Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Chander & Ors. on 27 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SATISH KUMAR ARORA :
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI
State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors.
FIR No: 641/98
PS: Najafgarh
U/s: 353/332/225/224/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 274/02
b) Date of commission of : 07.10.1998
offence
c) Name of the complainant : Inspector P.S. Patwal
ACB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
through State.
d) Name of accused, their parentage : (1) Tarun
and residence s/o Sh. Ram Chander
(Discharged vide order
dated 18.02.02)
(2) Santosh
w/o Sh. Ram Chander
(3) Ram Chander
s/o Late Sh. Khajan Singh
all r/o House No. Y24,
New Roshan Pura Ext.
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 1 of 12
e) Offence complained of or proved : u/s 353/332/225/224/34 IPC
f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 27.06.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Prosecution case in brief is that on 07.10.1998 a complaint was lodged by PW 1 Rakesh in the Anti Corruption Branch, Civil Lines Delhi regarding demand of bribe of Rs. 10,000/ by one ASI Ram Chander (one of the accused herein) for not effecting arrest of his brotherinlaw. On the said complaint, a raiding party was formed by PW 9 Retd. ACP P.S. Patwal who was then posted as Inspector at Anti Corruption Branch. The raiding team was comprising of himself, Inspector Y.S. Negi, ASI Bhim Singh, SI Dal Chand, W/HC Prem Lata and a panch witness PW 4 Devender Kumar. It is further the case that after the trap of demanding bribe was successful, the raiding party raided the house of accused Ram Chander whereupon the said accused alongwith his wife/coaccused Santosh in furtherance of their common intention with the help of certain unknown persons not only voluntarily used criminal force against the raiding team but also caused simple hurt to Inspector P.S. Patwal, ASI Bhim Singh and Inspector Y.S Negi with a view to prevent and deter them from FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 2 of 12 discharging their public functions as public servants. Further, accused Ram Chander in the process of his arrest in a case by Inspector P.S. Patwal offered resistance and illegally caused obstruction to his lawful apprehension and his wife/coaccused Santosh alongwith certain unknown persons also intentionally offered resistance and caused illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of her husband/accused Ram Chander and rescued him from the custody of Inspector P.S. Patwal. The matter was reported to PW 10 Inspector Kailash Chander who on 07.10.1998 while being posted as Addl. SHO, PS Najafgarh was present at Chhawla Bus Stand being on patrolling duty with Const. Dharamvir. FIR in the present case was lodged and investigation was carried out which concluded upon filing of the chargesheet against accused persons namely Tarun, Santosh and Ram Chander.
2. Accused persons were summoned and copies of chargesheet and documents were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Arguments on charge as advanced by ld. APP for State and ld. counsel for accused persons were heard. Whereas vide order dated 18.02.2002, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court discharged accused Tarun, on the other hand, on finding prima facie case against the other two accused ordered for framing of charge for the offence punishable u/s 353/332/34 IPC against them. FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 3 of 12 Further, accused Santosh was also ordered to be separately charged for offence punishable u/s 225/34 IPC and accused Ram Chander for offence punishable u/s 224 IPC. Charge was separately framed to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish and prove the charge against accused persons, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. They are as under :
i) PW1 Rakesh is stated to be a witness at whose instance the raiding team was formed by the Anti Corruption Team.
ii) PW2 Ram Phal Dahiya is stated to be a neighbour of accused Ramchander and an eyewitness to the alleged incident.
iii) PW3 Satpal is again claimed to be an eyewitness to the alleged incident while being present at the nearby Kiryana shop of PW2 Ram Phal.
iv) PW4 Devender Kumar who was serving as GradeII in the Directorate of Eduction, GNCTD in the year 1998 was joined as a panch witness with the raiding team of Anti Corruption Branch.
v) PW5 HC Ishwar Singh is the DO who recorded the present case FIR on 07.10.1998 at PS Najafgarh. He proved the copy of FIR available on record as Ex. PW5/A.
vi) PW6 Const. Dharamvir Dhankhar was on patrolling duty on 07.10.1998 with Addl. SHO PS Najafgarh on a service motorcycle and was present in the area of Chhawla Bus Stand when the FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 4 of 12 incident was reported by one Const. Ravinder Singh of Anti Corruption Branch. He also took the tehrir prepared by Addl.
SHO and got the present case FIR registered at PS Najafgarh.
vii) PW7 A.A. Farooquee while being posted as DCP, Anti Corruption Branch, on 16.05.2000 on the complaint of Inspector P.S. Patwal gave his complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. The complaint was proved as Ex. PW7/A.
viii) PW8 HC Birju Singh on 07.10.1998 while being posted as DO at Anti Corruption Branch, Old Secretariat, Delhi recorded FIR No. 39/98 on the rukka sent by Inspector P.S. Patwal through Const. Amit Kumar. Copy of the said FIR available on record was proved as Ex. PW8/A.
ix) PW 9 Retd. ACP P.S. Patwal is the complainant who headed the raiding team constituted upon the complaint of one Rakesh Kumar.
x) PW10 Inspector Kailash Chander while being posted as Addl. SHO at PS Najafgarh on 07.10.1998 and while being present at Chhawla Bus Stand on patrolling duty with Const. Dharamvir was intimated of the incident in question by Const. Ravinder Singh whereupon he prepared rukka Ex. PW10/A and got the present case FIR registered at PS Najafgarh.
xi) PW11 Inspector Y.S. Negi and PW12 ASI Bhim Singh are the members of the raiding team headed by the then Inspector P.S. Patwal, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi.
FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 5 of 12
xii) PW13 Inspector Rajiv Gunwant is one of the IOs to whom investigation of the present case was handed over on 04.05.1999. On 06.03.2000, he formally arrested accused Ram Chander who was on Anticipatory Bail and on the same day he handed over the file to MHC (R) upon his transfer.
5. In their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused Santosh and Ram Chander denied the prosecution case in its entirety and pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused Ram Chander also stated that he was not present at his house and nothing was recovered from him. It is also to be seen that due to a discrepancy in the mentioning of date of incident wrongly as 17.10.1998 in the earlier statements, additional statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C while giving the correct date of incident as 07.10.1998. Both the accused reiterated their false implication and innocence. However, no witness was examined by the accused persons in their defence.
6. Heard the ld. APP for the State, ld. defence counsel and perused the record carefully.
7. The basis of prosecution case against the accused persons was the lodging of complaint regarding demanding of bribe by accused Ramchander, by PW 1 Rakesh with the Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi Police. It was then that the raiding team was constituted and subsequently the alleged incident of the present case is stated to have happened. PW 1 Rakesh was thus one of FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 6 of 12 the material witnesses for the prosecution. However, as is to be seen from his testimony recorded in the Court on 24.01.2003, he took a complete Uturn and was declared hostile on all material aspects of the prosecution case. The story as projected by him and which is in complete variance to the prosecution case is that on 07.07.1998 he alongwith his friend Pankaj went to Anti Corruption Branch to meet someone who was known to his friend and it was in connection with a dowry death case wherein his fatherinlaw and motherinlaw had been jailed. PW 1 further stated that his friend Pankaj asked him to arrange Rs. 10,000/ and after arranging the money had left for the house of Ramchander, who was in Delhi Police, in Najafgarh. He further stated that total 0810 persons of Anti Corruption Branch also accompanied them in a van and when they reached near the house of Ramchander, Pankaj asked him to sit in the van while he went with the entire team. He further stated that after sometime Pankaj told him that Ramchander did not meet them and after waiting for half an hour when they again went, Ramchander was not found present. He further stated that for all this period, he remained sitting in the van. He further stated that when they had left the place, Pankaj asked him to sign on 0405 blank papers which he told was in respect of his money of Rs. 10,000/. He further stated after about one month, he came to know that one Ramchander has been arrested in connection with acceptance of FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 7 of 12 bribe. Even in his crossexamination by Ld. Prosecutor, the witness stood his ground and reiterated the abovesaid and also denied of his having given statement mark A to the police. He also did not identify the accused persons.
Once PW 1 Rakesh did not support the prosecution case, the burden to prove the charge fell on the shoulders of other witnesses. Here also, two of the witnesses PW 2 Ramphal Dahiya and PW 3 Satpal who were projected as the independent witnesses, being present at the relevant time at the spot, also did not help the prosecution case in any manner and turned hostile in all material aspects. Instead, they presented another story which was concerning visit of 0507 persons in civil dress to the house of accused Ramchander, their meeting the accused Santosh (wife of Ramchander) who told them about Ramchander not present in the house at the given time. Even in their crossexamination by Ld. Prosecutor, both these witnesses remained adamant and also denied of their having given any statement mark B and mark C to the police.
Now, the burden shifted on to the shoulders of other prosecution witnesses namely PW 4 Devender Kumar, PW 9 Retd. ACP P.S. Patwal, PW 11 Inspector Y.S. Negi and PW 12 ASI Bhim Singh. As to PW 4 Devender Kumar, he while admitting to have joined a raiding team of the Anti Corruption Branch as a panch witness failed to further support the prosecution case and FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 8 of 12 turned hostile not only with respect to the incident in question but also in respect to the identity of the accused persons. He stated that when he went to the house, he heard noise of "Bhag GayaBhag Gaya" and also came to know that the accused had ran away. Even in his crossexamination by Ld. Prosecutor, not only did he deny the purpose of the accused having taken Rs. 10,000/ from the complainant but also of his statement mark PX having been given to the police. He reiterated that he cannot identify accused persons even if they are shown to him.
Before the testimony of PW 9 Retd. ACP P.S. Patwal is taken up for consideration who was heading the raiding team, testimony of PW 11 Inspector Y.S. Negi and of PW 12 ASI Bhim Singh is taken up for consideration. PW 11 Inspector Y.S. Negi introduced material contradictions not only in his cross examination but even in his examinationinchief. In his examinationinchief, PW 11 while stating of his being asked to join the raiding team by raiding officer (RO) Inspector Patwal on 07.10.1998, did not make a mention of the other members of the raiding team except by stating that the RO alongwith the complainant and other raiding staff went to the address reported by the complainant in his complaint. About the incident, he stated that when they were proceeding towards their vehicle parked at Paprawat road, initially 0810 public persons who were later joined by many other persons, surrounded them by making FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 9 of 12 a Gherao and pelted stones. The said public persons who were in support of accused persons assaulted ASI Bhim Singh and also forcibly got the accused persons to escape custody. He further stated that accused Santosh made a call in the words "Ranvir, Mahender for their rescue" and the public persons got the accused escape custody. He further stated that he did not suffer any injury in the incident and the RO made a written complaint to Addl. SHO PS Najafgarh. In his crossexamination, the witness was confronted with his statement Ex. PW11/DA wherein on all material aspects which he deposed in his examinationinchief, nothing was found to be so stated. PW 11 went to the extent of stating in his crossexamination that his statement which is on record and is being confronted with is a wrong statement recorded by the IO at PS Najafgarh and it is not the same statement which he gave to the IO. This witness who was supposed to be one of the strongest witnesses of the prosecution could not hold his ground and shattered the very foundations of the prosecution case. When the testimony of PW 12 ASI Bhim Singh is seen and analyzed in the light of the testimony of PW 11 and of PW 9 Retd. ACP P.S. Patwal, it brings to fore material contradictions. One of such contradictions is when PW 12 ASI Bhim Singh stated that after finishing the proceedings regarding acceptance of bribe by accused ASI Ramchander when the team was going out of the house, ASI Ramchander shouted and called FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 10 of 12 "Santosh you call Mahender and Ranbeer" by saying that "he is being beaten by police officials". This is in contradiction to what PW 11 had stated about accused Santosh exhorting Mahender and Ranbeer to get the accused forcibly escape from the custody. Also, PW 12 stated that a scuffle took place wherein 1015 persons gathered and there was pushing and pulling and that in the said process he sustained injuries which were got treated by him in some private nursing home. This is again in material contradiction to what PW 11 had stated about pelting of stones. Now, when the testimony of PW 9 Retd. ACP P.S. Patwal is looked, it also introduces material contradictions. Contrary to what PW 11 and PW 12 have deposed about the incident, PW 9 stated that at about 8.008.15 pm on 07.10.1998 when the raid has been successfully concluded upon the receiving and recovery of bribe money, he heard noise of "BachaoBachao" from the house of accused. He stated that at that time accused was under the custody of Inspector Negi and he called other persons including neighbours by shouting "Mujhe maar rahe hain Mujhe maar rahe hain". He further stated that suddenly accused escaped from the custody and fled away and thereafter wife of accused and some persons in the crowd had beaten ASI Ramchander. The mention of the giving of beatings to ASI Ramchander does not appear to be a clerical mistake (when as per the prosecution case the police official who was beaten up was ASI Bhim Singh) as PW 9 in his FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 11 of 12 earlier part of examinationinchief did not utter a single word as to the presence of ASI Bhim Singh as a member of the raiding party. What he stated and which is quoted herein is "then we formed a raiding party and I was the raid officer. I alongwith Inspector Y.S. Negi, ASI Ramchander, SI Dal Chand and one W/HC Prem Lata went to house of accused at new Roshanpura on the same day at about 6.30 pm. Alongwith us, a panch witness Sh. Devender Kumar from Ministry of Education and complainant accompanied us". Thus, as can be seen even the members of the raiding team have introduced serious contradictions thus rendering their testimony as incoherent and unreliable. In view of these facts and circumstances, prosecution fails to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
8. In view of the foregoing, accused persons are acquitted of the offence they are charged with. Their B/Bs'/S/Bs' stand discharged. File be consigned to Record Room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED : 27.06.2014 (SATISH KUMAR ARORA) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DWARKA COURTS : DELHI FIR No: 641/98 PS : Najafgarh State Vs. Ram Chander & Ors. Page 12 of 12