Delhi District Court
State vs . Tejveer Singh And Others Etc. on 18 September, 2013
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE08,WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
STATE VS. Tejveer Singh and others etc.
FIR NO: 42/01
P. S. Kirti Nagar
U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
Unique ID No. 02401R0257602001
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 1151/1(11.06.2010) Date of its institution : 25.06.2001 Name of the complainant : HC Ved Parkash Date of Commission of offence : 26.01.2001 Name of the accused persons : 1. Tejveer Singh S/o Sh. Govind Singh R/o B21, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi.
2. Santosh Kumar S/o Sh. Puran Chand
3. Parkash S/o Sh. Preetvas Both are R/o B/C BB, Janak Puri, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 2 :-Case reserved for orders : 13.08.2013 Date of judgment : 18.09.2013 Final Order : Convicted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the trial of the aforesaid accused persons upon the police report filed by P.S. Kirti Nagar U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.
2. The prosecution story is that in the intervening night of 25/26.01.2001 at about 12.30a.m. at opposite House No. B21, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kirti Nagar, all accused persons caused obstruction in the discharge of his pubic duty by HC Ved Parkash. The accused persons also assaulted and beaten the complainant Ved Parkash and caused him simple injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by police station Kirti Nagar and a charge heet was filed against the accused persons. The charge against the accused persons for offence U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 42/01 -: 3 :-4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses.
5. PW1 Shree Niwas is the duty officer who proved the registration of FIR of this case as Ex.PW1/A upon a rukka Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW2 is the complainant HC Ved Parkash. He deposed that in the intervening night of 25/26.01.2001 he was on patrolling duty in the area of M.S. Garden and Sarswati Garden alongwith Ct. Mahender. He saw that the accused Parkash and Santosh were standing there. When he asked them that why they are standing in such odd hours they started abusing him. The third accused Tejveer also came there and gave blow with a piece of stone on the left side of his face due to which he sustained injuries. His uniform was also torn in their incident. The accused persons were in the influence of liquor. He was rescued by Ct. Mahender and Ct. Narender who came there later on. He was medically examined. He also proved his statement as Ex.PW2/A on which this case was registered.
7. PW3 SI Rai Singh deposed that he was working as MHC(M) and has proved entry of the case property in register No. 19 of malkhana at serial No. 1336. Copy of the relevant FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 4 :-entry is exhibited as Ex.PW3/A.
8. PW4 Ct. Narender deposed that on 25.01.2001, in the night hours, he was on patrolling duty in the area of M.S. Garden and at about 12:30/12:45a.m. when he reached at BCD chowk, M.S. Garden, he saw that three persons out of which one was Sikh were quarreling with HC Ved Prakash and were beating him. He also reached there and saved HC Ved Prakash from the said accused persons. All the three accused persons were drunk. He send Ct. Mahender to inform to the PS in this regard, HC Ved Prakash alongwith police officials came at the spot and HC Ved Prakash had recorded the statement of injured HC Ved Prakash and send him for his medical examination to DDU hospital. IO prepared rukka and sent to PS through Ct. Virender and thereafter, he came back alongwith rukka and copy of FIR and handed over to IO. On the directions of IO we took all the three accused persons to DDU hospital for their medical examination and after that came back at spot and handed over all the three accused persons to IO. IO arrested all the three accused persons in this case.
9. PW5 HC Ravinder Singh has also corroborated the testimony of PW4 Ct. Narender.
FIR No. 42/01 -: 5 :-10. PW6 Dr. Nishu Dhawan has proved the MLC of injured as Ex.PW6/A. he also proved the MLCs Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D.
11. PW7 ASI Ved Prakash deposed that in the night of 25/26.01.2001 he was posted at PS Kirti Nagar as head constable and on that night, on receipt of DD No. 28A, true copy of the same is Ex.PW7/A he alongwith Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Divakar and DHG Ct. Mahender had gone at in front of B21, MS Garden where HC Ved Parkash and Ct. Narender met them. HC Ved Parkash had received injuries and his uniform shirt was also found torn. Three person namely Santosh, Parkash and Tejvir who were under influence of liquor were also found present at the spot. He recorded statement of HC Ved Parkash which is Ex.PW2/A and prepared a written request Ex.PW7/B and sent HC Ved Parkash to DDU hospital for his medical examination with DHG Ct. Mahender Singh. Both came at the spot and Ct. handed over to me the MLC of injured. He made endorsement on Ex.PW2/A and got the case registered through Ct. Ravinder. I inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW7/C. He took into possession the torn uniform shirt of HC Ved Parkash after kept in a cloth piece and FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 6 :-prepared pulanda duly sealed with the seal of VP through seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. One motorcycle no. DL 1SH 6703 was also taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. He arrested all the three accused persons in this case and prepared their arrest memos Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C in respect of accused Parkash Chand, Tejvir and Santosh and also prepared personal search memo Ex.PW2/D, 2/E and 2/F respectively. All the three accused persons were taken to DDU hospital for their medical examination and doctor who medically examined the accused persons had also confirmed that the accused persons were under influence of liquor.
12. PW8 Sh. Rishi Pal S.P. Security has proved the complaint U/s 195Cr.P.C. and the same is Ex.PW8/A.
13. This is the overall prosecution's evidence in this case.
14. After the prosecution's evidence was closed and all the three accused persons persons were examined U/s 313 Cr.PC wherein all incriminating evidence were put to them which they denied. Accused persons led defence in their evidence and examined three witnesses in their defence evidence.
FIR No. 42/01 -: 7 :-15. DW1 Sh. Prakash deposed that on 25/26.01.2001 he alongwith Sh. Santosh Kumar was parking their motorcycle in side the house No. B21, Mansarovar Garden, Delhi. He alongwith Santosh Kumar were at the spot in the house of Tejveer Singh for meeting. After the meeting, they came out because it was late night and it was decided that they should park the motorcycle in the house and should go in the Maruti Van owned by Tejveer Singh. When they were parking the motorcycle in the house No. B21, Mansarovar Garden at that time a constable whose name later on came to know as Ved Prakash came at the spot asked them what they are doing at this our in the night. They told him that they are parking the motorcycle in side the house and going by the van of Mr. Tejveer Singh. At that time, he told them that he cannot leave the place and caught hold their motorcycle and taken the key of the motorcycle stopped the motorcycle. Thereafter, when they asked him why he is stopping them from going, he started abusing in filthy language. In the meantime, two policemen reached there and they started beating him and Santosh. There was huge noise created there and hearing that Mr. Tejveer Singh came out of the house to find out what is happening. Mr. Tejveer Singh asked the FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 8 :-policemen why they are retaining them and beating them. The policemen were having lathis and pistol with them. He and Santosh were having nothing with them. The policemen started abusing Mr. Tejveer Singh also and also beating him. After that on account of great noise created at the spot the parents of Tejveer Singh and some neighbourers came at the spot. The parents and other persons collected at the spot asked the policemen what are you doing and even on that the policemen told them to keep shut and also started abusing them. In the meantime, Tejveer Singh went inside the house and in the meantime, he and Santosh were taken in the three wheeler scooter after beating them to the police station. No statement of any person was recorded at the spot. No investigation officer came at the spot. When they reached the police station, he alongwith Santosh Kumar asked the police why have they taken them here, on that policemen started beating them and asked them to sit in the corner. Tejveer Singh came afterwards separately. No investigation was made in their presence and nothing was asked from them. At that time, when they were at the spot, no uniform was torn on the spot or any injury was caused to Ct. Ved Prakash. In fact injury was received by him and Tejveer Singh. No arrest was FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 9 :-made at the spot. They were arrested in the police station. Thereafter, they were sent for medical examination. The case has been framed against them because the police wanted bribe from them and on their refusal they have implicated them in this case. they are all innocent. Father of Tejveer Singh, Sh. Gobind Saran, driver of Tejveer Singh, Sh. Shinda and two neighbourers also reached the police station. They requested the policemen why they have brought them to PS and also requested them to record their statement also but IO scolded them and refused to take the statement. Inspite the repeated request of father and neighbourer the policemen there refused to listen them.
16. DW2 Tejveer Singh and DW3 Prakash also deposed on the same lines and corroborated the statement of DW1.
17. I have heard the arguments of Counsel for both the parties and perused the records of the case.
18. Ld. APP for State has argued that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons persons deserves conviction in this case.
19. The defences raised by Ld. defence counsel in this case will be dealt one by one later on.
FIR No. 42/01 -: 10 :-20. Having dealt with the submissions advanced by both the parties, I proceed to adjudicate upon the most important question involved in the present case: Whether the accused persons persons are guilty of the offences with which they are charged or not.
21. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant HC Ved Parkash was obstructed, assaulted and beaten by the accused persons while he was discharging of his official duties. Complainant has been examined in this case as PW2. He has proved that he was assaulted and beaten by the accused persons. He deposed about the manner in which the offence was committed by the accused persons which is discussed above. There is nothing in his cross examination which can discredit his testimony or can impeach it. The complainant is the injured witness in this case and therefore his testimony carries a great value in quest of truth for this court. His presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. There is no exaggeration in his evidence.
While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach of the court must be whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 11 :-that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. When eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigation officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of the incident. details of an incident.
FIR No. 42/01 -: 12 :-It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
22. Now in the light of the aforesaid principles of law, it is clear that the testimony of the injured witness stands on a very high footing unless and until impeached by some clinching evidence. In the present case also the injured PW2 has categorically deposed that the cause of injuries upon him was the assault done by accused persons. The complainant received injury as per the MLC. He is the victim of the offence in the present case. He is the best witnesses to describe the manner in which the offence is committed by accused persons which he indeed did if we look at his evidence referred above. Being the victim of the crime he would be most keen to ensure that the real culprit does not go scot free and there is no reason that he would frame an innocent person in such a serious offence which he has alleged completely knowing its implications without any previous enmity with the accused persons, consciously making allegation against totally unknown persons knowing its implications well. Since the injured is the victim of the offence, it would require very convincing circumstances to discard the evidence of this witness particularly when the story propounded by him seems to be most probable. The testimony of this FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 13 :-witness does not appears to be embellihed or embroidered in respect of the offence committed. This witness has withstood the cross examination and categorically proved that the accused persons assaulted him. In the present case, therefore the occurrence of the offence is proved by the complainant against the accused persons and there is no good reason to discard his testimony which is found to be consistent and reliable and also inspires confidence. The FIR was promptly registered and their was no opportunity to the complainant to embellish or falsely implicate the accused persons . A minute scrutiny of the testimony of complainant reveals that it has passed the test of reliability and his version is natural, probable, coherent and cogent. He has categorically deposed the place and the manner in which the assault was committed upon him and also identified the accused persons as his assailants in the court. Therefore I am of the view that the testimony, of this witness inspires confidence and the probative force in her testimony is so strong so as to convict the accused persons.
23. The assault upon the complainant has been further corroborated by the testimony of PW4 Ct. Narender who was on patrolling duty with the complainant on the date of incident. Further corroboration to the testimony of the complainant has FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 14 :-been done by PW5 HC Ravinder who was on emergency duty with HC Ved Parkash.
24. The testimony of the complainant is further corroborated by the medical evidence i.e. his MLC Ex. PW6/A. The doctor who proved the MLC of injured Ved Parkash opined the injury as simple caused by blunt object corroborating the fact that he was injured with the piece of stone on his face.
25. The formal witnesses of police have proved the investigation in this case.
26. Now I come to the arguments advanced by Ld. defence counsel during arguments. It was argued by Ld. defence counsel that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also argued that the complaint U/s 195Cr.P.C. is not a valid complaint because the Assistant Commissioner of Police who has filed his complaint U/s 195Cr.P.C. was not posted there.
27. The complaint U/s 195Cr.P.C was given by ACP Rishi Pal who has been examined in the court as PW8. He has categorically deposed that he was the ACP of Rajouri Garden, area and therefore, the contention of Ld. defence counsel that the ACP concerned was not posted in that area is not tenable. ACP Rishi Pal who is PW8 has proved his complaint U/s FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 15 :-195Cr.PC as Ex.PW8/A. There is nothing in the cross examination of this witness to impeach his testimony or his complaint U/s 195Cr.P.C.
28. The next defence of the Ld. defence counsel is that no public person was joined in the investigation of this case nor any public witness has been examined to prove this case.
29. To appreciate this argument of Ld. defence counsel it has to be kept in mind that the accident occurred at around 12.30a.m. in the night and therefore, the difficulty of the prosecution in getting public witnesses also needs to be considered. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not think that it could be a decisive factor to acquit the accused. It has been a matter of common experience that the public persons are not interested to be made witnesses in criminal cases when they have no concern or interest in the outcome of the case. In the current days of deteriorating law and order situation currently prevalent in the society, strict compliance of the rules regulating search and seizure demands a rational approach. Very few local witnesses have the courage to depose against their powerful neighbours or habitual miscreants obviously for fear of life and honour. In almost all cases local or public witnesses come to the court to say that they signed blank FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 16 :-papers on the asking of the law enforcing agency and they did not see the recovery of incriminating articles. A rigid view on the rules of search and seizure should not be blown to far, else we may be strayed in wilderness. In the absence of any special reason evidence of investigation related officials may be safely acted upon. There is no warrant of law to hold that the evidence of members of law enforcement agencies must have corroboration from other sources. Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court has in number of cases held that the police witnesses are competent witnesses and the a case of prosecution should not be thrown out only because the public witnesses are not joined in the investigation and examined during the trial.
30. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appabhai v.
State of Gujarat ( AIR 1988 SC 696) has been pleased to observe: "It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the busstand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensible when FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 17 :-a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate but it is there, everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigation agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses must consider the broad spectrum or the prosecution version and search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused."
31. In the case titled as Jawahar vs State Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed "As far as non association of public witnesses at the time of recovery is concerned, I consider that this is not an infirmity sufficient to throw out the case of FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 18 :-the prosecution. It is very hard these days to get association of public witnesses in criminal investigation. Investigation itself is a tedious process and a public witness, who is associated, has to spend hours at the spot. Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any inconvenience for the sake of society. The other reason for the public witness not readily agreeing to associate with investigation is harassment of public witness that takes place in the courts.
Normally a public witness should be called once to depose in the court and his testimony should be recorded and he should be discharged. But experience shows that adjournments are given even in criminal cases on all excuses and if adjournments are not given, it is considered as a breach of the right of hearing of the accused. These adjournments are specifically taken by counsels for accused persons, when witnesses are present, just to see that witnesses get harassed by calling them time and again. The excuses normally given in the courts are FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 19 :-: the counsel having urgent personal work, left the court; death of some near relatives etc; the counsel being busy in arguing other matter in other court or cross examining other witness in some other court. This attitude of the courts of sending witness back is a major cause of harassment which discourages public from associating in the investigation of any case. Since the police is faced with this handicap, the police cannot be blamed for not associating public witness. There is no presumption that the police witnesses are not credible witnesses. The testimony of every witness, whether from public or police, has to be judged at its own merits and the court can believe or disbelieve a police witness considering the intrinsic value of his testimony. Police witnesses are equally good witnesses and equally bad witnesses as any other witness and the testimony of police witness cannot be rejected on the ground that they are official witnesses".
FIR No. 42/01 -: 20 :-32. Therefore the aforesaid judgments clearly and categorically lays down a rule that the conviction can be based on the testimonies of police witnesses provided that they are reliable and trustworthy and in the present cases already discussed there is nothing on record to discredit the testimonies of police witnesses.
33. The third defence of Ld. defence counsel is that the accused persons were beaten by the police personnels after the incident. They have been medically examined. Their MLCs are also on record and the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries upon the accused persons. Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Mehar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997, Supreme Court Cases (Cri )752. I have gone through this judgment. In this judgment the non explanation of injuries upon the accused were considered as significant in view of the defence version of causing injuries in the exercise of right of self defence. In the present case accused persons have not taken any such plea of self defence in causing injuries to the complainant Ved Parkash. In Shaikh Majid Vs. State of Maharashtra it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court "One of the pleas is that the FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 21 :-prosecution has not explained the injuries on the accused. The issue is, if there is no such explanation what would be its affect? We are not prepared to agree with the Ld. Counsel for defence that in each and every case where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries found on some of the accused, the prosecution case should automatically be rejected without any further probe".
34. In Vijayee Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1990 (3) SCC 190 in para 10 of the judgment it was observed that "non explanation of the injuries by the prosecution will not affect the prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that outweighs the effect of the ommission or the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injures on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 22 :-consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one".
35. The last defence taken by Ld. defence counsel is that the act imputed upon the accused persons does not amounts to causing obstructions in the discharge of official duties. Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the judgment titled as Jaswant Singh Vs. King Emperor AIR 1925 Lahore 139, Baldeo Singh Vs. King Emperor AIR 1926 Allahabad 566. I have gone through both the aforesaid judgments. The Hon'ble Courts in both these cases had come to the conclusion that the acts imputed upon the accused persons in those cases did not amount to obstruction of the discharge of the lawful duties on the particular facts of those cases. In Jaswant Singh's case Hon'ble Lahore High Court had observed that on the basis of evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution there was no voluntary obstruction on the part of the petitioner. It means that it was the evidence of that case and not the facts which resulted in the opinion of acquittal in the aforesaid case. In the present case complainant HC Ved Parkash has categorically deposed that FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 23 :-he was on patrolling duty in uniform. In cross examination it has come that he was also having the pistol with him. He found that the accused persons in inebriated state and asked him the reason for their standing in such odd hours at that place. It was on this inquiry the abuse and assault on the complainant took place and therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be said that he was not discharging his official duties when assaulted by the accused persons. It is even admitted by the accused persons that they had consumed liquor before the incident.
36. Now coming to the offence with the accused persons are charged with. The accused persons are charged with the offence under section 186/332/353/34 IPC. The evidence on record shows beyond reasonable doubt that that the accused persons obstructed and beaten the complainant who was on his official duty and therefore there is no doubt the accused persons had committed the offence under section 186/332/34 IPC. As far as the offence under section 353 IPC is considered I am of the view that the offence of section 332 IPC will cover the offence under section 353 IPC because causing hurt will always include causing assault and there is no need to punish the accused for the same act under two different offences.
37. In view of the evidences, facts, circumstances, FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.
-: 24 :-arguments and all material on record, there can only be one conclusion that accused persons has committed the offence u/s 186/332/34 IPC with which they are also charged and I convict them accordingly.
Announcd in the open court On this 18th September, 2013 (Samar Vishal) Metropolitan Magistrate08, WEST, Tis Hazari Delhi FIR No. 42/01 STATE VS. Tejveer & Ors.