Delhi District Court
State vs . Kehar Singh & Ors. on 20 April, 2015
FIR no.261/06
PS Narela
U/s. 365/457/34 IPC
State Vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA
METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 261/06
U/s. 365/457/34 IPC
PS: Narela
State vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
Date of Institution of case:-14.12.09
Date of Judgment reserved:- 20.04.15
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 20.04.15
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 02404R0059672009
Date of Commission of offence : 17.04.06
Name of the complainant : Satbir S/o Phoolaram, R/o H.No.
474, Pocket-13, Sector A-6, Narela.
Name and address of the accused : Kehar Singh, S/o. Sh. Tara Chand,
r/o. Q-7/76, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
Vicky, S/o. Sh. Kehar Singh,
r/o. Q-7/76, Mangol Puri, Delhi
Murlidhar, S/o. Sh. Kehar Singh,
r/o. Q-7/76, Mangol Puri, Delhi
Offence complained of : 365/457/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of order : 20.04.2015
Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
1. The accused persons Kehar Singh S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Vicky and Murlidhar Both S/o Kehar Singh have been sent to face trial under Section 365/457/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 17.04.06 at about 2:30 a.m., they all in furtherance of their common intention committed lurking house Page no.1 of 8 FIR no.261/06 PS Narela U/s. 365/457/34 IPC State Vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
trespass & house breaking in the house of complainant namely Satbir at night and abducted the wife of complainant namely Ram Bai and wife of complainant's brother namely Anita in a maruti Suzuki Wagon R bearing registration no. DL-2CAF-4573 with the intention of causing the abovesaid ladies to be secretly and wrongfully confined and on the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR bearing no. 261/06 was registered at Police station Narela and the accused persons have been charged with the offences under Section 457/365/34 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The copies of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and charge was framed against the accused persons on 20.07.12 for the offences U/s. 457/365/34 IPC, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution examined four witnesses.
4. PW1 is Smt. Rambai W/o Sh. Satbir, R/o H No. 474, Pocket 13, Sector A-6, Narela, Delhi. She deposed that she resides at the abovesaid address with her family members including her husband Satbir, her devar Himanshu and his wife Anita and their children. She further deposed that the incident occurred 7-8 years ago in the evening. She further deposed that on that day, she along with Anita had gone to the house of accused persons, who are her relative to meet them. She further deposed her husband had come in the evening and as they were not present at their house, her husband developed a suspicion and called the police at 100 number. She further deposed that they were not abducted by accused persons.
Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as she was resiling from her previous statement. During her cross-examination by Ld. APP for the state, she deposed that accused Kehar Singh is her maternal grandfather (Nana) and Vicky and Page no.2 of 8 FIR no.261/06 PS Narela U/s. 365/457/34 IPC State Vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
Murlidhar are her mama. She denied the suggestion that on the intervening night of 16-17/04/06, she along with Anita were sleeping inside the aforesaid house and her husband and devar were sleeping outside the house after bolting the door and at about 2.30 am, accused persons namely Kehar Singh, Vicky and Murlidhar along with some unknown person came into her house and forcefully abducted her and Anita after putting them in their wagon R car. She further deposed that on the way when they tried to make a noise, accused persons threatened them not to shout otherwise they would kill her family members. She further denied the suggestion that after abducting, accused persons took them to their house at Q Block, Mangolpuri. She further denied the suggestion that on on 18/04/06, police along with her husband and her devar Himanshu came to Q block, Mangolpuri and got them released from the clutches of accused persons. She further denied the suggestion that accused persons used to give beatings and threats to them while they were under the confinement of the accused persons. Witness was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. mark A to which the witness denied having made any such statement to the police. She denied the suggestion that she was deliberately not telling the truth as she had compromised the matter with the accused persons. She has not been cross examined by the accused despite given opportunity.
5. PW2 is Sh. Himanshu, S/o Sh. Phoola Ram, R/o H No. 474, Pocket 13, Sector A-6, Narela, Delhi. He deposed that the incident occurred about 7-8 years ago in the evening. He deposed that on that day, he was at his work. In the evening, he came to his house. He further deposed that his brother Satbir and he found that their wives were not present at the house. They became suspicious as to where had they gone. He further deposed that out of suspicion, he and his brother informed the PS about missing of their wives. He further Page no.3 of 8 FIR no.261/06 PS Narela U/s. 365/457/34 IPC State Vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
deposed that later on, they came to know that their wives had gone to meet the accused persons who are his wife's maternal grandfather and mama and after 2-3 days, they came to their house. He further deposed that his wife and his bhabhi were not abducted by the accused persons.
Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross-examine the witness as he was resiling from is previous statement. During his cross- examination by Ld. APP for the state, he denied the suggestion that on the intervening night of 16-17/04/06, his wife along with his Bhabhi Rambai were sleeping inside the aforesaid house and he and his brother Satbir were sleeping outside the house after bolting the door and at about 2.30 am, accused persons namely Kehar Singh, Vicky and Murlidhar along with some unknown person came to their house in a Maruti wagon R car and thereafter entered his house forcefully and forcefully abducted his bhabhi Rambai and his wife Anita after putting them in their wagon R car. He further denied the suggestion that they tried to search their wives later but they could not found therefore, they called the police at 100 number.
Witness was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. mark B to which the witness denied having made any such statement to the police and stated that he had not given any such statement to the police. He admitted that pointing out memo and recovery memo of their wives are Ex.PW2/A. He also denied the suggestion that on 18/04/06, their wives were recovered from the house of the accused persons at Q block, Manglopuri at the identification of him and his brother. He further denied the suggestion that their wives were wrongfully confined at their house at Q-7/76, Mangolpuri by the accused persons. Witness was confronted with statement mark C where it is so recorded to which the witness denied having made any such statement before the police. He denied the suggestion that he Page no.4 of 8 FIR no.261/06 PS Narela U/s. 365/457/34 IPC State Vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
was deliberately not telling the truth being won over by the accused persons. He has not been cross-examined by accused despite given opportunity.
6. PW 3 is Satbir S/o Fula Ram R/o H. No 474 Pocket 13 sector A 6 Narela Delhi. He is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that the incident occurred in the year 2006. He further deposed that he and his younger brother Himanshu were in the factory. He further deposed that when they came back in the morning next day they found their wives Anita and Rambai were not present at the house. Thereafter, they tried to search their wives but they could not be found. Thereafter, they went to PS Narela and gave a complaint regarding missing of their wives. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, they came back at his house and after 1 ½ hour their wives came back to the house and told that they had gone to the house of their maternal uncle. Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, he denied the suggestion that on 17.04.2006 at about 2.30 a.m he along with his brother Himanshu were sleeping outside their aforesaid house. He further denied the suggestion that they were not in the factory in the night of 17.04.2006. He further denied the suggestion that on 17.04.226 at about 2.30 a.m his wife along with Anita was sleeping inside the house and at about 2.30 a.m accused person namely Kehar Singh, Vicky, Murlidhar along with some unknown person came to their house in a Maruti Wagon R Car no-DL 2 CA FA 4573, forcefully entered his house and forcefully abducted his wife Ram Bai and Anita and thereafter took them in the car. He further denied the suggestion that they could not resist the accused person and save their wives due to fear. He further denied the suggestion that while abducting their wives, accused person gave threats to them.
Page no.5 of 8 FIR no.261/06 PS Narela U/s. 365/457/34 IPC State Vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW3/A to which witness denied having made any such statement to the police. He admitted that pointing out of recovery of their wives Ex PW 2/A bears his signatures at point B. He further denied the suggestion that on 18.04.2006 their wives were recovered from the house of accused person at Q-block, Mangolpuri at his identification. Witness was confronted with statement mark D to which the witness denied having made any such statement to the police. He deposed that he had signed on blank papers. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely being won over by the accused person. He has not been cross examined by accused person despite given opportunity.
7. PW4 is Smt. Anita W/o Sh. Himanshu, R/o H No. 474, Pocket 13, Sector A-6, Narela, Delhi. She deposed that the incident occurred 7-8 years ago in the evening. She further deposed that on that day, she along with Rambai had gone to the house of accused persons to meet them as they are their relatives. She further deposed that her Jeth had come in the evening and as they were not present at our house, her Jeth developed a suspicion and called the police at 100 number. She further deposed that they were not abducted by accused persons. Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as she was resiling from her previous statement. During her cross examination by Ld. APP for the state, she deposed that Kehar Singh is her maternal grandfather (Nana) and Vicky and Murlidhar are her mama. She denied the suggestion that on the intervening night of 16-17/04/06, she along with Rambai were sleeping inside the aforesaid house and her husband and Jeth were sleeping outside the house after bolting the door, at about 2.30 am, accused persons namely Kehar Singh, Vicky and Murlidhar along with some unknown person came into his house and forcefully abducted her and Rambai after putting them in their wagon R car. She further denied the suggestion Page no.6 of 8 FIR no.261/06 PS Narela U/s. 365/457/34 IPC State Vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
that on the way when they tried to make a noise, accused persons threatened them not to shout otherwise they would kill their family members. He further denied the suggestion that after abducting, accused persons took them to their house at Q Block, Mangolpuri. He further denied the suggestion that on 18/04/06, police along with his husband and his Jeth Satbir came to Q block, Mangolpuri and got them released from the clutches of accused persons. She deposed that her husband had called the police due to suspicion.
Witness was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. mark C to which the witness denied having made any such statement to the police. She further denied the suggestion that she was deliberately not telling the truth being won over by the accused.
8. It is matter of record that the eye witnesses to the alleged accident had turned hostile in the present case and all other witnesses are formal in nature accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed on 01.11.2014.
9. Since, there is no incriminating evidence/testimony against the accused persons which has come on record against the accused persons, statement of accused persons Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as the Ld. Defence counsel and given my thoughtful consideration to the entire record.
11. It is noteworthy that to convict the accused persons in the present case, testimony of complainant/eye witnesses is very crucial to sustain the conviction of the accused. As already discussed above, the complainant and all other public witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Rambai, PW2 Himanshu, PW3 Satbir and PW4 Smt. Anita examined by the prosecution completely turned hostile and did not allege anything such Page no.7 of 8 FIR no.261/06 PS Narela U/s. 365/457/34 IPC State Vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
as abduction by accused persons. These witnesses did not support the case of prosecution at all and completely exonerated the accused persons from the allegations levelled by the prosecution in the present case. Hence in nutshell, there is nothing incriminating/inculpatory in the evidence of the eye witnesses/public witnesses against the accused persons on record and there is no other eye witness/public witness cited by the prosecution in the present case. All other witnesses are formal in nature whose no amount of evidence can tantamount to conviction of the accused persons.
12. Therefore, after scanning the entire record, in the absence of any incriminating testimony of any eye witnesses/public witnesses on record against the accused persons, in my considered opinion, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the present case against the accused persons and hence, the accused persons Kehar Singh, Vicky and Murlidhar are hereby acquitted from offences u/s 365/457/34 IPC.
13. File be consigned to Record room after necessary compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) Announced in open court today Metropolitan Magistrate/Rohini/Delhi on 20th April, 2015.
Page no.8 of 8 FIR no.261/06 PS Narela U/s. 365/457/34 IPC State Vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 261/06U/s. 365/457/34 IPC PS: Narela State vs. Kehar Singh & Ors.
20.04.2015 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
All the three accused persons on bail alongwith Ld. Counsel. Record perused Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno in the open court, all the three accused persons namely Kehar Singh, Vicky and Murlidhar are acquitted of the said offences U/s 365/457/34 IPC At request, previous bail bond of accused persons is extended in terms of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini/Delhi Page no.9 of 8