Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar Chadha on 2 September, 2016
1 IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (WEST DISTRICT) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI FIR No. 379/2006 PS: Kirti Nagar U/s. 384 IPC Dated: 02.09.2016. STATE VS. ANIL KUMAR CHADHA Date of Institution : 29.11.2006 Date of Commission of offence : 05.08.2006 Name of the Complainant : Sh. Surender Bhambri S/o Late Sh. Satpal Singh. Name parentage and address : of the accused Anil Kumar Chadha S/o Sh. Vasdev Chadha, R/o; Block 39, H.No. 9 and 10, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi. Offence Complained of : U/s. 384 IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. Final Order : Acquitted. Date for reserve for order : 02.09.2016. Date of announcing of order : 02.09.2016. JUDGMENT
FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 1/16 2 BRIEF FACTS
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off, the above captioned case FIR No. 379/2006, PS: Kirti Nagar. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint that on 05.08.2016, at about 11.30 AM, at 7/167, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Kirti Nagar, accused intentionally put complainant Surender Bhambri and other public persons in fear of demolition of their houses and shops and thereby dishonestly induced the said complainant and other public persons to deliver money and therefore accused Anil Kumar Chadha has committed offence punishable under Section 384 Indian Penal Code (herein referred to as I.P.C.) PROCEEDINGS AFTER FILING OF CHARGE SHEET
2. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused. Thereafter, charge Under Section 384 IPC was framed against accused on 19.04.2008, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. The prosecution has examined twelve witnesses in all in the present case.
The deposition of witnesses is touched upon in brief as under to have a better appreciation of the case, which are follows: PW1 is Sh. Vidya Gupta, who stated on oath that he was running a sweet shop under the name Bikaner Sweets at Tilark Market, Ramesh Nagar. About two years back accused Anil Kumar Chadha came to his shop and asked for Rs. 5,000/ and he gave Rs. 5,000/ to the accused. Accused told me that the said money will be given to the school children. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the defence.
FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 2/16 3 PW2 is complainant Sh. Surender Bhambri, who stated on oath that he was running a office of property dealing at 7/162, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi in the year of 2008. In the said yeard accused came at his office and had shown the photographs of his building and demanded Rs. 1100/ from him. He deposed that he paid the same. After sometime accused again came at his office and demanded Rs. 10,000/ to which, he flatly refused. Thereafter, accused threatened that he will get his office shut down as the road is illegal. He further deposed that he made a complaint at Police Station (herein referred to as P.S.). His complaint is Ex. PW2/A, which bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that second time accused came to his office at noon and demanded money from him. Arrest memo is Ex. PW2/B, bears his signature at point A. The said witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defence. PW3 is HC Katar Singh, who stated on oath that on 05.08.2016, he was on emergency duty and had joined the investigation alongwith ASI Arvind Verma. On that day, he went to BBlock, Ramesh Nagar and reached at H.No. 9, Ramesh Nagar, where accused Anil Kr. Chadha met him and was formally arrested vide Ex. PW3/B, bears his signature at point B. During investigation, accused Anil Kr. Chadha made his disclosure statement. Thereafter, accused was taken to PS lockup. The said witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defence. PW4 is Ct. Sher Singh, who stated on oath that on 06.08.2016, at the instance of IO/SI Shiv Dev Singh, accused was taken out from the police lockup and the IO took the accused alongwith him to Ramesh Nagar for enquiry and in the way, the autoricshaw stopped due to problem in it and thereafter they started walking. He deposed that they they again hired on auto rickshaw from Bali Nagar red light and thereafter they went to PS FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 3/16 4 Rajouri Garden, Dossier Cell. He deposed that after getting the dossier prepared, they took the accused back to PS Kirti Nagar. Disclosure statement of accused is Ex. PW4/A. The said witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defence. PW5 is Sh. Surender Malhotra, who stated on oath that in the year 2006, he was running a boutique shop at C5, Ramesh Nagar, Tilak Market, New Delhi alongwith his wife. He did not know anything about this case. He alongwith other shopkeepers of the market were called at the PS. Police had already apprehended the accused. He deposed that the police obtained his signatures on some papers.
The said witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and not cross examined on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the defence. PW6 is Sh. Ram Dass, who stated on oath that he did not know anything about this case. He came in the court as he was summoned by the court. The said witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the defence.
PW7 is Sh. Trilock Chand, who stated on oath that he did not know anything about this case.
The said witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the defence.
PW8 is Sh. Parkash Chand, who stated on oath that he did not know nothing about this case. He deposed that he did not know the accused. He was familiar to the accused as he is residing in the same area. He was running a restaurant in the name Jiya Chicken Centre in Ramesh Nagar, but now he had quit his business.
The said witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the defence FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 4/16 5 PW9 is Sh. Jitender Singh, who stated on oath that he was dealing in property business. Earlier hw was running a nonveg eating house from the year 2002 to 2008. He further deposed that he did not know nothing about this case.
The said witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the defence.
PW10 is Sh. Dhiraj Kumar, who stated on oath that he was running a mobile shop. He know the accused Anil Kumar Chadha as he is residing in his locality. He deposed that he had not moved any complaint against him. He further deposed that some one was obtaining the signatures of shopkeepers of the market i.e. Tilak Market, Ramesh Nagar, and he had also signed the same. He further deposed that he did not know anything about this case.
The said witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the defence.
PW11 is Inspector Mahavir Singh, who stated on oath that on 12.08.2006, he was posted at PS Kirti Nagar as Inspector. On that day, the further investigation was marked to him alongwith the case file as the previous IO was transferred from the said PS. He had gone through the case file and after completion of investigation. He had filed the challan in the instant matter before the court.
The said witness was cross examined on behalf of Ld. Counsel for defence.
PW12 is ASI Bhagwan Sahay, who stated on oath that on 05.08.2016, he was posted at PS Kirti Nagar as HC/DO and he was working as Duty Officer was 4.00 PM to 12.00 mid night. On that day, at about 7.20 PM, he received the rukka of the present case from SI Shiv Dev Singh, on the FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 5/16 6 basis of the which, the FIR No. 379/2006 was registered. The copy of the same is Ex. PW12/A, which bears his signature at point A. Thereafter, he mad endorsement on the rukka, which is Ex. PW12/B, which bears his signature at point A. The copy of the FIR No. 379/2006 and original rukka was handed over to the IO/SI Shiv Dev Singh, as the further investigation was marked to him.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 OF CR.P.C.
4. Thereafter, PE was closed. Statement U/s. 313 Cr.PC of the accused was recorded, wherein he stated that he does not want to lead his defence evidence. Accordingly, DE stands closed. Final arguments have been heard from both the sides and record has been meticulously perused.
5. I have weighed the rival submissions made on behalf of the State as well as on behalf of the defence in the light of the testimonies & material appearing on record.
6. Before proceeding further, I need to discuss the relevant legal propositions applicable on to the facts of the case. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence & that in order to prove its case on judicial file, the prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs whereby it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused persons. Further settled it is, that the primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution, which burden never shifts on to the accused.
7. It is no longer Res Integra that accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt(s) appearing qua the material facts of the prosecution's story whereby such reasonable doubt(s) entitles the accused to acquittal.
FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 6/16 7 INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 384 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE
8. To prove the offences U/s. 384 of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following: Section 384 IPC
(a) that the accused put the complainant in fear of some injury.
(b) that such injury was either to the complainant or to some other person.
(c) that the accused did so intentionally.
(d) that he thereby induced the person so put in fear to deliver to some person, some property or valuable security, or something signed or sealed, which was convertible into a valuable security.
(e) that the accused acted dishonestly in doing as above.
9. I have heard the contention of Ld. APP for State as well as Ld. Defence counsel and given my thoughtful consideration. To prove the present offence, the Prosecution has examined twelve witnesses in all. To Prove the ingredients of offences, the Prosecution was required to prove that the said act has been done by the accused. In the aforesaid factual & legal background, I shall now step forward to adjudicate as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused or not.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
10. It is pertinent to mention here that the star witnesses of the Prosecution in the instant case is PW1 Sh. Vidya Gupta, PW5 Sh. Surender Malhotra, PW6 Sh. Ram Dass, PW7 Sh. Trilok Chand, PW8 Sh. Prakash Chand, PW9 Sh. Jitender Singh annd PW10 Sh. Dhiraj Kumar , who are projected as main witnesses in the instant case have turned hostile. The law on appreciation of evidence in the event of witnesses turning hostile was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sat Paul Vs. FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 7/16 8 Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below for ready reference: "....even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross examined and contradicted with a leave of the court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness stands throughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.....".
11. Now coming back to the facts of the instant case, the PW1, PW5 , PW6 ,PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW10 have failed to depose that they were put under fear and thereby dishonestly induced to deliver money to the accused. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW1 Sh. Vidya Gupta, PW5 Sh. Surender Malhotra, PW6 Sh. Ram Dass, PW7 Sh. Trilok Chand, PW8 Sh. Prakash Chand, PW9 Sh. Jitender Singh annd PW10 Sh. Dhiraj Kumar are reproduced below for ready reference: " PW1: I am running a sweet shop under the name Bikaner Sweets at Tilak Market, Ramesh Nagar. About two years back accused Anil Kumar Chadha, who is present in the court today came to my shop and asked for Rs. 5,000/ and I gave Rs. 5,000/ to the accused. Accused told me that the said money will be given to the school children. I do not know anything more about this case.
At this stage Ld. APP wants to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement. Heard. Allowed. XXXXXX by Ld. APP for the State.
FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 8/16 9 I had not stated in my statement to the police that accused extorted Rs. 5,000/ from me after putting me in fear or that otherwise he would make complaint against me in MCD and get closed my shop. (Confronted with the statement of PW1/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately and intentionally concealing the true facts as I have been won over by the accused. It is further wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to save the accused.
PW5: In the year 2006, I was running a boutique shop at C5, Ramesh Nagar, Tilak Market, New Delhi alongwith my wife. I do not know anything about this case. I alongwith other shopkeepers of the market were called at the PS. Police had already apprehended the accused today present in the court. Police obtained my signatures on some papers. Except that I do not know anything about this case.
At this stage Ld. APP wants to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement. Heard. Allowed. XXXXXX by Ld. APP for the State.
It is wrong to suggest that on 05.08.2006, police had recorded my statement which is Mark Z. The attention of the witness is drawn on the statement mark A in toto and after having gone through the same witness stated that he had not given the statement to any police officer on 05.08.2006. It is wrong to suggest that I had given statement Mark A to the IO on 05.08.06 and stated that about ¾ months back from 05.08.06 Anil Chadha who was residing at house no. 39/11, double storey, Ramesh Nagar had come at my shop and demanded Rs. 2,000/ from me and also threatened me that if I would not pay the said amount to him he will complaint in the MCD department regarding my unauthorized boutique shop and I got fear and given Rs. 2,000/ to him. The attention of the witness is drawn to the statement Mark A in portion A to A1, where it is so recorded. It is further wrong to suggest that I have also stated to the IO in statement Mark A that about one and half or two months prior to 05.08.06, Anil Chadha again came at my shop and demanded Rs. 25,0000/ for the purpose of blackmailing me and also threatened me in this regard. The attention of the witness is drawn to the statement Mark A from portion B to B1, where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I have colluded with the accused and to save him in the case intentionally and deposing falsely in the court.
PW6: I do not know anything about this case. I came in the court as I was summoned by this Hon'ble Court today.
FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 9/16 10 At this stage Ld. APP wants to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement. Heard. Allowed. XXXXXX by Ld. APP for the State.
I am running a crockery and grocery shop at B9, Tilak Market, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. I do not any person in the name of Surender Bhambari, who was running office at 7/162, Ramesh Nagar as a Property Dealer. It is wrong to suggest that on 05.08.06, IO of this case had inquired from me and recorded my statement Marked P6. The attention of the witness is drawn to the statement Marked P6 in toto and after having gone through the same, witness stated that he had not given this statement to any police officer. It is wrong to suggest that I know accused Anil Chahda present in the court today and I had given correct statement Marked P6 to the IO and stated in that statement that accused Anil Chadha used to threaten the shopkeepers, rehri walas and patri walas in the Market with the remakrs that if they did not pay any amount to him, then he would file complaints against them in the MCD and other departments. The attention of the witness is drawn to statement Marked P6, where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I have collided with the accused today present in the court and to save him in this case intentionally not supporting the case of the prosecution and deposing falsely today in the court.
Xxxx by accused.
My name is Ram Dass Harjai and my father's name is Sh. Darshan Lal Harjai. My residential address is 7/16, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. I had never been known by the naame of Ram Lal. I had never seen the accused today present in the court either on 05.08.2006 or before and after this date visiting my shop, the shops of other in the Market, the residence of any such shopkeepers including myself, the said Surender Bhambhari whose particulars have been mentioned in the examination in chief for the purpose of demanding and accepting any sort of monetary gains with the assurances for intimidations extended to them for protecting them from the legal action by the MCD and other departments in my presence. It is correct that the accused Anil Kumar Chahda, who is present in the court today in the court has never threatened me or any other shopkeepers in the market, and the other hawkers and squatters in the market in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that I had never gone to the PS Kirti Nagar in order to file any complaint against the accused on 05.08.06 or to have my statement recorded in this regard. The address of my shop at Tilak Market, Ramesh Nagar bears the FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 10/16 11 number B9. It is wrong to suggest that this shop belongs to me. The said shop belongs to MCD. I do not know the exact size of the said shop at B9, Tilak Market, Ramesh Nagar. I agree that atleast two floors of construction are present at the said address of the said shop. I do not know whether there is any sanctioned building plan either in my or in the possession of my father. The MCD's department concerned with the said market charges Tehbazari charges on the annual basis/calculated on every months period. I do not have any license to carry on the said trade of crockery and plastic items as required by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and amended versions thereof. It is correct to suggest that I do encroach upon the public land in front of my shop and the police officers of the concerned police station and MCD officers do challan me occasionally in this regard under the law.
PW7: I do not know anything about this case. I appear in the court as I am summoned by this Hon'ble Court. At this stage, Ld. APP for the State, requests to cross examine the witness as the witness has resiled from his earlier statement made to the police. Heard. Allowed.
XXXX by Ld. APP for the State.
I do not know whether I had joined investigation in this case on 05.08.06 and IO recorded my statement Mark X7. The statement Mark X7 in toto read over and explained to the witness and after gone through the same, witness stated that he had not given this statement Mark X7 to the police and stated that accused Anil Kumar Chadha had demanded money from me on the pretext of not filing my complaints before the authorities and had also obtained Rs. 500/ from me for this reason. It is wrong to suggest that today I am deposing falsely as I have colluded with accused and to save him in this case intentionally deposing falsely. XXXXX by B.C. Jain, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused. No police officials had recorded my statement. It is correct that accused has not harassed me and nor demanded any money from me. I am giving my statement voluntarily and with free will and without any intimidation or pressure from the side of accused. PW8: I know nothing about this case. I know the accused present in the court today. I am familiar to the accused as he is residing in the same area. I was running a restaurant in the name Jiya Chicken Center in Ramesh Nagar, but now I have quit my business.
At this stage, Ld. APP for the State requests to cross examine the witness u/s. 154 of Indian Evidence Act.
FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 11/16 12 XXXXX by Ld. APP for the State.
It is wrong to suggest that the accused had extorted Rs. 5,000/ in the year time by threatening to get my shop closed. Confronted with statement mark P8 from portion A to A1, where it is so recorded. I have never made any such statement to police. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that accused had not extorted money from me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely under the fear of accused, which is still subsisting in my mind.
XXXXX by Sh. B.C. Jain,LAC for the accused.
Accused had not demanded Rs. 1,000/ or Rs. 2,000/ on monthly basis for the year. It is correct that the accused had not demanded money Rs. 5,000/ from me.
PW9: Present, I am dealing in property business. Earlier I was running a NonVeg eating house from the year 2002 to 2008. I know noting about this case.
At this stage, Ld. APP for the State requests to cross examine the witness u/s. 154 of Indian Evidence Act.
XXXX by Sh. B.B. Bhasin, Ld. APP for the State.
It is wrong to suggest that the accused present in the court today had extorted money from me by threatening to get my shop closed. It is wrong to suggest that the accused had under the threat of getting my shop closed by taking Rs. 15000/ from me. Confronted with statement Mark P9 from portion A to A1, where it is so recorded. It is correct that the accused is the resident of Ramesh Nagar. I have seen him visiting my shop.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that accused had not extorted money from me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely under the fear of accused which is still subsisting in my mind.
XXXXX by Sh. B.C. Jain, LAC for the accused.
It is correct that the accused had not demanded money Rs. 1,500/ or any other amount from me on the pretext of getting my shop closed.
PW10: I am running a mobile shop. I know the accused Anil Kumar Chadha, present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) as he is residing in my locality. I had not moved any complaint against him. However, some one was obtaining the signatures of shopkeepers of the market i.e. Tilak Market, Ramesh Nagar and I had also signed the same. I do not know anything about this case.
At this stage, Ld. APP for the State has requested to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from his statement recorded under FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 12/16 13 Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Heard. Allowed.
Earlier, I was running Idea Showroom at E393, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar and its opening ceremony was to be held on 04.05.2006. It is wrong to suggest that on 03.05.2006, accused extorted me and demanded Rs. 5,000/ and also threatened that if I would not pay the said amount, he will not allow to open the said shop. Witness is confronted from portion A to A of his statement marked A10. It is wrong to suggest that upon the extorting of accused, I had given Rs. 2100/ to him. Witness is confronted from portion B to B of his statement marked A10. It is wrong to suggest that due to fear of accused I am not disclosing entire truth before the court. It is wrong to suggest that accused had extorted me and I had given him cash of Rs. 2100/. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused, therefore, I am deposing falsely.
XXXXX by Sh. B.C. Jain, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused. I do not know as to who had obtained my signatures. Even, I do not remember whether the aforestated were already written or blank. I do not remember the number of papers which have been signed by me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
The said witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile....".
The testimony of the abovesaid witnesses clearly reveals that they do not support the case of the prosecution in entirety.
12. The complainant Sh. Surender Bhambri (PW2) has deposed that accused came to his office and after showing the photographs of the building demanded Rs. 1100/ which was paid by the complainant. After sometime accused again demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/ and threatened him that he will get his office shut as the road was illegal. The complainant (PW2) has failed to clearly depose how he was dishonestly induced by the accused. Moreover, the complainant has failed to state the date, month and year, when the accused demanded the alleged amount. Further, complainant has failed to bring on record the reason for delay in registration of FIR, which creates serious doubt to the testimony of the FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 13/16 14 complainant. Except complainant all other public witnesses have turned hostile as discussed above. It will not be safe to convict the accused on the sole testimony of complainant, which has also failed to pass the test of cross examination.
13. There are also discrepancies and lacunas existing in the investigation.
PW3 is HC Katar Singh, who stated on oath that on 05.08.2016, he was on emergency duty and he had joined the investigation alongwith ASI Arvind Verma. On that day, he went to BBlock, Ramesh Nagar and reached at H.No. 9, Ramesh Nagar, where accused Anil Kr. Chadha met him and formally arrested vide Ex. PW3/B, bears his signature at point B. During investigation, accused Anil Kr. Chadha made his disclosure statement. Thereafter, accused was taken to PS lockup.
14. It is clear from the testimony of PW3/HC Katar Singh that on 05.08.2006, he was posted at PS Kirti Nagar and he had joined in the investigation alongwith the ASI Arvind Verma. On that day, they went to BBlock, Ramesh Nagar, DMS Booth and reached at H.No. 9, where accused Anil Kumar Chadha met them and formally arrested him. Be that as it may, now if the said police officials were not present within the P.S. at the time of the alleged incident and rather admittedly were outside the police station, then as per Punjab Police Rules, they being on duty were required to enter their departure & arrival in the D.D. Register. Now, as per Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934: "22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No.II - The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 14/16 15 signature or seal.
Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines & Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
15. Now, in the present case clearly the above said provision appears to have not been complied with in respect of the departure and arrival of the said PW3 HC Katar Singh and other police officials, who arrested the accused Anil Kumar Chadha. The prosecution has produced no evidence whatsoever on record in the nature of documentary evidence of the required D.D. entries, so as to establish the presence of PW3 HC Katar Singh and other police officials including IO, at the house of the accused. It is also worth mentioning that as per the case of the prosecution that police officials who arrested the accused Anil Kumar Chadha was posted at concerned PS at the time of incident. However, no DD entry in support of this fact has been placed on record which PW3 and other police officials had left the PS office for reaching the house of the accused and by which they had arrived at PS after the arresting of the accused in the instant matter, so as to inspire the confidence of the Court regarding their joint availability/presence at the place of apprehension of the accused , since the said police officials were under bounden duty to enter their departure & arrival entries in that respect as per the aforesaid mentioned P.P. Rule.
At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as "Rattan Lal Vs. State" 1987 (2) Crimes 29, wherein the Delhi High Court has observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act, the courts will have to approach their action with reservations & thus the matter has to be viewed by the court with suspicion, if the necessary provisions of law are not strictly complied with and then it can at least be said that it was so done with an FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 15/16 16 oblique motive. This failure of the prosecution to bring on record & prove the above noted relevant DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on to the actions of the members of the police party effecting the alleged recovery.
16. In case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court had observed as under: "5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 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".
DECISION
17. Being guided by abovesaid case law, the possibility of false implication of the accused in the instant case by the police officials against accused can not be ruled out beyond doubt, which makes the story of prosecution qua the incident. In my opinion framed in view of the above mentioned discussion, it can be safely concluded that prosecution has failed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt. There do exist such doubts & unexplained holes in the prosecution story and as such accused is given benefit of doubt & is hereby acquitted of the charge framed against him. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court today itself i.e. 02.09.2016.
(JITENDRA SINGH) METROPLITAN MAZISTRATE TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI,02.09.2016 FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 16/16 17 FIR No. 379/2006, PS Kirti Nagar, State Vs. Anil Kumar Chadha 17/16