Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Amandeep Singh on 7 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 878/2007
Unique Case ID: 02404R0104982006
State Vs. 1. Amandeep Singh
S/o Sardar Ranjit Singh
R/o NW 121A, Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi.
(Convicted)
2. Ravinder Singh @ Goldy
S/o Sardar Baljit Singh
R/o 12D, Pocket B, Vikaspuri Extn.
New Delhi.
(Acquitted)
3. Parvinder Singh @ Rinku
S/o Sardar Hari Singh
R/o 3B/14, Vishnu Harden,
New Delhi.
Also at: A74, Arya Nagar, Veer Bazar
Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn. Delhi
(Acquitted)
4. Jasbir Singh @ Babbal
S/o Sardar Gurcharan Singh
R/o E64, Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi.
(Acquitted)
State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 1 of 36
FIR No. : 341/2004
Under Section : 186/332/333/353/224/225/511/34
Indian penal Code.
Police Station : Hari Nagar
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 3.3.2005
Judgment reserved on : 16.5.2011
Judgment pronounced on : 4.7.2011
JUDGMENT:
Brief Facts:
The allegations against the accused are that on 15.6.2004 at about 11 AM behind MRD Room, DDU Hospital the accused Amandeep Singh, Ravinder Singh @ Goldy, Parvinder Singh @ Rinku and Jasbir Singh @ Babbal voluntarily obstructed Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender, public servants who were having custody of accused Amandeep Singh after getting him medically examined in the hospital. It is alleged that all above accused had used criminal force against Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender Kumar with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their official duties being public servants and thereby voluntarily caused simple hurt to Ct. Ram Kumar and also caused grievous hurt to Ct. Surender. It is further alleged that the accused Amandeep Singh tried to escape from the lawful custody of the police officials namely Ct. Surender and Ct. Ram Kumar while the coaccused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir Singh attempted to rescue Amandeep Singh from the lawful custody State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 2 of 36 of above said police officials.
Case of prosecution in brief :
The case of prosecution is that on 15.6.2004 on receipt of DD No. 18, SI Sukh Ram along with Ct. Sada Shiv reached at DDU Hospital and found Ct. Surender and Ct. Ram Kumar admitted there. SI Sukh Ram collected the MLCs of both constables who were fit for statement and he thereafter recorded the statement of Ct. Ram Kumar who told him that on 15.6.2004 he was posted in the 6th Battallion, DAP and at about 10:35 AM, MHCM, HC Somvir handed over the accused Amandeep Singh to him and Ct. Surender for his medical checkup. They took Amandeep to the Laboratory for his HIV Test and after the said check up at about 11 AM when they reached near MRD Room, the accused Amandeep Singh tried to drag them towards the empty field and attempted to run away. In the meantime his twothree associates also came there who caught hold of him (Ct. Ram Kumar) and Ct. Surender and started giving beatings to them with leg and fist blows. Thereafter, Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender raised an alarm on which public gathered there and after seeing the public, the associates of accused Amandeep Singh ran away while he remained in their custody. In that process, the mobile phone of one of those persons had fallen down at the spot and he (Ct. Ram Kumar) picked up the same. Thereafter, they took the accused Amandeep to State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 3 of 36 the lockup and informed the MHCM about the incident who further informed the police and thereafter SI Sukh Ram reached the spot who recorded their statements. Thereafter, SI Sukh Ram prepared the rukka and got the case registered. Ct. Ram Kumar handed over the mobile phone to SI Sukh Ram who seized the same and prepared the site plan. SI Sukh Ram tried to trace the associates of Amandeep but they could not be traced and thereafter he moved application for production of Amandeep and pursuant to the same, Amandeep was arrested in this case. The other coaccused Parvinder, Ravinder and Jasbir later on surrendered before the court and were arrested. After completing the investigations, the challan was filed before the court. CHARGE:
Ld. predecessor of this court settled charge under Section 186/353/332/333 Indian Penal Code against accused Amandeep Singh, Ravinder Singh @ Goldy, Parvinder Singh @ Rinku and Jasbir Singh @ Babbal. Further, charge under Section 225/34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Ravinder Singh @ Goldy, Parvinder Singh @ Rinku and Jasbir Singh @ Babbal. Charge under Section 224 Indian Penal Code was also settled against the accused Amandeep Singh. All the accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 4 of 36 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
The prosecution in order to prove the onus, has examined as many as eleven witnesses.
Public Witness:
PW1 Manjeet Singh has deposed that he was running a shop in the area of Vishnu Garden Market and deals in sale and purchase of telephone and mobile phones. He has deposed that he never got issued any mobile phone of Reliance Network bearing No. 35605881, though, once he had received a bill against this mobile phone which bill is Ex.PX. According to him, he was informed by the police that the said connection was got issued by a person named as Ravinder @ Goldy. He did not know if the mobile set of this phone was recovered by the police. According to him, as soon as he received the bill, he immediately lodged his protest with the Reliance Infocom Ltd, copy of which application is Ex.PW1/A and his intimation to this effect to the local police at Khayala is Ex.PW1/B. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness has denied the suggestion that the bill Ex.PX was the photocopy and not the original or that he was deposing falsely.
Medical Evidence:
PW3 Dr. Aruna Singh, CMO, DDU Hospital, has State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 5 of 36 deposed on the MLC No. 13289 of Ram Kumar S/o Inder Singh, aged 42 male who was brought to hospital on 15.06.04 with the alleged history of assault. According to the MLC, the patient was examined by Dr. Renu Sehgal and as per MLC, on local examination the following injuries were found which were simple in nature:
1. Swelling and bruises on left temple approximately 3 cm. diameter.
2. CLW 1x1x0.5 cm. on upper lips right side mucosal aspect.
This witness also deposed on the MLC No. 13258 of Surender S/o Surjeet Singh, aged 40 years male, who was brought to hospital on 15.06.04 with the alleged history of assault. According to the MLC, the patient was examined by Dr. Vishal Sehgal and as per MLC, on local examination the following injuries were found:
1. Tenderness present over nasal bridge
2. Active nasal bleeding present
3. CLW of size 2.5 x 0.5 cm. present over right upper inner aspect of lip.
This witness has further deposed that the patient was referred to ENT where the patient was examined by Dr. Amitabh and on examination, there was tenderness present, swelling present over dorsum of nose, bilateral blood clots present in both nasal cavities and Dr. Amitabh opined the nature of injury as "grievous" as State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 6 of 36 there was fracture in nasal bone, as per Xray. The witness has deposed that presently Dr. Renu Sehgal, Dr. Vishal and Dr. Amitabh have left the hospital and their whereabouts were not known as per hospital record. He has also deposed that he is acquainted with their handwriting and signature as he had seen them while signing and writing during the course of his official duties. The MLC of Ram Kumar is Ex.PW3/A bearing signatures of Dr. Renu Sehgal at point A. The MLC of Surender prepared by Dr. Vishal Sehgal is Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point A and the notes of Dr. Amitabh is Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point A and the opinion of Dr. Amitabh is Ex.PW3/D bearing his signature at point A. PW6 Dr. Shifali Jain, MO, DDU Hospital has deposed on the XRay Report of Surender dated 15.06.04 which was in the handwriting of Dr. Rajeev Ranjan and as per Xray report, there was fracture nasal bone seen. The witness has deposed that at present Dr. Rajeev Ranjan is not working in their hospital and his present whereabouts were not known. She deposed that she is well acquainted with his handwriting and signature as she had seen him while writing and signing during the course of his duty. The Xray report was Ex.PW6/A which bear the signature of Dr. Rajeen Ranjan at point A. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused.
State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 7 of 36 Police Witnesses:
PW2 HC Avad Kishore has deposed that on 15.06.04, he was posted at Police Station Hari Nagar and was working as duty officer from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. On that day at about 1.15 pm, Constable Sada Shiv had brought a rukka sent by ASI Sukh Ram which is Ex.PW2/A along with statement of Constable Ram Kumar which is Mark A and on the basis of the same and he registered the present case. He had brought the original FIR which was in his hand and was correct and also bear his signature whose true carbon copy is Ex.PW2/B. According to the witness, after registration of the case, the investigation was assigned to ASI Sukh Ram. He sent the Original rukka and copy of FIR to ASI Sukh Ram through Constable Sada Shiv for further investigation. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel the witness has deposed that the investigation was assigned to ASI Sukh Ram at the instance of the SHO. He had only recored the details of the FIR number in the Kayanmi report. The witness has brought the rojnamcha dated 15.6.04 of Police Station Hari Nagar and the DD No. 14A by which Kayami of the present case was registered. The copy of the same is Ex.PW2/DA. Witness has deposed that the facts of the case in the said DD have not been recorded nor even its crux.
PW4 HC Sombir Singh has deposed that on 15.06.04, he was posted as Head Constable and was MHC in DDU hospital from State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 8 of 36 8.00 am to 5.00 pm. On that day at about 10.35 am, accused Amandeep Singh was brought from Tihar Jail from medical examination and from the hospital he was handed over in the custody of Constable Ram Kumar and Constable Surender for medical check up for HIV test. According to the witness, at about 11.00 am, he came to know that accused Amandeep tried to run away with the help of his three other associates who came in the hospital and they gave beatings to the Custody Constables. He has further deposed that both the Constables thereafter handed over the custody of Amandeep to him and thereafter he informed the police and ASI Sukh Ram came there and recorded his statement. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and his entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
PW5 HC Ram Kumar the injured has deposed that on 15.06.04 he was posted as Constable in6th Battalion, DAP and on that day, he was on duty from 6.00 am till evening for searching the accused and to produce them in DDU hospital for medical check up from DDU hospital lock up. He has deposed that on that day at about 10.35 am, MHC, HC Sombir handed over one UTP Amandeep Singh to him and Constable Surender for his medical check up. They took the accused to the Laboratory for his HIV Test and after the check up at around 11.00 am when they reached near MRD Room, accused tried to drag them towards the empty field and also tried to run away State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 9 of 36 and in the meantime, twothree persons who were the associates of accused also came there who were aged around 2530 years and height about 5.9 ft. to 5.11 ft. and they caught hold of them and started giving beatings to them with leg and fist blows. The witness has further deposed that the accused tried to run away on which they raised alarm and in the meantime, public gathered there and after seeing the public, the associates of accused Amandeep ran away but Amandeep remained in their custody. He has deposed that one mobile phone of the associates of the accused Amandeep had fallen down at the spot which he (witness) picked up. Thereafter, they took the accused Amandeep to lock up and informed the MHC HC Sombir who informed to the police and ASI Sukh Ram came there and recorded his statement Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. He handed over the mobile phone to the IO who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/B bearing his signature at point A. According to the witness, the investigating officer thereafter prepared the site plan at his instance. He had also identified the mobile phone correctly which was lifted by him from the spot which mobile phone is Ex.P1. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and therefore his entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
PW7 Ct. Ajay has deposed that on 15/06/04 he was posted at Police Post Hari Nagar and on that day, he was working as a DD writer from 8 AM to 8 PM. On that day at about 11:12 AM he State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 10 of 36 received information from DDU Hospital that two persons namely Ram Kumar and Surender had been admitted in the hospital in injured condition. He recorded this information vide DD No. 18 vide EX PW 7/A. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused.
PW8 Inspector Samar Singh has deposed that on 15.06.2004, he was posted at DAP 3rd Battalion and on that day he was working as Security Guard at DDU Hospital. According to him, on that day 17 under trial prisoner / UTP had come in the hospital including accused Amandeep who was in the custody of Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender Singh for collecting his HIV report. He further deposed that at about 11 AM he came to know that some persons were obstructing Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender Singh who were known to Amandeep at MRD Block. He reached there and found that both the Constables and accused Amandeep were in injured condition. He brought all the three persons in his guard room and their medical examination was got conducted and he conveyed the information about this incident to his senior officials on which ASI Sukh Ram came there from police station Hari Nagar who recorded his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C and a DD was also got recorded to this effect vide DD No. 47 which is Mark X1. In his cross examination, this witness is unable to give the name of the person who informed him about the incident but according to him State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 11 of 36 some persons from the crowd informed him about the incident. He does not remember if the accused Amandeep was having handcuff when his custody was handed over to the aforesaid two constables. He states that his statement was recorded once in the hospital.
PW9 HC Raghunath has deposed on behalf of the then ACP, Central Jail, Tihar, Sh. S. P. S. Sarohi who had accorded Sanction under Section 195 Cr.PC to prosecute the accused Amandeep in this case and the said Sanction is Ex.PW9/A bearing signature of Sh. S. P. S. Sarohi at point A which the witness has correctly identified having been conversant with the handwriting and signature of Sh. S. P. S. Sarohi as he had seen him while writing and signing in the course of official duty. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused.
PW10 Ct. Surender has deposed that on 15.06.2004 he was posted at DAP 6th Battalion and on that day he was working at DDU Hospital for searching and producing the under trial prisoners/ UTPs. According to him, on that day at around 10:30 AM, HC Sombir handed over the UTP Amandeep to him and Ct. Ram Kumar for his HIV/medical examination and while they were returning back and reached in front of MRD office inside the DDU hospital at about 11 AM, 23 associates of accused Amandeep came there and started beating him and Ct. Ram Kumar with kicks and fist blows on which State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 12 of 36 they raised alarm and public persons gathered there and thereafter those persons ran away from there. He has deposed that the age of those persons were about 2530 years at that time and they had beaten him and Ct. Ram Kumar in order to secure the escape of the accused Amandeep from their custody and thereafter those persons ran away from the spot and could not get the escape of Amandeep. The witness has deposed that one mobile phone was also found lying which was belonging to the persons who had beaten them, same was produced before the investigating officer who taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/B bearing his signature at point A. His statement was recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.PC. The witness has correctly identified the accused persons who were present in the court as the same who assaulted them and also the accused Amandeep who was the Under Trial Prisoner in their custody.
In his cross examination PW10 has deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO on 15.6.2004 which was signed by him. He has denied the suggestion that his statement Mark X2 is not his statement however he admits that it does not bear his signatures. He has produced the record showing that he was on duty on 15.6.2004 and thereafter. He deposed that accused Amandeep was handed over to him and Ct. Ram Kumar at about 10:35 AM and the accused was not having handcuffs at that time nor they put the same State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 13 of 36 on him. He has also deposed that they were not having any weapon with them at that time as they were not aware that Amandeep was a dangerous criminal. According to the witness, Amandeep was medically examined at about 11 AM. Witness has deposed that the accused persons took twothree minutes in beating them and in attempting to free the accused but he is unable to say which accused gave fist blows or which one has given the kick blows upon them. He has also deposed that he had seen the Reliance LG mobile phone at the spot but he is not aware if it was on or off and that to which accused it was belonging. He has denied the suggestion that Amandeep had hot talk with them (police) prior to this incident. He has further denied the suggestion that they received injuries due to scuffling with the public persons or that he has deposed falsely or that he has identified the accused wrongly at the instance of Ct. Ram Kumar.
PW10 Ct. Surender has correctly identified the accused Amandeep in the court. He in his further cross examination has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated Amandeep. He is not aware if the accused Amandeep was having any other cases against him. He has denied the suggestion that Amandeep had a dispute with them (police) and it is for this reason, that they falsely implicated him. He further denied the suggestion that he had demanded money from the accused Amandeep and when he refused State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 14 of 36 there was a dispute after which he got him implicated. He has denied the suggestion that he had taken Amandeep to hospital for medical examination on earlier occasions also and had deliberately marked his duty on the second occasion only. He has denied the suggestion that the mobile phone was recovered in Jama Talashi of Amandeep and was handed over to him by accused for making a call. The witness has deposed that the mobile phone belongs to one of the associates of Amandeep but he did not make any efforts to find out to whom the said phone belongs to. He has denied the suggestion that the entire story has been concocted and he has deposed falsely.
PW11 SI Sukh Ram has deposed that on 15.06.2004 he was posted at Police Post Hari Nagar and on that day he was on duty from 8 AM to 8 PM and on receipt of DD No. 18, he along with Ct. Sada Shiv reached at DDU Hospital where they found Ct. Surender and Ct. Ram Kumar under treatment. He collected the MLC of both the constables. Both were fit to sign their statements therefore he recorded the statement of Ct. Ram Kumar vide already Ex.PW5/A and thereafter prepared rukka Ex.PW11/A and sent the rukka to the police station through Ct. Sada Shiv who came at the spot with copy of FIR which is Ex.PW2/B and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He prepared site plan Ex.PW11/B at the instance of Ct. Ram Kumar and thereafter Ct. Ram Kumar produced a Reliance LG mobile phone before him which he took into possession vide seizure State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 15 of 36 memo Ex.PW5/B. He recorded the statements of witnesses, obtained results of injuries on the MLC of Ct. Surender, collected the Sanction under Section 195 Cr.PC vide memo Ex.PW9/A. He also made efforts to trace the accused persons but could not traced them. He thereafter moved an application before the court seeking production of accused Amandeep vide application Ex.PW11/C and in pursuance to production warrant he was produced before the court on 01.07.2004 and accused was formally arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW11/D. According to the witness, thereafter Ravinder surrendered before the court on 02.07.2004 and was arrested in this case with the permission of court vide memo Ex.PW11/E. He deposed that on 05.07.04 the accused Parvinder Singh had surrendered before the court and he was also arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW11/F and thereafter both the accused Parvinder and Ravinder were put for their TIP in which they had refused to participate. He also collected the copy of TIP proceeding and the same is Ex.PW11/G and Ex.PW11/H. According to the witness, on 26.07.2004 the accused Jasbir had also surrendered and he was also arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW11/I and was also put for his TIP but he had also refused to participate. He collected the copies of TIP proceeding, which is Ex.PW11/J. He interrogated the accused Amandeep and whatever he had stated was recorded separately vide State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 16 of 36 Ex.PW11/K. He got the call details of the said mobile collected and placed on record which is Mark P3 (collectively). He thereafter recorded the statements of remaining witnesses and deposited the case property in the malkhana. He has correctly identified the accused in the court. The witness PW11 has further deposed that he collected the ownership of said mobile and was found to be of one Manjeet Singh and the copy of customer application form is Marked X3 and prepared the challan. He identified a chit containing particulars of the case as produced by Ct. Ram Kumar at the spot, which he had taken into possession and is Ex.P1.
In his crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, PW11 has deposed that they reached at the spot at 11:15 AM and remained there for about 56 hours. He has admitted that he did not collect the MLC of Amandeep. He is not aware if UTP Amandeep was admitted in the hospital after this incident or if sustained injuries on head, back and on knees in this incident. According to him, the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC of Ct.Surender Kumar was recorded only once at the spot. He has deposed that the disclosure of the accused Amandeep was recorded on 01.07.2004 and it was not only from the disclosure statement that they came to know that the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir Singh were involved in securing the release of Amandeep. He has voluntarily stated that the Constables on duty had given identification and description of these boys. State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 17 of 36 According to the witness, he did not find anybody at the spot and has voluntarily stated that he had met the victims Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender in the DDU hospital in injured condition. According to him the disclosure of Amandeep was recorded in the court i.e. outside the court after taking permission from Ld. Magistrate. He states that he had come to know about the ownership of the mobile phone from the call details and the connection details but he did not verify the ownership of Manjeet and states that it was not required in view of the details obtained from the office of the Reliance. He has denied the suggestion that all the three accused Parvinder, Ravinder and Jasbir had been falsely implicated at the instance of Amandeep and Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender or that the above accused had no connection or concern with Amandeep or that he already had the photographs of the accused Parvinder, Ravinder and Jasbir and that the said accused persons had been falsely implicated and got identified from Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender after showing them the photographs. He further denied the suggestion that there was a dispute between accused Amandeep with Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender on account of which public had collected and beaten up the two constables or that he was deposing falsely.
PW11 SI Sukh Ram has correctly identified the accused Amandeep in the court. He in his further cross examination has denied the suggestion that the mobile phone was handed over by Ct. State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 18 of 36 Ram Kumar to the accused Amandeep. He has admitted that he is not a witness to the incident. He has not investigated the aspect regarding demand of money by Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender from accused Amandeep. He has admitted that the charge sheet has been filed only on the basis of the statements of the official witnesses who are police officials and no public witness has been joined in the investigations. He has denied the suggestion that the place of incident is a thickly populated and visited area being a public hospital and a large number of persons including doctors and nurses were present there and he deliberately did not record their statements. According to him, the accused Amandeep was being taken to the hospital for HIV check up and for the said purpose the accused was first to be produced before the doctor only after which he could be taken to the laboratory. He has denied the suggestion that the constables on duty namely Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender are involved in extortion racket of extorting money from the under trial prisoners in lieu of benefits being granted to them. He has denied the suggestion that he has deliberately not investigated this aspect to save the officials from department.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 19 of 36 Procedure in which all the incriminating evidence / material was put to them which they have denied.
Accused Amandeep Singh has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police. According to him, Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender had given beatings to him and he sustained injuries for which he was treated vide MLC dated 15.4.2006 which MLC has not been placed on judicial record.
Accused Ravinder Singh has stated that he has been falsely implicated and he has no concern with the alleged incident and he is innocent. He has stated that he refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade because his photographs were already taken by the investigating officer.
Accused Parvinder Singh has also stated that he refused to join the TIP proceedings since his photographs were already taken by the investigating officer in the presence of his mother and sister. According to him he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
Accused Jasbir Singh has stated that he refused to participate in the TIP because his photographs were already taken by the IO from the house of Parvinder Singh. According to him he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
DW1 Balwinder Kaur has deposed that on 15.06.2004 in State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 20 of 36 the evening, some police persons visited her house and asked for her son Parvinder Singh on which she told them that he had gone to market for purchasing some building material for construction work on which they further asked her for photograph of Parvinder. She showed them photograph of Parvinder placed in an album which photograph was taken away by those police officials along with a telephone diary of Parvinder. According to the witness, the police officials told her that they are from police station Hari Nagar and asked her to send Parvinder in the police station. She further deposed that her son Parvinder used to remain at house due to construction work in those days and when Parvinder came back from market, she informed him that some police official were came from Police Station Hari Nagar and asked him to go to the police station. She further deposed that after some days friend of Parvinder informed him that police has registered a false case against Parvinder. She managed to secure the release her son on bail after he has surrendered before the court.
In her cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has deposed that she had started the construction work on the plot adjacent to her rented house from 14.04.2004. She has two sons, and her other son is in Punjab and he used to do private job. She is unable to produce any receipt or invoice showing that Parvinder had gone to purchase building material on 15.6.2004. State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 21 of 36 According to the witness, the police came to her house on 15.4.06 at about 5 PM but she is unable to tell their names and designation. She is unable to tell whether they had come in a gypsy or on foot but they remained there for about 1520 minutes. According to her, Parvinder did not given the name of the person who informed him about 1012 days that he had been falsely implicated in this case. She has admitted that she did not make any complainant to the SHO, ACP or DCP of the area regarding falsely implication of her son nor she met the SHO or any other higher authorities in this regard. She has denied the suggestion that being mother of accused Parvinder, she has deposed falsely to save him.
DW2 Gurcharan Singh is the father of accused Jasbir Singh. He has deposed that on 15.6.2004 his son Jasbir was with him at his shop. According to him in the first week of July 2004, accused Parvinder and Ravinder came to his shop and informed Jasbir had been called by the police for some inquiry as he has been falsely implicated, but he did not take his son Jasbir to the police station. The witness has deposed that after one week, SI Sukh Ram along with one constable came to his house and pressurized him to send Jasbir to the police station but he did not send his son. He further deposed that after twothree days, his son Jasbir surrendered in the court. In his cross examination, the witness has stated that he cannot tell the exact date of visiting the Parvinder and Ravinder at his shop State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 22 of 36 but his son Jasbir was not available at the shop. He is further not able to tell the exact date when the police came to his shop. According to the witness, on 15.6.04 his son was with him at the shop and he and his son used to issue invoice of material sold by them but he cannot show any invoice or receipt issued by Jasbir on 15.6.04. He has denied the suggestion that his son was not available on 15.6.04 at his shop at about 11 AM or that he has deposed falsely in this regard. He has admitted that he did not make any complainant to the SHO, ACP or DCP of the area regarding falsely implication of his son nor he met the SHO or any other higher authorities in this regard. He has denied the suggestion that being the father of accused Jasbir, he has deposed falsely to save him.
DW3 Baljit Singh is the father of accused Ravinder Singh. He has deposed that on 15.6.04 his son Ravinder had gone for his work and left the house at about 9 AM. According to him, in the month of June, 2004, one ASI namely Sukh Ram along with one constable came to his house and asked about Ravinder but Ravinder was not at home and they took his photograph with them. He has deposed that police officials asked him to send Ravinder to police station for some inquiries. According to the witness, he told the aforesaid facts to Ravinder in the evening. He deposed that Ravinder thereafter surrendered before the concerned court at Tis Hazari and later on obtained bail.
State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 23 of 36
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has deposed that there is no fix place of work of his son Ravinder and therefore he is unable to give any place where he had gone on 15.6.04. His son Ravinder is an alluminium fabricator. He has denied the suggestion that his son Ravinder had surrendered in the court on 5.7.2004. He has admitted that he does not know where his son Ravinder was present on 15.6.04 at about 11 AM. He is unable to tell the exact date when SI Sukh Ram along with one constables visited his house but it was 9 AM. He has admitted that he did not make any complaint to any higher authorities regarding false implication of his son. He has denied the suggestion that being father of accused Ravinder, he has deposed falsely to save him. FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. I have also considered the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution and have gone through the record of the case. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused Amandeep, Ravinder Jasbir and Parvinder and allegations against them:
In so far as the accused Amandeep Singh is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that at the time of the incident he was in State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 24 of 36 the custody of HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender who had taken him for collection of his medical report at DDU Hospital when he attempted to escape from their the lawful custody. It is further alleged that while doing so, the coaccused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir, in furtherance of their common intention to enable accused Amandeep to escape, obstructed HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender by using criminal force and assaulted them in order to prevent and deter them from doing their official duty as public servants and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Ct. Surender and Simple hurt to HC Ram Kumar.
In this regard, I may observe that the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir have been identified by PW10 Ct. Surender in the court as the persons who had assaulted them. But in so far as PW5 HC Ram Kumar is concerned, he has simply stated that the persons who were the associates of accused Amandeep were aged around 2530 years with a height about 5.9 ft. to 5.11 ft. and they caught hold of them and started giving beatings with leg and fist blows and they raised alarm on which the public persons gathered at the spot and after seeing the public the associates of accused Amandeep ran away from the spot while Amandeep remained in their custody. According, to PW5 HC Ram Kumar, the mobile phone of one of the associates of accused Amandeep had fallen down at the spot which he had picked up. He has identified the said mobile State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 25 of 36 phone in the court but it is evident from the record that he has not identified the accused in the court nor the prosecution has put the accused to the said witness.
Further, the record reveals that accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir had duly surrendered in the court and had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade proceedings which are Ex.PW11/G, Ex.PW11/H and Ex.PW11/J since according to the accused, their photographs were already with the police after they took it from their families and were shown to the witnesses.
It is further evident from the record that though PW11 SI Sukh Ram has stated that he did not come to know about the names of the accused from the disclosure statement of accused Amandeep, yet the disclosure statement of accused Amandeep Ex.PW11/K reveals that the names of accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir along with their addresses have been disclosed by the accused Amandeep and constables on duty were only aware of their description and not by their names and addresses and it is only pursuant to the aforesaid disclosure statement that they came to know about the other coaccused.
Further, PW1 Manjeet Singh who deals in sale and purchase of mobile phones, has deposed that he has never purchased any mobile phone of Reliance Network bearing No. 35605881 but State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 26 of 36 according to him he had received a bill against this mobile phone on one occasion. According to Manjeet Singh, he has never used this connection but he later came to know that the said mobile phone was being used by one Ravinder @ Goldy, as per the information given to him by the local police on which he lodged his protest with the Reliance Infocom Ltd. and has proved the copy of his application which is Ex.PW1/A and also his intimation to this effect to the local police at Khayala is Ex.PW1/B. I may further observe that neither HC Ram Kumar nor Ct. Surender have proved that the mobile phone so recovered from the spot was the one which was in the possession of the accused Ravinder @ Goldi. The prosecution has failed to connect the recovered mobile with the accused nor it stands connected with the accused.
Further, it is evident from the testimony of both HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender that large number of public persons gathered at the spot of incident when they saw HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender being beaten as a result of which they intervened to save them. None of these public persons have been made a witness before this court. No explanation is forthcoming for the same. Further, the identification of the accused is only by Ct. Surender which does not find corroboration from any independent source. There is nothing on record to show that the sketch of the accused had been got prepared by HC Ram Kumar or Ct. Surender. It is further State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 27 of 36 evident that the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir could be traced only pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the co accused Amandeep.
I may further observe that the prosecution has failed to bring any material on record to show that the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir Singh were in any way related to the accused Amandeep Singh or they were known to him prior to this incident. Rather, DW1 Balvinder Kaur mother of accused Parvinder Singh, DW2 Gurcharan Singh father of accused Jasbir Singh and DW3 Baljit Singh father of accused Ravinder Singh, have all stated that the police had come to their houses taken the photographs of their sons and asked them to send the accused to the police station and it was pursuant to that, the accused surrendered before the police and after that they came to know about implication of their sons in the present case. The prosecution has failed to show that the accused Jasbir, Parvinder and Ravinder had any criminal record.
This being the background, there being no independent corroboration to the testimony of Ct. Surender, I hereby hold that in so far as the identity of the accused Amandeep is concerned, the same has been established beyond reasonable doubt. However, in so far as the identity of accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir Singh is concerned, benefit of doubt is being given to them. State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 28 of 36 Sanction under Section 195 Cr. PC:
In so far as the complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC is concerned, the same has been duly proved by the PW9 HC Raghunath who had brought the original record regarding the Sanction under Section 195 Cr.PC to prosecute the accused Amandeep Singh in this case. The said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the Sanction under Section 195 Cr.PC, Ex.PW9/A is not disputed. It is evident from the same that the permission to prosecute has been granted only in respect of the accused Amandeep Singh and in respect of not the accused Ravinder Singh, Parvinder Singh and Jasbir Singh.
Medical Evidence:
PW3 Dr. Aruna Singh and PW6 Dr. Shifali Jain have proved the medical record of HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender and their MLCs are Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B, respectively. Further, Dr. Aruna has also proved the opinion on the MLC which is Ex.PW3/D showing that Ct. Surender had obtained fracture in the nasal bone and that is why the injuries have been opined as grievous. This being the so, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove that the injury received by Ct. Surender was grievous and the injury received by HC Ram Kumar was simple in nature. State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 29 of 36 Attempt to rescue the coaccused from the lawful custody:
In so far as the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir are concerned, the case of the prosecution is that these three accused had attempted to rescue the coaccused Amandeep Singh from the lawful custody of HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender who were taking Amandeep to the DDU hospital for collection of his medical report. In this regard, I have already observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir beyond reasonable doubt and even the competent officer / ACP concerned, has not granted any permission under Section 195 Cr.PC to prosecute the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir for the above.
I may specifically observe that the prosecution has failed to connect the mobile phone so recovered from the spot, allegedly dropped by one of the accused, with the accused Ravinder Singh @ Goldy. Only the mobile phone has been identified in the court but it has not been proved that it was in the possession of accused Ravinder @ Goldy. Further, the use of the said mobile phone by accused Ravinder or the other coaccused i.e. Parvinder and Jasbir has also not been prove to connect them with the said mobile allegedly left behind at the spot which was recovered by HC Ram Kumar.
Further, no specific role has been attributed to any of these above three accused and it has been vaguely stated that the State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 30 of 36 associates of the accused Amandeep Singh were aged around 2530 years and height about 5.9 ft. / 5.11 ft. who came and attempted to rescue the accused Amandeep from the lawful custody of HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender and at that time they have assaulted both the constables but by the intervention of the public persons they were saved and the associates of accused Amandeep ran away but Amandeep remained in their custody. It is also observed that in his cross examination, PW10 Ct. Surender has not been able to give the details regarding which accused gave him fist blows or which accused gave the leg blows. No public witness has been examined in the court to corroborate the version given by HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender. In the absence of any independent corroboration and also for the reasons discussed herein above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir Singh beyond reasonable doubt.
Obstruction from discharging of public functions, causing injuries to public servants and attempt to escape from lawful custody by accused Amandeep Singh:
The allegations against the accused Amandeep Singh are that while he was being taken to DDU Hospital by HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender for collection of his medical report, he attempted to escape from their custody and obstructed them from discharging State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 31 of 36 public functions with the intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their duties as public servants and while doing so caused simple injury to HC Ram Kumar and grievous injury to Ct. Surender.
Firstly, it is not denied that the accused Amandeep Singh was in custody at the time of the incident and was being taken to DDU Hospital by HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender for his medical examination and collection of his report. It is also not disputed that both HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender were public servants on official duty.
Secondly, the identity of the accused Amandeep is not disputed.
Thirdly, it is further proved that while on his return from DDU Hospital, he used physical force to obstruct HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender and assaulted them as a result of which simple hurt was caused to HC Ram Kumar and grievous hurt was caused to Ct. Surender.
Fourthly, in this regard I may observe that there is no independent corroboration to the version given by PW5 HC Ram Kumar and PW10 Ct. Surender.
Fifthly, despite the fact that a large number of public persons were available at the spot and according to the HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender, had intervened to prevent the escape of Amandeep Singh from the spot, not even on such person from the State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 32 of 36 public has either been cited as witness or examined in the court. Even Inspector Samar Singh claims that he was informed about the incident by some public person but is unable to provide any details of the said persons. Hence, an adverse inference is likely to be drawn for the same.
Sixthly, the mobile phone so recovered from the spot, does not stand connected with any of the associates of the accused Amandeep Singh i.e. accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir, and no explanation is forthcoming for the same.
Lastly, the case of the prosecution is that the assault had been made by the accused as he was attempting to escape from the lawful custody of HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender. I may observe in this regard that except the oral testimonies of PW5 HC Ram Kumar and PW10 Ct. Surender, there is no independent corroboration of the same. I may observe in this regard that the accused Amandeep was not having any handcuffs and both the constables had been badly beaten. Had the intention of accused Amandeep to escape from the custody, he would have conveniently done so, which did not happen. Therefore, under these given circumstances as put forward by the prosecution, I hereby hold that the aspect of attempt of the accused Amandeep to escape from the custody has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 33 of 36 FINAL CONCLUSION:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 34 of 36 Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officer.
It is evident that in so far as the accused Amandeep Singh is concerned, his identity has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has been proved that accused Amandeep was in the custody and was taken to the DDU hospital for collection of his medical report when the incident had taken place. Further, it has been proved that Amandeep has assaulted HC Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender who were on duty and were escorting him. It is has been proved that HC Ram Kumar received simple injury while Ct. Surender had received grievous injuries. However, it has not been established that this was done by the accused Amandeep in an attempt to escape from the lawful custody.
There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by by each other and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 35 of 36
In so far as the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir Singh are concerned, their identity has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the allegations against them have also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. It is further evident that the permission to prosecute under Section 195 Cr.PC has been obtained only in respect of the accused Amandeep Singh and not the coaccused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir Singh. Hence, under these circumstances, benefit of doubt is given to the accused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir Singh.
In view of the discussions held above, the accused Ravinder Singh @ Goldy, Parvinder Singh @ Rinku and Jasbir Singh @ Babbal are hereby acquitted from the charges under Section 186/353/332/333/34 Indian Penal Code and under Section 225/34 Indian Penal Code.
In so far as the accused Amandeep Singh is concerned, he is hereby acquitted from the charge under Section 224 IPC and is held guilty for the offence under Section 186/353/333 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
Be listed for arguments on sentence on 7.7.2011.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 4.7.2011 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 36 of 36
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 878/2007 Unique Case ID: 02404R0104982006 State Vs. 1. Amandeep Singh S/o Sardar Ranjit Singh R/o NW 121A, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
(Convicted)
2. Ravinder Singh @ Goldy S/o Sardar Baljit Singh R/o 12D, Pocket B, Vikaspuri Extn.
New Delhi.
(Acquitted)
3. Parvinder Singh @ Rinku S/o Sardar Hari Singh R/o 3B/14, Vishnu Harden, New Delhi.
Also at: A74, Arya Nagar, Veer Bazar Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn. Delhi (Acquitted)
4. Jasbir Singh @ Babbal S/o Sardar Gurcharan Singh R/o E64, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
(Acquitted) State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 37 of 36 FIR No. : 341/2004 Under Section : 186/332/333/353/224/225/511/34 Indian penal Code.
Police Station : Hari Nagar
Date of conviction : 4.7.2011
Arguments heard on : 4.7.2011
Date of sentence : 7.7.2011
APPEARANCE
Present: Sh. R. A. Yadav, Additional PP for the State.
Convict Amandeep Singh in JC with Sh. Pankaj
Kumar, Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my separate detailed judgment dictated and announced in the open court the accused Ravinder Singh @ Goldy, Parvinder Singh @ Rinku and Jasbir Singh @ Babbal have been acquitted from the charges under Section 186/353/332/333/34 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 225/34 Indian Penal Code. In so far as the accused Amandeep Singh is concerned, he has been acquitted from the charge under Section 224 IPC but is held guilty for the offence under Section 186/353/333 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 38 of 36
As per the allegations, on 15.6.2004 at about 11 AM behind MRD Room, DDU Hospital the accused Amandeep Singh, Ravinder Singh @ Goldy, Parvinder Singh @ Rinku and Jasbir Singh @ Babbal voluntarily obstructed Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender, public servants who were having custody of accused Amandeep Singh after getting him medically examined in the hospital. It is alleged that all above accused had used criminal force against Ct. Ram Kumar and Ct. Surender Kumar with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their official duties being public servants and thereby voluntarily caused simple hurt to Ct. Ram Kumar and also caused grievous hurt to Ct. Surender. It is further alleged that the accused Amandeep Singh tried to escape from the lawful custody of the police officials namely Ct. Surender and Ct. Ram Kumar while the coaccused Ravinder, Parvinder and Jasbir Singh attempted to rescue Amandeep Singh from the lawful custody of above said police officials. However, on the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution, this court vide a separate detailed judgment acquitted the accused Ravinder Singh @ Goldy, Parvinder Singh @ Rinku and Jasbir Singh @ Babbal from the charges under Section 186/353/332/333/34 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 225/34 Indian Penal Code. Further, in so far as the accused Amandeep Singh is concerned, he has been acquitted from the charge under Section 224 IPC but is held guilty for the State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 39 of 36 offence under Section 186/353/333 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Amandeep Singh is a young man aged 32 years having a family comprising of father (unemployed), mother (housewife) and wife (housewife). He is B. A. pass and by profession he is doing the business of sale purchase of cars. Apart from present case, a case bearing FIR No. 12/11, under Section 307/387/34 Police Station Tilak Nagar is pending against him. He is already acquitted in two cases i.e. one under Section 307 IPC Police Station Tilak Nagar and the other under Section 302 IPC Police Station Tilak Nagar. He is not a previous convict. He has already remained in judicial custody during trial for a period of about Four Years, Ten Months & Fourteen Days.
Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has requested that a lenient view be taken against the convict. Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has prayed for a strict punishment against the convict keeping in view the allegations involved.
I have considered the rival contentions. The convict has no previous record of conviction. He is a young boy of 32 years who has recently married about six months ago. Therefore, any harsh view would be prejudicial to his future. In the interest of justice, a State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 40 of 36 lenient view is taken against the convict Amanddeep Singh who is awarded the following sentence :
1. The convict Amandeep Singh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three Months (period already undergone) for the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code.
2. The convict Amandeep Singh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years (period already undergone) for the offence under Section 353 Indian Penal Code.
3. The convict Amandeep Singh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Four Years, Ten Months & Fourteen Days (period already undergone) and fine to the tune of Rs.1,000/ for the offence under Section 333 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial as per rules.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 41 of 36 High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 7.7.2011 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Amandeep Singh Etc., FIR No. 341/04, PS Hari Nagar Page 42 of 36