Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajay @ Chotu on 1 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE05, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Ajay @ Chotu
FIR NO: 260/09
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 224 IPC
Unique ID No.: 02406R0114832010
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case and : 25/2 (23.9.2010) Date of its institution : 5.3.2010 Name of the complainant : HC Ramesh Chand Date of Commission of offence : 28.8.2009 Name of the accused : Ajay @ Chotu Offence complained of : Section 224 IPC Plea of accused : Not Guilty Case reserved for orders : 27.6.2011 Final Order : CONVICTED Date of Judgment : 01.07.2011 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
This is the prosecution of the accused Ajay @ Chotu upon a charge sheet filed State Vs. Ajay @ Chotu Page 1/7 FIR no. 260/09 by the police station Ambedkar Nagar u/s 224 IPC.
The prosecution story is that on 28.8.2009 at about 7.30 am at Bathroom, PS Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi accused while lawfully detained in custody of HC Ramesh Chand for the offence in FIR no. 182/06 u/s 302/34 IPC PS Ambedkar Nagar, which he was charged, he escaped from the said custody and he further offered resistance to the lawful apprehension of himself for the said offence of which he was charged and thereby he committed an offence punishable u/s 224 IPC.
After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out in pursuance of which the chargesheet u/s 224 IPC was filed. The charge was framed against the accused u/ s 224 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses.
PW 1 is Jayanti Prasad who is the duty officer and proved the FIR as Ex.PW1/A upon a rukka Ex.PW1/B. PW 2 is HC Ramesh Chand who deposed that on 28.8.2009 at around 7.30 am he was posted as HC in PS Ambedkar Nagar. The accused Ajay who is present in Court was in his custody. The duty officer asked him to accompany the accused as he want to go for urinating. The accused went inside the toilet, locked it from inside. He knocked the door but accused did not opened it. Thereafter he called the other staff in the PS and broke the door. He found that the accused was not there. He had absconded. The accused was in custody in FIR 182/06 u/s 302 IPC. (Accused has been correctly identified by the witness).
PW 3 is HC Hemant who deposed that a process u/s 82 Cr.PC was issued against the accused Ajay present in the Court that day in FIR no. 182/06 u/s 302 IPC. He State Vs. Ajay @ Chotu Page 2/7 FIR no. 260/09 along with Ct. Vikram were present in PS Ambedkar Nagar at about 7.30 am. They received the information from secret informer that the accused Ajay against whom a process u/s 82 Cr.PC was in force will be found in Peaple Chowk. He and Ct. Vikram went to the Peaple Chowk and arrested the accused after verifying his identification. They brought the accused to the PS and handed over the accused to the duty officer HC Jayanti Parsad. Thereafter, they went from the police station.
PW 4 is HC Dharam Singh who deposed that on 01.02.2010, he was marked the investigation of this case. He was the second IO of this case. He has only prepared the charge sheet in this case and filed in the court.
PW 5 is SI H.P. Gulia who deposed that he was the investigating officer in this case. On 28.08.2009, he was posted in PS Ambedkar Nagar. He was present in reporting Room. HC Ramesh Chand recorded a statement that Ajay @ Chotu brought by two witnesses Ct. Hemand and Ct. Vikram against whom a process u/s 82 was issued 182/06, U/s 302/ 34 IPC. The complaint is Ex. PW 5/A. They told him that accused has escaped their custody on the pretext of going to bathroom. After endorsing the complaint, he registered an FIR in this case ie. 260/09, u/s 224 IPC. He recorded the statement of both the witnesses. He recorded the statement duty officer. He prepared a site plan Ex. PW 5/B which bears his signature at point A. He conducted the personal search of the accused. On 15.1.2010 he filed an application seeking production warrant of accused. On 18.01.2010 after taking permission of the court which is Ex. PW 5/C, he arrested the accused.
PW 6 is Ct. Vikram who deposed that on 28.8.09, he was present in the PS. On that day he received telephonic message from secret informer that Ajay @ Chotu wanted in case FIR no. 182/06 u/s 302/34 IPC, PS Ambedkar Nagar is present at Peeple Wala Chowk, MB Road. After having this information, he along with Ct. Hemant reached at the spot where State Vs. Ajay @ Chotu Page 3/7 FIR no. 260/09 on the instance of secret informer arrested accused Ajay @ Chotu who is present in the Court that day and after arresting he was produced before duty officer HC Jayanti Lal at PS and thereafter HC Jayanti Lal handed over the custody of accused Ajay to HC Ramesh Chand. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Hemant went to their barrack located at 3 rd Floor. He along with Ct. Hemant departed from PS at about 6.45 am and after arresting the accused visited at the PS at around 7.30 am. After sometime he came into knowledge that accused Ajay @ Chotu had escaped from the custody from the toilet located in the PS. IO had recorded his statement. (Accused has been correctly identified by the witness) The accused was examined under the provision of section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence were put to him where he denied the allegations made against him. However, he opted not to lead DE in this case.
I have heard the Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused and perused the records.
It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the case has been proved against the accused person and they should be convicted.
On the other hand, it argued by counsel for accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. The proceedings for issuing proclamation was issued due to which police was harassing him and trying to extort money from him and when he refused this false case has been planted upon him. It is also argued that there is no public witness to the incident nor is there any documentary evidence to support the case of the prosecution.
State Vs. Ajay @ Chotu Page 4/7 FIR no. 260/09 Criminal law was set into motion on a complaint by HC Ramesh Chand who on 28.8.2009 was given the custody of the accused Ajay @ Chotu at around 7.30 am in the morning in the police station. The accused was apprehended by Ct. Hemant and Ct. Vikram as the accused has absconded after his release on parole in FIR no. 182/06 u/s 302 IPC and proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC against the accused was enforced. The duty officer asked the complainant Ramesh Chand to keep the accused in his custody saying that the records in respect of the accused are in the process of being procured. At that time the accused Ajay @ Chotu asked the complainant Ramesh Chand that he want to go to bathroom to ease himself. HC Ramesh Chand took him to bathroom but after 5/10 minutes when he did not come back an alarm was raised, door was opened and it was found that the accused has absconded himself. Later on, an FIR was registered u/s 224 IPC. The case was investigated and the charge sheet was filed.
In this respect Ct. Hemant and witnesses have been examined as PW 3 and PW 6 who deposed that they received a telephonic message that the accused wanted in FIR no. 182/06 u/s 302/34 IPC was present at particular place. They reached there and on the instance of secret informer they arrested him and produced before the duty officer HC Jayanti Lal. HC Jayanti Lal handed over the custody of the accused to HC Ramesh Chand. HC Ramesh Chand has categorically deposed that at around 7.30 am, accused was handed over to him.
State Vs. Ajay @ Chotu Page 5/7 FIR no. 260/09 He was taken to the bathroom from where he escaped. The investigating officer has proved the investigation and that the accused was later on apprehended by getting issue a production warrant against him. The investigating officer proved the site plan in this case. Therefore, in this way that the complete chain has been proved from the apprehension of the accused to his absconding and subsequent investigation.
Certain documents has been filed by Ld. Counsel for accused during arguments showing that the accused Ajay @ Chotu has surrendered himself in FIR no. 182/06, PS Ambedkar Nagar. They also filed the certified copy of that order further fortifying the case of the prosecution that the accused is wanted in FIR no. 182/06 and has violated the conditions of his bail.
In this way the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the witnesses. The argument of the defence counsel that no public witness is there is worthless as accused has escaped from the custody of Police Station and it will be futile to expect that some independent public witness could have witnessed the whole incident.
Secondly, a case can be proved by oral or documentary evidence and the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away simply on the ground that documentary evidence are not being produced to support its case. Its not disputed and on the contrary it was the argument of the defence counsel that the accused was involved in the FIR No 182/06 and the police State Vs. Ajay @ Chotu Page 6/7 FIR no. 260/09 was harassing him and he later surrendered himself in that case. It means that there was the valid reason for the police personals to apprehend him.
Section 224 IPC reads as under;
Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Since, the prosecution witnesses have proved the escape of the accused from lawful custody of the police, therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussions, the accused Ajay @ Chotu is convicted for offence u/s 224 IPC.
Announced in the open court (Samar Vishal)
on 1st July, 2011 Metropolitan Magistrate05,
South East, New Delhi
State Vs. Ajay @ Chotu Page 7/7 FIR no. 260/09