Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajbir Singh on 6 March, 2012
State vs. Rajbir Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH ANUJ AGARWAL: MM01(SE)/
SAKET COURT: DELHI
State vs. Rajbir Singh etc.
FIR NO. : 307/96
U/S : 147/148/149/186/353/332 IPC &
2 Damage to Public Property Act
PS : Badarpur
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 1126/2
b) Date of institution of the case : 08.04.97
c) Date of commission of offence : 19.04.96
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Sultan Singh Jain, Asstt.
Engineer, DDA Market, Sarita
Vihar, New Delhi.
e) Name & address of the 1. Rajbir Singh S/o Pehlad Singh, accused persons 2. Sunil S/o Kallu
3. Jai Karan All R/o Village - Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi.
f) Offence complained of : 147/149/186/332/353 IPC g) Plea of the accused person : Pleaded not guilty h) Arguments heard on : 25.02.12 i) Final order : Accused - Sunil and Jai Karan acquitted. FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 1 of 10 State vs. Rajbir Singh Accused - Rajbir Singh convicted u/s 147/323/149 IPC j) Date of Judgment : 06.02.12 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that 19.04.96 at about 10.10 AM at PocketF at Madanpur Khadar, all accused sharing common object with another fourfive associates committed rioting and obstructed Sh. Sultan Singh Jain Executive Engineer, DDA and Sh. Mehar Singh, Junior Engineer DDA, the public servants, in discharge of their public functions and voluntarily caused hurt/ criminal force to them to deter them from discharging their duties and thus have been sent up for trial for the offence punishable U/s 147/149/186/332/353 IPC. FIR No. 307/96 was registered in the instant matter and investigations were carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. A formal charge for the offence U/s 147/149/186/332/353 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 4.08.2001 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 2 of 10
State vs. Rajbir Singh
4. PW1 Sh. Sultan Singh is the complainant. He has deposed that on 19.04.96 at about 10.10 AM, he alongwith his junior engineer Mehar Singh went to visit the site near pocketF, Sarita Vihar as construction of boundary wall was going on there. He has further deposed that accused Rajbir Singh came there alongwith 7/8 persons. He has further deposed that he and Sh. Mehar Singh were caught hold of by collars by said persons and they started beating them with fists and kick blows. He has further deposed that they sustained injuries and his wrist watch was also broken and key of his scooter was also stolen by them. He has further deposed that somebody called the PCR and they were removed to AIIMS hospital for medical check up. He has further deposed that thereafter they went to PS Badarpur and from there they went to PP Sarita Vihar. He has further deposed that he made complaint Ex.PW1/A. He has further deposed that he cannot identify any person except accused Rajbir who caused injuries to them.
5. Ld. APP chose to crossexamine PW1 with the permission of court. However during crossexamination, the witness denied all the suggestion given by Ld. APP.
6. PW2 is Sh. Mehar Singh who has deposed that on 19.04.1996 FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 3 of 10 State vs. Rajbir Singh construction of boundary wall was in progress near pocketF, Sarita Vihar and they were supervising that work. He has further deposed that at about 10.00 AM when they were present at site , 67 persons suddenly attacked them. He has further deposed that one of the accused Rajbir is present in the court today. He has further deposed that said 67 persons beat them with fists blows and kicks. He has further deposed that he cannot identity the accused persons except accused Rajbir who assaulted them. Ld. APP chose to cross examine PW2 also, however during his cross examination no further material could be elicited out from him.
7. PW3 HC Ram Avtar is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW 3/A. st
8. PW4 HC Satya Pal is the 1 investigating officer. He has deposed that on 19.04.1996 on receipt of DD No. 6 Ex.PW4/A he went to spot of occurrence where injured DDA officers were reportedly shifted to AIIMS by PCR Van. He has further deposed that he went to hospital where DDA officer Sultan Singh and Mehar Singh were found admitted. He has further deposed that one complaint Ex.PW1/A was handed over to him by Sultan Singh and he made endorsement Ex.PW4/B thereupon and got registered case through Ct. Kamal FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 4 of 10 State vs. Rajbir Singh Singh. He duly proved site plan Ex.PW5/C. He has further deposed that search was made for accused persons and further investigation was assigned to SI Beer Singh.
9. PW5 is Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar Sharma, record clerk, AIIMS hospital who has brought on record order Ex.PW5/A vide which MLC register upto 1996 were destroyed.
10. PW6 is Sh. Rajbir Singh, record clerk who has deposed that he has seen the MLC Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B prepared by doctor Manish and xray report Ex.PW6/C prepared by doctor Anu Kapoor. He has further deposed that he identifies the signatures of all three doctors as he has seen them writing and signing in the course of his official duty. He has further deposed that the said doctors have left the services of hospital and their whereabouts are not known.
11. PE was closed by order of Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 22.05.2009 and statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled against them in toto. They did not lead any evidence in their favour.
12. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 5 of 10
State vs. Rajbir Singh
13. It has been argued on behalf of state by Ld. APP that guilt of all accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Per contra it has been argued on behalf of accused Sunil and Jai Karan that none of the eye witness have identified them therefore they deserve to be acquitted in the present case. It has further been argued by Ld. defence counsel for accused Jai Karan that latter was falsely implicated by IO in the present case for the reasons best known to him.
14. It has been argued by Ld. defence counsel for accused Rajbir that there are material contradiction in the testimony of PWs, therefore case of prosecution has not got proved beyond reasonable doubt therefore accused Rajbir deserves to be acquitted in the present case.
15. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
16. In the instant case, both the injured i.e. PW1 and PW2 have refused to identify accused Sunil and Jai Karan as the perpetrator of FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 6 of 10 State vs. Rajbir Singh the offences. They have deposed categorically that they cannot identify any person except accused Rajbir. Despite their elaborate crossexamination by the Ld. APP, nothing material could be elicited out from PW1 and PW2 qua accused Sunil and Jai Karan.
17. Identity of any accused is the starting point of any criminal offence. Since the complainant/ injured have themselves denied to identify accused Sunil and Jai Karan as perpetrator of offences, therefore entire prosecution version qua said accused persons crumbles and nothing survives in the instant trial. Therefore accused Sunil and Jai Karan stands acquitted of all charges levelled against them.
18. Now I shall adjudicate whether the case of prosecution has got proved beyond reasonable doubt qua accused Rajbir Singh or not.
19. As evident from record, accused Rajbir Singh has been duly identified by both injured i.e. PW1 and PW2. In their deposition before court, both PW1 and PW2 have deposed that accused Rajbir Singh came at the site where construction of boundary wall was going on (being supervised by them) alongwith 78 persons and they started beating them by fists and kick blows. They have also categorically deposed that they sustained injuries.
FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 7 of 10
State vs. Rajbir Singh
20. However charges in the instant case have been framed interalia U/sec. 186/332/353 IPC. The essential ingredients for an offence under sections 186 IPC is to obstruct any public servant in discharge of his public functions. Similarly for offence U/sec. 332/353 IPC, the essential ingredient is to voluntarily causing hurt/ assault/ use of criminal force so as to deter a public servant from discharging his duties. However, in the present case there is nothing in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 to suggest that the intention of accused Rajbir (alongwith 78 other person alongwith whom he came) was to cause obstruction in discharge of their public functions or the hurt and criminal force was used by accused persons to deter them from discharging their public functions. Though it has come on record that PW1 and PW2 being officer of DDA were supervising the construction of boundary wall, however there is nothing in their testimony to suggest that the intention of accused persons was to deter them from construction of said boundary wall. Intention to obstruct or deter a public servant in discharge of his public duties is sin qua non for offence under section 186 /332 /353 IPC and same cannot be presumed, therefore in the absence of evidence qua that aspect, accused Rajbir Singh deserves to be acquitted of charges U/sec.
FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 8 of 10
State vs. Rajbir Singh
186/332/353 IPC.
21. However, it is evident from the testimony of PW1 and PW2 that accused Rajbir Singh alongwith 78 persons had given fist and kick blows to them as result of which they had suffered injuries (simple in nature). The MLC Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B have duly corroborated the version of PW1 and PW2 qua said attack.
22. Ld. defence counsel for accused Rajbir has failed to dislodge the credibility of PW1 and PW2 in witness box. No motive can be attributed to PW1 and PW2 to falsely implicate accused Rajbir.
23. Therefore it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rajbir had caused simple injuries to PW1 and PW2, therefore he is liable to be convicted u/sec. 323 IPC.
24. It has further come on record that accused Rajbir had committed the said offence alongwith 78 persons. Both PWs have categorically deposed that 78 persons alongwith accused Rajbir gave fist and kick blow to them.
25. Sec. 141 IPC inter alia provides that any assembly of five or more person is designated as an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is :
"To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence";
FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 9 of 10
State vs. Rajbir Singh
26. Sec. 146 IPC provides that "whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof in prosecution of common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting". The offence of rioting has been made punishable U/sec. 147 IPC.
27. From the testimony of PW1 and PW2, it has got proved beyond reasonable doubt that the common object of accused Rajbir and 78 other persons who came alongwith him, was to cause an offence i.e. hurt to PW1 and PW2 and in prosecution of that object, all of them had given fist and kick blows to PW1 and PW2 therefore accused Rajbir is also guilty of offence U/sec. 147 IPC.
28. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion, accused Rajbir Singh stands convicted of offence U/sec. 147 and 323 IPC r/w sec. 149 IPC. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court
on 06.03.2012 (Anuj Agarwal)
MM01(SE)/Delhi /06.03.12
FIR No. 307/06 PS Badarpur 10 of 10