about quarrel and reached at the spot along with constable Moinuddin, where PCR van was already standing. Complainant Yogender and one Jagbir of Ghitorni village was present there. They told him that accused Sonu and his associates were snatching his laptop and Jagbir made snatcher flee from the spot. He further stated that PCR left the spot and he made inquiries from Jagbir. Then Jagbir called Sonu and three other boys. Sonu came along State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 5/20 with stick (danda) in his hand. Ms. Priyanka w/o Sonu and another woman also came at the spot. Accused Priyanka, caught hold of hairs of constable Moinuddin and both women started abusing them. Sonu had beaten both the constables with sticks. The other persons including both the women also beat them with fists, blows and stones.
6. After registration of both the FIRs the investigation was completed and two separate chargesheets were filed in the court.
7. Since the offence u/s 333 IPC alleged in the FIR no.
319/11, was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, after compliance of section 207 Cr.PC, learned MM committed the case to sessions for trial.
8. After completion of trial when the case was being heard at the stage of final arguments, on 12.05.2017 my learned Predecessor observed that both the files were interconnected and were arising out of same instance and both the files should be disposed of by a common judgment to avoid any conflict of opinion. Accordingly, case FIR no. 318/2011 was also called from the court of State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 6/20 learned MM and was tried together along with file of FIR no. 319/11.
In FIR no. 318/11, following witnesses were examined :
9. PW1 Yogender Kumar, is the complainant in the case and was called to prove FIR and his complaint.
10. PW2 constable Ashok, as per his deposition testified that he reached at the spot allegedly after receiving information from police station about the call made by PW1 Yogender Kumar.
11. PW3 constable, testified that he was associated with IO PW6 and took constables Ashok Kumar and Moinuddin to hospital and also took original tehrir to the police station from the hospital for registration of FIR.
12. PW4 constable Moinuddin, testified that he got injured along with constable Ashok and his uniform was torn.
13. PW5 ASI Niranjan Lal, deposed that he was the duty officer with PSVasant Kunj (S) on 21.11.2011 and registered FIR no. 318/11 Ex.PW5/A.
14. PW6 ASI Ashwani Kumar, is the IO of case and State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 7/20 has deposed on the lines of chargesheet.
In FIR no. 319/11, following witnesses were examined :
15. PW1 Sh. Yogender Kumar, he is the complainant of FIR no. 318/2011 and was also examined in the said case as PW1.
16. PW2 Constable Ashok Kumar, was also examined as PW2 in case FIR no. 318/2011.
17. PW3 constable Moinuddin, was also examined as PW4 in case FIR no. 318/2011.
18. PW4 woman constable Kavita, was associated in the arrest of accused Priyanka and Rakhi.
19. PW5 HC C.M. Meena, deposed that on 25.11.2011, he went along with IO went to Saket Court to arrest accused Sonu Sharma, who had surrendered before the court.
20. PW6 ASI Niranjan Lal, was the duty officer who recorded the FIR. He was also examined as PW5 in case FIR no. 318/2011.
21. PW7 Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar, MRT, Jai Parkash State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 8/20 Narain Trauma Centre, deposed that he was working as record clerk in Jai Parkash Narain Apex Trauma Centre and was deputed to prove MLCs of constables Moinuddin and constable Ashok Kumar.
22. PW8 constable Ved Parkash, stated that he was working in PSVasant Kunj (S) and had gone with IO to Jai Parkash Narain Apex Trauma Centre.
23. PW9 Sh. Munish Markan, learned CMM deposed that an application for TIP of accused Sonu, Satpal, Jagbir and Anil was marked to him and he fixed the TIP of accused persons. During their TIP, all accused persons refused to join the TIP despite his warning that adverse inference may be taken against him.
24. PW10 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, learned ASJ05 deposed that on 19.12.2011, on an application he fixed TIP proceedings of accused Sonu Sharma but accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings despite his warning.
25. PW11 Sh. G. Ramgopal Naik, DCP Crime Branch deposed that on 26.06.2012 PW13 ASI Vijender Singh, put a file before him and after perusal of file he gave complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC for prosecution of all accused State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 9/20 persons.
26. PW12 SI Manish, deposed that he moved separate applications for TIP of accused, Sonu, Sonu Sharma and arrested accused persons Anil @ Lamboo, Sonu, Jagbir and Satpal @ Gulluy as Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D respectively.
27. PW13 SI Vijender Kumar, is the IO of case FIR no.
319/2011.
28. Statement of accused persons were recorded separately in case FIR no. 319/2011, in which they denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them.
29. In FIR no. 318/11 also statement of accused Sonu Sharma was recorded. He also denied all the incriminating evidence against him.
30. All accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in defence.
31. Lengthy final arguments were heard.
32. Court has considered final arguments advanced by Sh. S.K. Kain, learned Addl. PP for State and Sh. Thakur Karan Singh, learned Advocate for accused persons Priyanka, Sonu Sharma and Rakhi and Sh. Jatin State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 10/20 Sharma, proxy counsel for accused persons Sonu, Satpal, Jagbir and Anil and has carefully gone through the evidence and material available on record.
33. Learned counsel for accused persons has submitted that the entire investigation has been conducted in the present case while sitting in the police station and not at all in the manner as suggested. He has further submitted that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case which is proved by the documents of the prosecution itself. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which further falsify the entire case of the prosecution.
34. The court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel that the present case or atleast the investigation in the same is fabricated. In the original tehrir by which FIR no. 318/11 was lodged it was mentioned that when police reached at the spot, meanwhile villager Jagbir Singh also came there and made Sonu and Sandeep flee from the spot. Thereafter PCR people stopped said Jagbir and handed over him to two constables. In Hindi it is mentioned "Jagbir ko roka State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 11/20 va puchtaach karke dono ko constable ke havale kar diya". It appears that in the original complaint word "ko" was inserted between the two words "dono constable". The sentence without insertion or word "ko" would mean that Jagbir was handed over to both the constables. However, word "ko" was added to change the meaning that two persons were handed over to police constables. Apart from this since beginning it is alleged that Sonu was accompanied by one Sandeep, however the said Sandeep has not been chargesheeted in either of FIRs no. 318/11 or 319/11. He was never arrested nor any attempt is shown to have been made for his apprehension.
35. From the original tehrir it appears that the same was written near village pond Ghitorni and was sent to police station at about 2.35 am after recording of statement of complainant Yogender Kumar but complainant Yogender Kumar in his crossexamination in FIR no. 318/11 stated that he had gone to police station at 7.00 am in the morning and his statement was recorded there. It is rightly submitted by counsel for State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 12/20 accused persons that if complainant had gone to police station at 7.00 am and his statement was recorded thereafter, it is not possible that IO ASI Ashwani Kumar of FIR no. 318/11, could have send his statement at 2.35 am dated 21.11.2011. Hence, the registration of FIR no. 318/11 and the investigation is under serious shadow of doubt.
36. Similarly, complainant in FIR no. 319/11 i.e. constable Ashok Kumar, had stated in his cross examination dated 23.08.2012 that his statement was recorded in the police station at about 1.30 am but as per the original tehrir upon which FIR no. 319/11 was lodged, statement of this witness was recorded at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center (AIIMS) and was sent for registration of FIR at 4.30 am. As already discussed the same was received in the police station vide DD no. 13A at 5.10 am and thereafter the FIR was registered. Hence, it is rightly submitted by learned counsel for accused persons that the police has not narrated the actual incidence and has cooked up the story might be to save their own constables i.e. Moinuddin and Ashok Kumar State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 13/20 and to implicate accused persons.
37. Apart from this in his deposition in FIR no. 319/11, constable Moinuddin categorically stated that he was posted at PSSafdarjung Enclave. The alleged spot of incidence falls within the jurisdiction of PSVasant Kunj (S). There is no order which has been placed on record to show as to how constable Moinuddin, who was working in some other police station was deployed at another police station i.e. PSVasant Kunj (S). In his crossexamination in FIR no. 319/11, he stated that only for one day he worked at PSVasant Kunj (S) and was patrolling along with constable Ashok Kumar. In the absence of any order to this effect, court cannot presume that constable of PS Safdarjung Enclave, shall be on patrolling duty in another police station with constable Ashok Kumar of PSVasant Kunj (S). Hence, the court cannot presume that constable Moinuddin was on official duty on a particular day. Hence, sections u/s 186/353/332/333 IPC cannot be invoked so far as constable Moinuddin is concerned. The association of constable Ashok Kumar and constable Moinuddin of other PS makes the story State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 14/20 further doubtful and it appears that actual facts are concealed by the police in order to safeguard their own official(s).
38. The tainted investigation in the present case is also reflected from various documents prepared during investigation which are part of the judicial record. As per testimony of PW5 HC C.M. Meena, accused Sonu Sharma was arrested on 25.11.2011. As per his conviction slip in FIR no. 318/11 also he was arrested on 25.11.2011. In FIR no. 318/11, an application for his surrender was filed before concerned court on 25.11.2011 itself. Hence, it is presumed that before 25.11.2011 there was no information with the police about the surrender of accused Sonu Sharma but application for interrogation and arrest permission of accused Sonu Sharma, which is available in the file of case FIR no. 318/11 bears the date of writing of application as 22.11.2011. On the said application the then learned MM passed an order dated 25.11.2011 for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Sonu Sharma, by the IO.
39. If the police was not aware of the surrender of State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 15/20 accused Sonu Sharma, if there was no application presented before the court, it was improbable that the application for his interrogation and arrest could have been prepared by the IO in three days advance i.e. on 22.11.2011. Counsel for accused persons has also drawn the attention of the court to the arrest memo Ex.PW6/C of accused Sonu , in the relevant column no. 6, the date and time of his arrest is mentioned as 21.11.2011 at 1430 pm. This again reflects that the arrest memo Ex.PW6/C was not prepared upon the arrest of accused Sonu or that Sonu was available with the police on 21.11.2011 itself, that is why earlier the complaint of PW1 Yogender was manipulated to add word "ko" in an attempt to show that accused Sonu and Sandeep were handed over to police constables. Arrest Memo of Sonu was also prepared but later on something transpired and none of them was arrested on 21.11.2011.
40. Apart from this counsel for accused persons has pointed out apparent and visible variation in the signatures of IO Ashwani Kumar, in different documents allegedly prepared by him. There is apparent and visible State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 16/20 variations in the signatures of IO Ashwani Kumar in various documents including disclosure statement, personal search memo, arrest memo, chargesheet as available on the record of FIR no. 318/11. Hence, the court cannot ignore the submissions of counsel for accused persons that in order to frame the accused persons, police officials continued to fabricate and manipulate the documents from time to time.
41. Further more complainant Yogender Kumar, stated that he called the PCR twice and once the PCR officials had handed over accused Jagbir to constable Yogender and Moinuddin, they left the spot. However, no such PCR official(s) has been examined in the court.
42. As per testimonies of prosecution witnesses, constable Moinuddin and constable Ashok Kumar were taken to AIIMS hospital directly from the spot. MLCs of both these witnesses reflected time of their arrival at around 2.30 am but as already discussed constable Ashok Kumar has stated that at 1.30 am he was already in the police station, where his statement was recorded. Hence, it appears that prior to going to hospital these constables State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 17/20 have visited the police station and thereafter in order to fabricate the entire story, they had got them medically examined and got registered the present case in connivance with other police officials. Further, different documents prepared from time to time themselves speak about falsehood of the police story.
43. It has come in the crossexamination of PW1 Yogender that accused Rekha and Priyanka were sitting in the police station in the night of 2021/11/11 but as per their arrest memo they are shown arrested at 8.15 am. If police made them sit in the police station during the night, it is rightly submitted by counsel for accused persons that the police officials flouted the provisions of Cr.PC as well as guidelines of the superior courts qua detention/arrest of woman. From the arrest memo of both these women it cannot be verified to whom their arrest was intimated or informed. Only a thumb impression appears in the relevant column no. 7 of their arrest memo but it is not written to whom that thumb impression belongs. Neither the name nor the particulars of said person are mentioned. The same is not even stated in the State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 18/20 chargesheet. In the facts and circumstances, it is rightly submitted that the present case appears to have been made in order to settle personal scores and to satisfy personal grudge and vendetta.
44. Considering the fabrication of documents, tainted investigation and material improvements and contradictions by the prosecution witnesses, the court is of the opinion that all accused persons are entitled for acquittal.
45. Accused persons are therefore entitled for benefit of doubt and hence acquittal. Held accordingly.
46. Accused persons are thus acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
47. Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC in the sum of Rs.20,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount.
48. Accused persons namely Priyanka, Rakhi and Sonu Sharma, have furnished their respective bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC which are accepted and shall remain effective for a period of 6 months.
49. Bail bonds of accused persons Priyanka, Rakhi and State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 19/20 Sonu Sharma, furnished during trial stand cancelled and sureties are discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the sureties, if any, be cancelled. The articles seized vide seizure memos and personal search memos of respective accused persons be released to them against proper acknowledgment.
50. Proxy counsel for accused persons Sonu, Satpal, Jagbir and Anil, seeks time to file bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC. At request, let the same be filed on 21.11.2017.
51. Case property, if any, be confiscated to State and the same may be disposed off as per rules and procedures after the lapse of period of filing of appeal.
52. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on the 16th day of November, 2017 ( Ajay Pandey ) Addl. Sessions Judge 04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 20/20 State Vs. Sonu SC no. 385/2017 FIR no. 318/11 PS: Vasant Kunj (S) 16.11.2017 Present: Sh. S. K. Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Sonu on bail along with learned Advocate Sh. Thakur Karan Singh.
Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC recorded separately. Accused choose not to lead evidence in defence.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
Accused is directed to furnish bail bond u/s 437A Cr.PC in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
Bail bond u/s 437A Cr.PC furnished by accused. The same is accepted and shall remain effective for a period of 6 months. Bail bond of accused furnished during trial stands cancelled and surety is discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the surety, if any, be cancelled. The articles seized vide seizure memos and personal search memos of accused be released to him against proper acknowledgment.
File be consigned to record room.
State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 21/20 ( Ajay Pandey ) Addl. Sessions Judge 04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/16.11.2017 State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 22/20 State Vs. Priyanka and Ors.
SC no. 10/3/14
FIR no. 319/11
PS: Vasant Kunj (S)
16.11.2017
Present: Sh. S. K. Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Priyanka, Rakhi and Sonu Sharma on bail along with learned Advocate Sh. Thakur Karan Singh. Accused Sonu, Satpal, Jagbir and Anil are absent. Sh. Jatin Sharma, proxy counsel for main counsel Sh. Nitin Rai Sharma, for accused Sonu, Satpal, Jabgir and Anil. Proxy counsel has moved an application for exemption from personal appearance on behalf of accused persons. For the reasons mentioned in the application, accused persons are exempted from appearance for today only.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgment of the date, all accused persons are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC in the sum of Rs.20,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount.
Accused persons namely Priyanka, Rakhi and Sonu State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 23/20 Sharma, have furnished their respective bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC which are accepted and shall remain effective for a period of 6 months.
Bail bonds of accused persons Priyanka, Rakhi and Sonu Sharma, furnished during trial stands cancelled and sureties are discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the sureties, if any, be cancelled. The articles seized vide seizure memos and personal search memos of respective accused persons be released to them against proper acknowledgment.
Proxy counsel for accused persons Sonu, Satpal, Jagbir and Anil, seeks time to file bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC. At request, let the same be filed on 21.11.2017.
Matter be put up on 21.11.2017.
( Ajay Pandey ) Addl. Sessions Judge 04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/16.11.2017 State Vs Sonu (FIR no. 318/11) State Vs Priyanka and Ors (FIR no. 319/11) PS - Vasant Kunj (S) Page no. 24/20