Delhi District Court
State vs Peer Haneef S/O Abdul Rehman R/O Village ... on 16 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH BHATT, ASJ07 (CENTRAL)/ TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No.:57/14
Unique ID no.:02401R0472862013
State Vs Peer Haneef S/o Abdul Rehman R/o Village Narecha, P.O. Swami Narayan
Chappiya, P.S. Chappiya Distt. Gonda, U.P.
Case arising out of:
FIR no. : 44/13
Police Station : SRRS
Under Section : 328/379/411 IPC
Date of Institution : 27/09/2013
Date on which order was reserved : 15/05/2014
Date of Decision : 16/05/2014
J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a case U/s 328/379/411 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23/07/2013 at about 3 O'clock Vinay and Angad were waiting at platform no. 3 of Delhi Cantt. Railway Station for the passenger train to Basti. In the meanwhile accused became friendly with them and offered toffees which was initially refused by them. But on his insistence victims ate one toffee each. Within short time SC no.:57/14 Page 1/12 both became unconscious and regained consciousness next day in Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. They found their goods alongwith cash missing. FIR was lodged. IO in the evening took the victim to Old Delhi Railway Station where one RPF personnel on basis of doubt had stopped one person who was holding bag and plastic polythene in his hand. Victims identified the said person being the same who had made them eat intoxicating substance and also identified their goods recovered from him. Accused was arrested. MLC of victim were obtained. Blood samples in sealed condition were sent for FSL opinion. As per FSL report, drug by the name of 'lorazepam (benzodizepine) drug' was administered to the patient. Challan was filed.
3. Prosecution had examined 08 witnesses. Thereafter, statement U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded. Accused did not led any defence evidence.
4. PW1 Vinay is the victim who stated that in the train boarded by them from Delhi Cantt. Railway Station accused had offered them toffee. On eating the same he and his brother Angad became unconscious. They regained consciousness in the hospital and found their goods alongwith cash missing. In the evening they were taken to Old Delhi Railway Station where one person on the basis of suspicion was apprehended by RPF personnel. They identified the accused as the same person who had offered them intoxicating toffees and the goods as their goods. The accused was arrested. The recovered articles contained their goods as well as cash of Rs. 2,000/ but the other articles and remaining cash was not found. In crossexamination disputed the identity of accused as being the person who gave them intoxicating toffees.
5. PW2 was the Duty Officer who recorded FIR on 24/07/2013.
6. PW3 Angad is the second victim who stated that he alongwith Vinay was SC no.:57/14 Page 2/12 coming from Rajasthan, on reaching Delhi Cantt. Railway Station a person met them and offered them coke and biscuit. After consuming the same they became unconscious and regained consciousness in the hospital. Their statements were recorded and their goods including cash of Rs. 12,000/ were missing. Police took them to Railway Station again. Later Police informed them that their clothes had been recovered. They got the same released on superdari. He denied that the accused present in the court was the same person who offered him coke and biscuit. He also denied that they were taken to Old Delhi Railway Station and had identified accused Peer Haneef present in the Court and on the search of accused his articles alongwith cash of Rs. 2,000/ had been recovered. He denied that he had signed the seizure memo Ex. PW1/B at point A and also denied that he had signed the arrest memo Ex. PW3/A, search memo Ex. PW3/B and disclosure statement Ex. PW3/C at point A respectively. He stated that Police had got his signatures on blank paper. He denied that he was won over by the accused or due to fear was not identifying the accused.
7. PW4 was the RPF officer who stated that on 24/07/2013 while he was posted at Old Delhi Railway Station, on the basis of doubt he had stopped the accused person who was carrying two bags and one polythene. While he was questioning him, IO Madan Singh alongwith Vinay and Angad reached the place. Both victims identified the accused and their goods being carried by the accused. The goods were taken into possession vide seizure memo. Accused was interrogated by the Police who made disclosure statement which was reduced into writing and signed by him at point A respectively. He stated that he could identify the case property if shown to him.
8. PW5 stated that on 23/07/2013 he was Incharge Medicine and Dr. Abhishek was posted in casualty who examined Angad and admitted him in medicine department. The file was produced before him by IO for opinion but at the said time FSL report was not SC no.:57/14 Page 3/12 available. FSL report was seen and he stated that poisonous substance 'lorazepam (benzodizepine) drug' was administered to the patient. In crossexamination stated that injured had absconded on 24/07/2013 but he could not tell the exact time when the injured absconded and had informed the Police about the missing of injured.
9. PW6 Const. Pawan had accompanied the IO and had reached hospital where injured was found unconscious. On 24/07/2013 he had again gone to the hospital where statement of Vinay and Angad were recorded. IO had handed over rukka for registration of FIR. He returned with FIR and at about 06:00 p.m. left for Old Delhi Railway Station where RPF official had stopped one person with luggage. Both Vinay and Angad had identified the accused and their articles. The accused was arrested. The articles were recovered. Accused made disclosure statement and had signed on seizure memo, arrest memo, search memo, disclosure statement at points B. He also had identified the accused correctly in the Court.
10. PW7 had prepared the FSL report Ex. PW7/A in respect of exhibits marked to him for examination.
11. PW8 is the IO who stated that on 23rd July on basis of DD, he alongwith Const. Pawan reached Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where the victim were unfit for statement. He had collected their MLCs. On the next day he again reached the hospital where statement of victim were recorded. FIR was lodged. He collected blood samples of Vinay and Angad alongwith sample seal on 23/07/2013. At 05:30 p.m. he alongwith Vinay and Angad reached Old Delhi Railway Station platform no. 3 where complainant had identified his goods in possession of the person who was in custody of Old Delhi Railway Station RPF staff. The goods were taken into possession. Accused were arrested. Personal search carried out. Accused was interrogated who made disclosure statement. The case property was released SC no.:57/14 Page 4/12 on superdari. The FSL report was Ex. PW7/A. He had recorded the statement of witnesses and filed the challan for judicial verdict.
12. Prosecution's story is composed of two parts (1) that on 23/07/2013 victim Vinay and Angad were waiting on the platform of Delhi Cantt. for boarding train for Basti. Accused befriended them and offered intoxicating toffees which was eaten by both the victim. Victim became unconscious and woke up in the hospital and found their goods alongwith cash were missing. (2) on 24/07/2013 in the evening IO took them to Old Delhi Railway Station where one RPF personnel had stopped the accused on basis of suspicion. Victims identified the said accused and some of their goods were recovered from the accused at the said time.
13. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case. PW1 and PW3 i.e. victims had disputed the identity of the accused and had stated that he was not the person who had offered them intoxicating toffee and also no recovery was effected from the accused in their presence.
14. PW1 Vinay in his examinationinchief proved the entire story of prosecution. His examination was further deferred for production of case property. Case property was not produced but the same was also not disputed in respect of the articles released on superdari vide order dated 14/08/2013 and the photographs of currency notes and mobile phone were exhibited as Ex. P1 & Ex. P2 respectively.
In crossexamination the witness stated that Police had obtained his signatures on blank paper. He was accompanied by his brother Angad and had not seen the accused earlier to the incident. When the accused had told them that he was going to the same place where they were going, he had believed his version. He also admitted that the accused SC no.:57/14 Page 5/12 person had been shown by the Police before recording of his statement on the last date of hearing (examinationinchief of 28/02/2014). He also admitted that he had gone through his statement before deposing in the Court. Public persons were present in the Police Station. He admitted that accused present in the Court was not the person who had given him toffee on the date of incident in question after eating which he had become unconscious. He also admitted that Police had not apprehended the accused in his presence. He stated that his statement was recorded in the hospital. He admitted that the supplementary statement was recorded in the Police Station when accused was shown to him. He denied that no articles were seized at platform no. 3 of Railway Station.
In crossexamination by the Ld. APP, the witness stated that he had given statement on oath and had identified the accused on the asking of the Police on the previous date of hearing. He reiterated that the incident in question was a true incident and he had reported the true story to the Police at the time of lodging of FIR and recording of his statement. He denied that he had compromised the matter in between the first date of his statement (i.e. 28/02/2014) and the second day of statement (i.e. 24/03/2014) and therefore, had changed the version in favour of the accused.
15. PW3 Angad the second victim corroborated the version of their waiting on 23/07/2013 for train at Delhi Cantt. Railway Station. But stated that one person befriended them and offered coke and biscuit, after eating the same he became unconscious and regained consciousness in the hospital. He further stated that Vinay also became unconscious. Police had recorded their statements. Their belongings alongwith cash of Rs. 12,000/ were found missing. Police took them to Railway Station again. Later on Police informed them that the clothes had been recovered. He got his articles released on superdari. He however, denied that the accused was the person who had offered him coke and biscuit. SC no.:57/14 Page 6/12
In crossexamination by the prosecution he admitted that he had signed on Ex. PW1/B at point A. But stated that he did not know about the contents of the same. He denied that on 24/07/2013 Police took them to Old Delhi Railway Station where accused was identified and arrested by the Police. He denied that his mobile phone, railway ticket, jeans pant, Tshirt, payjama, towel, cash of Rs. 2,000/ in a bag were recovered from the accused. He denied that he had signed the seizure memo Ex. PW1/B at point A. He also denied signing arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement. He volunteered that he was asked to sign on blank paper. He denied that he had been won over by the accused person.
16. In respect of the first part of the prosecution's story of accused having administered intoxicating substance to victim.
17. PW1 in his crossexamination denied that the accused was the same person who had offered them intoxicating toffee but in his examinationinchief and in cross examination at later point reiterated that the accused person had met them on the platform of Delhi Cantt. Railway Station when they were waiting for their train to Basti and also that he had reported true story to Police at the time of FIR and recording of his statement which was recorded by the Police in the hospital when he became conscious. He identified his signatures on his statement Ex. PW1/A. He tried to explain that his signatures were obtained on blank paper. He also stated in his crossexamination that he had not seen the accused earlier to the incident and also that when the accused had told him that he was going to the same place where he was going he had believed his version. The statement of PW1 in totality therefore, proves that the accused had met the victims at the Railway Station before the victim were rendered unconscious and accused had told them that he was going to the same place where victim were headed. PW3 changed the story by stating that they were SC no.:57/14 Page 7/12 offered coke and biscuit instead of toffee in contrast to version of PW1. He also denied that the accused was not the person who had offered him coke and biscuit. He completely disputed the identity of the accused person being the person who had offered them intoxicating substance.
18. There is no other eye witness to the incident of 23/07/2013 at Delhi Cantt Railway Station. Thus, the story of accused having given intoxicating toffees to victims on 23/07/2013 is doubtful and not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
19. In respect of the second aspect of the story about recovery of goods from accused.
20. PW1 stated that from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital he was taken to Old Delhi Railway Station where at platform no. 3 accused was in Police custody alongwith his luggage. The recovered goods were suit salwar, mobile, namkeen, toffee, and Rs. 2,000/ of Angad. But his cash was not recovered. He had obtained his goods on superdari and Angad had obtained Rs. 2,000/ on superdari. He had identified the photographs of notes as Ex. P1 and mobile phone as Ex. P2. But in crossexamination admitted that accused was not apprehended by the Police in his presence. The witness was however, given no suggestion about goods being recovered from accused. The explanation given by the witness about identifying the accused during statement in Court on 28/02/2014 and disputing his identity on 24/03/2014 was that he had identified accused on the asking of the Police. In this respect no averment was made by witness either on the said day or later, nor names of any Police official who had asked him to identify the accused and where said directions were given by Police, had been disclosed before the Court. There was a gap of about one month in recording of the said two statements and therefore, possibility of witness being won over SC no.:57/14 Page 8/12 cannot be ruled out. In any case, in such a situation prosecution would be required to corroborate their entire story as testimony of PW1 without corroboration would become highly unreliable.
21. PW3 in this respect stated that Police had taken them to Railway Station. But Police later on informed that their clothes had been recovered. He got the same released on superdari. In crossexamination he admitted that Ex. PW1/B was signed by him at point A. But stated that he was not aware of the contents of the same. He denied that accused was apprehended at Old Delhi Railway Station on 24/07/2013 where he had identified him. He also denied his articles and Rs. 2,000/ were recovered from the possession of the accused. He denied having signed any document relating to arrest, search and disclosure of the accused but stated that he was made to sign on blank documents.
22. The other witnesses in respect of arrest of accused and the recovery of the articles from the accused and his arrest are HC Kuldeep Singh of RPF, PW4, PW6, & PW8. HC Kuldeep Singh was given up being repetitive.
23. PW4 RPF official was posted on duty at Old Delhi Railway Station on 24/07/2013. He stated that at 05:30 p.m. he had stopped the accused person on the basis of doubt when he was carrying two bags and one polythene. While he was questioning the accused, in the meantime, ASI Madan Singh alongwith Vinay and Angad had reached the spot. Both Vinay and Angad had identified the accused and also informed that the goods with the accused were their missing articles. The goods were taken into possession from the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B signed by him at point B. No suggestion was given to witness that accused was not apprehended by him. PW6 also reiterated the said story that they left Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital at 06:00 p.m. on 24/07/2013 and reached Old Delhi SC no.:57/14 Page 9/12 Railway Station where RPF official had stopped one person with luggage. Vinay and Angad had identified the accused and their articles. The seizure memo of goods Ex. PW1/B was signed by him. Accused was arrested and he had signed on his arrest memo and search memo. PW8 also corroborated the said story stating that they started at 05:30 p.m. from hospital and reached Old Delhi Railway Station platform no. 3 alongwith Vinay and Angad. Complainant had identified the goods from the possession of the accused. The seizure memo of the goods Ex. PW1/B was signed by him at point X. The accused was arrested, personal search conducted and memos prepared.
24. PW1 and PW3 have disputed the identity of the accused being the person who had administered intoxicating substance to them but have deposed in corroboration that in the evening of 24/07/2013 Police had taken them from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital to Old Delhi Railway Station. They have also admitted their signatures on recovery memo Ex. PW1/B but tried to explain that Police had obtained their signatures on blank papers. They however, did not explain as to why or where they had signed the same as blank papers. In contrast arrest memo Ex. PW3/A is a printed form and not a document which could have been completely blank. Therefore, the version of PW1 & PW3 of having signed only blank documents does not appear to be believable.
25. As per MLC of the victim, they were declared fit for statement only on 24/07/2013. PW1 stated that he regained consciousness at about 03:00 p.m., was taken to Railway Station and other witnesses PW3, PW6 & PW8 have also deposed that victim from hospital were taken in evening to Old Delhi Railway Station. PW5 Incharge Medicines of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital in crossexamination stated that injured had absconded from hospital on 24/07/2013. But the said fact of injured absconding is not recorded in any of the documents. The possible explanation could be that the victim had been taken to Old Delhi SC no.:57/14 Page 10/12 Railway Station and when the hospital authority did not find them, they might have been presumed to be absconding. In this respect tehrir Ex. PW8/B is also important which was prepared on 24/07/2013 and sent to Duty Officer for recording of FIR at about 04:00 p.m. This shows that victim would have been taken to Old Delhi Railway Station after 04:00 p.m. on 24/07/2013.
26. The arrest memo of accused Ex. PW3/A is dated 24/07/2013 at 07:30 p.m., place of arrest being shown as platform no. 3, Old Delhi Railway Station and is signed by PW3, HC Kuldeep Singh, PW6, PW8 and the accused. There is no reason to doubt statement of PW4, PW6 & PW8 in this respect and no reason is shown as why the said witness would falsely deposed against the accused. Accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC stated that he was arrested from his home on 24/07/2013 at about 07:00 to 07:30 p.m. but was falsely shown to be arrested from Old Delhi Railway Station. In this respect, PW4 Railway Police Force official was on duty and posted at Old Delhi Railway Station and was not related to Delhi Police. He reasonably would have only been present at the Railway Station at the said time. The address of the accused is Gali no. 7, Vidhyapati Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi. Police had left Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital after 05:00 p.m. and accused was stopped by PW4 at 05:30 p.m. The distance between the accused's residence of Nangloi and Old Delhi Railway Station would be substantial and if the version of the accused was to be believed, then, the place and time of arrest of accused would not have matched as Old Delhi Railway Station 07:30 p.m. as shown in Ex. PW3/A. Further at the said time personal search memo of accused was also prepared which corroborates in details with time and date of arrest of accused. There is no dispute about victims having got their articles released on supedari as per superdaginama and seizure memo Ex. PW1/B.
27. Prosecution has thus, failed to prove that accused had administered intoxicating SC no.:57/14 Page 11/12 substance to victims on 23/07/2013 making them unconscious but has successfully proved that accused was found in possession of stolen articles as per Ex. PW1/B belonging to victims on 24/07/2013 at the time of his arrest.
28. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 328/379 IPC and is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 411 IPC.
Announced in the open court (DINESH BHATT)
on 16/05/2014 ASJ/Delhi/16/05/2014
SC no.:57/14 Page 12/12