Delhi District Court
Sachin S/O Sh. Panna Lal vs The State ( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi ) on 5 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. J. R. ARYAN, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
INCHARGE(NORTH EAST DISTT.),KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CA no.34/12
Unique ID no.
Sachin s/o Sh. Panna Lal
r/o U-110/5, gali no.5,
Arvind Mohalla, Ghonda,
Delhi ( Presently in JC in another case) ........................APPELLANT
Versus
The State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi )
.........................RESPONDENT
Date of institution of the case: 09.11.2012
Date of reserving the case for order: 29.05.2012
Date of passing of judgment 05.06.2013
JUDGMENT
1. Present appellant Sachin, a young boy has been convicted under Section 385 IPC read with Section 511 IPC and he has filed the appeal questioning conviction. Conviction judgement was passed on 11.10.2012 and by subsequent order dated 12.10.2012, he was granted benefit of probation. Conviction has been challenged on the ground and contention that charge ought not to have been found proved from the testimony of PW1 and further police officials witnesses. It is argued that another material witness Vijay, who was in the company of PW1 at the time of incident has not been examined. It is further argued that the story put up by the complainant PW1 in this case was so improbable that it was very easy for police to present a distorted version and conviction in such circumstances should not be sustained. I considered these arguments and contentions of ld. defence counsel and ld. Addl. PP on behalf of State has also been heard.
2. According to prosecution case complainant-informant Anil Kumar, a truck driver by profession loaded his truck HR-38E-1890 with iron rods CA no.34/12 Page 1/5 ( sariya ) from Okhla, Delhi and he was to take that material at MCD Hospital, Shastri Park,Seelampur, Delhi site which was under construction. Informant took watchman Vijay Kumar from hospital and took his vehicle truck to weighing spot ( Dharamkanta ) and after getting the weight of the material assessed that he proceeded. At around 10.15 am while taking his truck to the site, he reached 4th pusta main pusta road and then two boys riding individual motorbike got their bikes in front of the truck and forced the informant to stop his truck. Their names were revealed as present appellant Sachin and other accused as Rajeev. Record reveals that co-accused Rajeev has died and proceedings abated against him ( vide order dated 06.12.2005). Accused Sachin caught hold of informant from his neck and demanded informant to unload some "sariya" from his vehicle and offered informant to take some money in return and to go away. Informant and watchman Vijay objected to that demand of accused persons and accused persons then threatened informant to kill him if the material was not unloaded. Meanwhile Police party headed by PW4 SI Ajay Kumar reached the spot and SI Ajay Kumar then recorded statement of informant as Ex. PW1/A and got the FIR registered under Section 385/34 IPC and motorbikes of both accused were seized. Both accused were arrested and finally they were charge sheeted.
3. Accused Sachin was put on trial for this charge framed to the effect that on 03.07.2003 at around 10.15am on main pusta road Kartar Nagar, Police Station New Usmanpur this accused with co-accused Rajeev had put informant-complainant Anil Kumar in fear of hurt in order to commit extortion and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 385 IPC. Prosecution examined Anil Kumar as PW1 and it further examined three police official witnesses including IO SI Ajay Kumar PW4, HC Sunil Kumar and HC Naresh Kumar as PW2 and PW3, who were with SI Ajay Kumar. During this incident informant-complainant supported the charge in his deposition when witness stated that while he was proceedings with his truck CA no.34/12 Page 2/5 loaded with "sariya" that on the date of incident two bike riders brought their vehicles in front of the truck and got it stopped and they asked informant as well guard to unload some "sariya" from the truck. When informant refused to oblige them, they both started abusing him and caught hold informant by his collar and witness identified accused Sachin present in Court as one of those two culprits boys. He further deposed that accused Sachin then gave beatings to him and also threatened him. Police arrived. He identified his report and other miscellaneous proceedings carried out by SI Ajay in this investigation. Three police officials also supported the charge.
4. Accused Sachin while explaining this case against him as deposed by witnesses pleaded that he had been falsely implicated. He denied the prosecution case and further pleaded that infact he had been arrested from his house and not from any such spot as stated by the witnesses. He further pleaded that all the proceedings of this case had been carried out in the Police Station.
5. Question arises in this appeal if testimony of complainant would inspire confidence of the Court to accept and believe it and then to hold charge proved. Ld. defence counsel submitted that it has come in evidence that place of incident was very busy traffic road. It would not have been possible for accused persons to indulge in any such act of extortion. They were young boys riding their own motorbikes. ld. counsel submitted that may be some kind of incident occurred regarding their bikes and truck moving on the road and then police gave a distorted version and implicated accused persons falsely. Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand argued that there was no reason at all for informant-complainant Anil Kumar to have got accused persons falsely implicated and then depose against them as a false evidence. In such a situation Court is confronted with a difficult task to see and examine if the evidence deposed by material prosecution witnesses was acceptable and believable.
CA no.34/12 Page 3/56. According to first information report Ex. PW1/A that after getting the truck of the informant stopped by accused by placing their bikes in front of the truck that accused Sachin climbed in the cabin of the truck from the driver's side and caught hold of informant by his collar. Other accused Rajeev then demanded informant to unload some "sariya" and take some money and go away. Informant and watchman resisted their demand and they both started threatening to kill the informant and watchman and demanded them to unload some "sariya". During this altercation that police arrived and both Rajeev and Sachin were apprehended.
7. What the witness PW1 now deposes in trial is that two boys got his truck stopped and asked guard to unload some "sariya". This witness refused to unload any "sariya" and then they started abusing this witness. Both of them started giving beating to this witness and after sometime police arrived. Witness in cross-examination admits that it was peak hours and traffic was quite heavy on the road when this incident occurred and police officials have then deposed that as they reached place of incident, this incident of extortion was in the progress. PW3 HC Naresh has deposed that he saw accused Sachin and Rajeev to have already climbed inside the truck and that is how police suspected a foul play. Site plan Ex. PW4/B shows that it is main Shahdara Yamuna pusta Road and witnesses have admitted that when this incident occurred it was peak hours and heavy traffic was there on the road. Was it probable human conduct that accused would get the loaded truck stopped on the road where heavy traffic is already on the move on the road and would ask driver to unload the "sariya". Accused could have chosen any other spot when the truck was on its way to a destination for unloading the "sariya". This kind of situation when examined in the light of the evidence of witnesses, the sole testimony of complainant that accused Sachin asked informant to unload "sariya" becomes a little doubtful. Witness Anil has deposed that after sometime police arrived and apprehended both accused.
CA no.34/12 Page 4/5PW3 says that he saw accused Sachin and co-accused Rajeev having climbed inside the truck and that created suspicion about some foul play. He further deposed that only on seeing the police party that truck driver got down and came to SI Ajay and told that Sachin and Rajeev were threatening him and watchman Vijay. SI Ajay deposed that he saw accused boys threatening driver and "chowkidar" was sitting inside the truck. This deposition suggests if driver came down of his vehicle and was being threatened by accused as the witness himself saw. Evidence is contradictory as some of the witnesses deposed that they saw accused persons to have climbed the truck and only when driver Anil saw the police party that he got down and came to the investigating officer. Complainant Anil Kumar rather deposed that Sachin and other accused gave him beating and gave a threat to this witness and after sometime police came and apprehended both accused. Such a contradictory evidence suggests lack of truthfulness and veracity in version of the incident narrated by PW1. As regards offence of extortion or attempt to extortion, it is only the testimony of victim-complainant which is to decide the charge because rest of the police officials had reached the spot only when they saw accused as well complainant in an altercation.
8. Plea of accused Sachin in his 313 CrPC examination is that infact he had been picked up from his house and falsely implicated. Though such a plea had not been put to any witness in cross-examination but cannot be ignored. In the overall facts and circumstances it appears difficult to place implicit faith in the testimony of PW1. These important aspects have not been taken scrutiny by the ld. MM while recording conviction judgement. Prosecution does not succeed in proving its charge and conviction judgement is accordingly set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charge.
Announced in the open Court on ( J R ARYAN )
05.06.2013 District & Sessions Judge(NE)
Karkardooma Courts,Delhi
CA no.34/12 Page 5/5