Delhi District Court
State vs . : Jagdish Singh on 26 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER JIT SINGH : MM: ROHINI : DELHI
State Vs. : Jagdish Singh
FIR No. : 814/95
U/s : 342/347/506/34 IPC
PS : SP Badli
JUDGEMENT
A. Sl. No. of the case 45/2
B. Offence complained of
or proved U/s 342/347/506/34 IPC
C. Date of Offence 06.12.1995
D. Name of the complainant Shri Rajender Kumar
S/o Sh. Ayodhya Nath Mahajan
R/o 14-A, BW Block,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
E. Name of the accused 1. Jagdish Singh
S/o Late Sh. Jawahar Singh
R/o 225, Gali No. 12,
Samay Pur, Delhi.
2. Anoop Singh
S/o Late Sh. Jawahar Singh
R/o 225, Gali No. 12,
Samay Pur, Delhi.
3. Ashok Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Jawahar Singh
R/o 225, Gali No. 12,
Samay Pur, Delhi.
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final order Acquitted
FIR No. 814/95 State Vs. Jagdish Singh Etc. 1 of 8
H. Date of Order 26.08.2011
Brief reasons for the decision:
1. Accused persons have been forwarded for trial of offences under Section 342/347/506/34 IPC on the allegations that on 06.12.1995 at about 6:00 PM Rajender Kumar went as earlier to National Rubber Factory, Gali no. 12, Samay Pur to collect payment of goods supplied by him. There he met Anup, Jagdish and Ashok, owner of factory at factory. When he reached office in factory all the above said three persons locked him inside the office and mentally tortured him and accused him of theft. They forced him, in connivance with foreman of factory, to accept that he had accepted goods from him. After that, all the above said persons started beating him and under coercion took impression of his left thumb on blank stamp papers. They demanded Rs.1,00,000/- lack from him and threatened that in case of non-payment, they will abduct him and even his dead body could not be traced by his family members. Due to this, he became mentally upset and agreed to pay the money demanded. He had paid the money in two installments.
On 17.12.1995, when he was alone at his shop, Anup came there and told him that Surender has returned who told that 150 bags of rubber FIR No. 814/95 State Vs. Jagdish Singh Etc. 2 of 8 has been supplied to Rajender Kumar but he, Rajender Kumar, told him that he has received no goods. Anup forcefully tried to took him in rickshaw. Valuing his reputation, he went with him. Again all the above said three persons alongwith some of their associates mentally harassed him and again they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from him. They telephoned his wife who came to factory and again on stamp paper worth Rs.5/- an agreement of Rs.70,000/- was executed. Time of 45 days was granted to make payment.
On statement of complainant, present FIR bearing No. 814/95 was registered and investigation was carried out by ASI Mam Chand who prepared site plan. Statement under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded. It was observed during investigation that Rajender Kumar S/o Sh. Ramdhari and Surender working in the factory used to stole the goods and sell them to complainant but no evidence qua this could be collected nor any other documentary evidence. Accused used to buy chemical from complainant for which they had to make payment. Due to this, they threatened him and did not make payment. Accused were granted anticipatory bail. After completion of investigation, present charge sheet was filed.
2. On appearance, all the accused persons were supplied with the copies FIR No. 814/95 State Vs. Jagdish Singh Etc. 3 of 8 and charge under Section 342/34 IPC, 347/34 IPC and 506-II IPC was framed against them. All the said accused persons pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses to prove its case. Proceedings against the accused Ashok Kumar S/o Late Sh. Jawahar Singh were abated vide order dated 13.05.2011. HC Ramesh Kumar was examined as PW-1 who deposed as to the fact of recording of FIR and copy of same was proved as Ex.PW-1/A. He was duly cross examined and stated that he entered it in Rojnamcha and told to SHO also. Veena Mahajan was examined as PW-2. She has re-iterated on the allegations in the examination-in-chief. She proved one document as Ex.PW-2/A. She was duly cross examined. She stated that there was no telephone at the relevant time in their house. She had gone to factory alongwith police official Fateh Singh. She had given the information to police that she was informed by daughter of her 'jethani'. She also stated that her husband paid Rs.50,000/- on 11.12.1995 but was confronted with his statement where she had not stated so. She also stated that she told the police about the threat by accused and was confronted with her statement where it was not so recorded. Complainant Rajender Kumar was examined as PW-3 who re-
FIR No. 814/95 State Vs. Jagdish Singh Etc. 4 of 8 iterated the allegations in his examination-in-chief and also stated that on 06.12.1995 his wife came with HC Fateh Singh alongwith Vinod Sood came to factory. He also stated that Rs.1,00,000/- were demanded and he contacted many persons to intervene. A meeting was arranged and a settlement under pressure was entered. He stated that on 12.12.1995, his wife and Vinod Sood also came to the factory. He proved copy of his complaint as Ex PW-3/A and site plan as Ex.PW-3/B. He was not cross- examined despite opportunity. ASI Mam Chand was examined as PW-4 who proved site plan and fact of recording statement. He was duly cross- examined. SI Harbhajan was examined as PW-5 who deposed regarding proceeding during investigation i.e. recording the statement, arrest of accused and placing chargesheet in court. He was duly cross-examined where he stated that he recorded additional statement of Veena. Suresh Kumar was examined as PW-6 and stated that he went to the spot. Accused persons restrained complainant and did not let him go. He also stated that manager of the said factory used to sell goods to complainant. He also stated that accused persons did not make payment of chemical purchased by them. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity. Devender was examined as PW-7. He stated that on 17.12.1995, his brother went to collect payment but he came to know that he was kidnapped. His wife FIR No. 814/95 State Vs. Jagdish Singh Etc. 5 of 8 called him in his office and they went to Police Station. Their elder brother S. R. Gutpa and other members went to rescue complainant. He was put question by Ld. APP which may be put in cross examination as he was silent on important points and stated that his statement was recorded. He said he does not know about the paper or payment to be received and none other him and wife of complainant went to Police Station. Wife of complainant had gone with him. HC Fatah Singh was examined as PW-8 and stated that on 17.12.1995 on receipt of information vide DD no. 45B at 7:15 pm, he alongwith a Constable went to factory in question and returned to Police Station and recorded the information vide DD no. 5313 which Ex.PW-8/A. He was duly cross examined. He stated that in factory there was no tense situation and both parties were talking on friendly terms Mark A was written in his presence. Parties entered the compromise and same was submitted with police. No other PW was examined.
5. After conclusion of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC wherein accused pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case, however, they preferred not to lead any DE.
FIR No. 814/95 State Vs. Jagdish Singh Etc. 6 of 8
6. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and carefully perused the record. I have perused the judgment relied on by accused. Complainant was examined as PW-3 and he was not cross- examined despite opportunity which implies that his testimony remains uncontroverted. He complained that on two occasions i.e. 6.12.1995 and on 17.12.1995 he was wrongfully confined and threatened on both the occasions his wife alongwith his neighbour Vinod Sood came to the spot and rescued him. He also states that on 06.12.1995 HC Fateh Singh also came to the spot whereas in his complaint he stated to the police that he had not told anyone about the incident dated 6.12.1995. PW-2 his wife stated that on 17.12.1995 on receipt of information from daughter of her Jethani, she went to Police Station with Vinod Sood and later they went to factory in question. She has not stated that any other family member accompanied her. But PW-7 and PW-8, both brother of complainant were claimed that they had gone to the factory in question though neither of them had not mentioned the date. Reading all testimonies together does not make things clear rather make them opaque. These testimonies establish complainant had gone to factory in question on said dates but after that who went to there is totally unclear. Complainant claims that his wife and Vinod Sood alongwith HC Fatah Singh came on both dates but his FIR No. 814/95 State Vs. Jagdish Singh Etc. 7 of 8 wife states that she went on only 17.12.1995. None of them claims that other family members also came there at any point of time where as PW-6 and PW-7 claim to none also visited factory in question. Hence, the fact who went to factory in question on said dates. The effect of failure to establish the fact as to who went toe factory in question on said dates is that their version regarding allegation against accused persons are not reliable and cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the said Vinod Sood has not been examined despite the fact that he was claimed both by complainant and his wife to visit factory in question with wife of complainant. Further the incident took place on 17.12.1995 and complaint and FIR was made on 24.12.1995 which shows that there is delay of seven days. This delay has not been explained and accounted for reasonably especially when police was already informed on 17.12.1995 and one police official had gone on alleged date of incident. Therefore, above discussion shows that prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, extending the benefit of doubt to accused, all accused persons acquitted of the offence under Section 342/347/506-II/34 IPC.
Announced in open Court (Chander Jit Singh)
on this day of 26th August, 2011 Metropolitan Magistrate
Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 814/95 State Vs. Jagdish Singh Etc. 8 of 8