Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. on 2 January, 2010
1
FIR NO. 262/96
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P. NAHAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DELHI
FIR NO: 262/96
U/S: 186/353/332/34 IPC
P.S:TIMAR PUR
STATE V/s RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
-:JUDGMENT:-
Sl. No. of the case 1099/2
Date of commission of offence 30.05.1996
Name of the complainant Ct. Vijay Kumar
2035/N, police post Burari,
Police Station Timar Pur,
Delhi
Name, parentage and address 1. Rajesh Kumar
of the accused. S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o D-616, Nathu Pura,
Main Bazar Burari, Delhi
STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
2
FIR NO. 262/96
2. Rohtash
S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal
R/o A-75, Nathu Pura,
Main Bazar Burari, Delhi
3. Tittu @Sintu
S/o Sh. Mahipal
R/o A-313, Nathu Pura,
Main Bazar Burari, Delhi
Offence complained off U/S 186/353/332/34 IPC
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquittal
Date of order 02.01.2010
Date of final arguments heard 02.01.2010
STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
3
FIR NO. 262/96
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :
1. The facts of case in brief are that on 30.05.1996 at 11.45 PM at DTC bus stop, Nathu Pura village, Timar Pur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Timar Pur all the accused person had assaulted Ct. Vijay Kumar who are public servant and in order to deter him to discharge his duty as such public servant and on the aforesaid date time and place accused person had caused injuries by beating him and torn his uniform on the person of Ct. Vijay Kumar at that time when he was discharging his duties as public servant and thereby accused had committed an offence punishable u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.
2. The challan against the accused was filed on 27.08.1996 and accused person were summoned. Charge was given to the STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
4FIR NO. 262/96 accused person on 14.03.1997 u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC to which all the accused had pleaded not guilty.
3. The evidence against all the accused person was led. The prosecution has examined seven witness. PE was closed on 17.07.2001 Thereafter statement of accused was recorded on 10.09.2001 wherein all the accused person have stated that they are falsely implicated in the case. He has denied all the allegations levelled against him. The accused has led evidence in defense as DW1 to DW4.
4. Parties heard and record perused.
5. U/s 353 IPC it must be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that:
(a) A person assaults or uses criminal force to any person.
(b) The person assaulted is a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. 5 FIR NO. 262/96
servant.
(c) The act is committed -
(i) With intention to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant or,
(ii) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. U/s 321 IPC it must be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that:
(a) A person does any act-
(i) with the intention of thereby causing hurt to
any person or,
(ii) with the knowledge that he s likely thereby to
cause hurt to any person.
STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
6
FIR NO. 262/96
(b) He thereby causes hurt to any person.
(c) He thereby causing hurt to deter public servant from
his duty.
The present provision has to be read with Section 319 & Section 332 IPC.
6. PW1 has deposed that on 31.05.1996 he examined patient Ct. Vijay Kumar vide MLC No. 7497/96 which is Ex.PW1/A and patient was referred to EMO (s).
7. PW2 has deposed that about 3-4 years back it was night time and he was sleeping in his room situated at Natu Pura and heard some noise. Thereafter, he came out. He informed the police. No incident had taken place in his presence. Ct. Vijay Kumar asked him to inform the police. He cannot say who gave beating to Ct. Vijay Kumar, as he had not seen any person beating Ct. Vijay Kumar.
8. PW3 has deposed that on the intervening night of 30/31-
7FIR NO. 262/96 05.1996 at about 11.45 PM he was on patrolling duty in the village Nathu Pura alone. When he reached in front of Thukral Builders all the accused person were consuming liquor in front of the shop situated in front of Thukral Builders and he asked them not to consume liquor but they did not pay any heed. Thereafter, accused Rajesh threatened him to beat. All of a sudden he stood up and caught hold of his collar. The other accused person gave him beating with fist and kick blows. Thereafter, he also gave fist and kick blows to Rajesh but he was overpowered by the accused person. Meanwhile, one Gopal reached there and many other public person gathered there. He was rescued by the Gopal and somebody informed the matter to the police. PCR Van and station police reached there on the spot. IO ASI Dharam Pal also reached there and recorded his statement which is STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
8FIR NO. 262/96 Ex.PW3/A. He was medically examined at Hindu Rao Hospital. Accused Rajesh was arrested at the spot and other accused person ran away. After discharge from hospital his shirt was seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW3/B and his shirt was torn from collar and shoulder and his shirt was sealed with the seal of DP. The seal was handed over to Ct. Suresh Pal after use.
9. PW4 has deposed that on 31.05.1996 he was posted as duty officer at Police Station Timar Pur. At about 2.05 AM Ct. Suresh Pal brought a Tehrir which was sent by SI Dharam Pal. On the basis of which he recorded FIR No. 262/96, carbon copy of the same is Ex.PW4/A.
10.PW5 has deposed that on the intervening night of 30/31.05.1996 at about 11.45 PM on receipt of DD No. 27 he alongwith ASI Dharam Pal reached on the spot Nathu Pura STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
9FIR NO. 262/96 near Thukral Builders. There Ct. Vijay Kumar and accused Rajesh Kumar met them in injured condition. IO recorded statement of Ct. Vijay Kumar, prepared Tehrir and handed over the same to him which he took to Police Station and after getting the case registered he came back with copy of FIR and original Tahrir. Accused and Ct. Vijay Kumar/ complainant were got medically examined. He obtained the MLCs and handed over the same to IO. Thereafter, they came back to Chowki Burari where shirt of Ct. Vijay Kumar was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B and sealed with the seal of DP.
11.PW6 has deposed that on the intervening night of 30/31.05.1996 at about 11.45 PM he received DD No. 27. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Suresh reached at the spot where Ct. Vijay Kumar met them. His shirt was torn from collar and STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
10FIR NO. 262/96 shoulder. He recorded his statement and gave endorsement vide Ex.PW6/A. He handed over the Tehrir to Ct. Suresh Pal and sent him to Police Station. Ct. Vijay Kumar and accused Rajesh Kumar were sent for medical examination. He recorded the statement of Gopal. He prepared site plan vide memo Ex.PW6/B. Ct. Suresh reached at the spot alongwith Ct. Vijay Kumar and accused Rajesh. Ct. Suresh produced the MLC and carbon copy of FIR and original Tahrir. The MLC are Ex.PW1/A and Mark A. Accused Rajesh was arrested & his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW6/C. He made efforts to arrest the co-accused person. Ct. Vijay and accused Rajesh were brought to chowki Burari. Shirt of Ct. Vijay was seized vide Ex.PW3/B. On 06.06.1996 accused Rohtash and Tittu were arrested in this case and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/D STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
11FIR NO. 262/96 and Ex.PW6/E respectively.
12.PW7 has deposed that on 30.05.1996 he was posted at Police Station Timar Pur as DD writer at about 12.00 AM he recorded DD No. 27/B. After receiving a call from PCR, copy of same is Ex.PW7/A.
13.DW1 has deposed that he know the accused Rajesh. He submitted a complaint in the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Civil Lines, Delhi on 31.05.1996 in respect of the incident of beating the accused Rajesh Kumar by Ct. Vijay Kumar of police post Burari. The complaint Ex.DW1/1 is in his handwriting and signed by him at point A. He also submitted the complaint dated 31.05.1996 in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Delhi in respect of the above incident and the same is Ex.DW1/2 in his handwriting. He also submitted complaint dated 11.06.1996 in the office of STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
12FIR NO. 262/96 Chief Minister, Govt. of Delhi, Sh. Sahab Singh and the same is Ex.DW1/3, he submitted the above complaints as a social worker and joint secretary of Desh Bhagat Krantikari Mazdoor Union. He mention the facts in the above complaints which were narrated to him by Rajesh father of Rajesh, Satbir Singh and Jagdish of village Nathu Pura. Rajesh had received injuries on his body and he had shown the injuries to him and also told him that he feeling pain on his body at various parts. No higher police official came to him for carrying out inquiry into the above complaints submitted by him and case as framed by the police is totally false and concocted.
14.DW2 has deposed that on 30.05.1996 at around 10.15 PM he was standing on the bus stand situated near the shop of Thukral Builders on the main road in the residential area of village Nathu Pura. The light was dim at that time. He heard STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
13FIR NO. 262/96 the noises and cries for help from the side of Thukral Builders and he went there to inquire about the same. One police constable in police uniform was beating Rajesh Kumar with a stick inside the shop of Thukral Builders. The iron Jalli gate was closed from inside the shop and he could see both the police Ct. and accused Rajesh Kumar through the gate of the shop. He went inside the shop by jumping the gate. He opened the gate and he separated a police Ct. from Rajesh. Rajesh was wearing only a baniyan/vest at that time. As soon as he separated, the police Ct. from Rajesh Kumar, the said Ct. immediately torn his uniform shirt in his presence and threatened that now he would see Rajesh. More police man came there after sometime, thereafter, came to his house. Many persons of the locality collected at the shop of Thukral Builders when he had opened the gate and Satbir Singh of STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
14FIR NO. 262/96 village Nathu Pura had also reached there. He informed about the incident to Sh. Parmod Kumar, the social worker of the locality, who prepared a complaint and submitted the same to higher police authorities for action against the said police constables. Rajesh has received injuries on various parts of his body, which he had seen himself. When the Ct. was beating Rajesh Kumar, Rajesh was lying on the ground in the shop of Thukral Builders.
15.DW3 has deposed that on 10.30 PM on 30.05.1996 the police came at the main bus stop inside village Nathu Pura near shop of Thukral Buildes. He went there to enquire about the same and the police men present there informed that some incident had taken place. Accused Rajesh was present there and his Baniyan was torn and there were injuries on his body and his uniform shirt of a Ct. were also torn. The police STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
15FIR NO. 262/96 took Rajesh to police post and he also went to the police post alongwith 5-6 person of locality. The chowki in-charge of police post Burari prepared a compromise between Ct. Vijay and Rajesh Kumar. However, the police Ct. did not agree to the compromise. Thereafter, both accused Rajesh and Ct. Vijay were taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital for MLC. Besides him so many other persons of the locality had also reached at the site of incident, who informed him that the police Ct. Vijay Kumar had given beating with a stick to Rajesh Kumar.
16.DW4 has deposed that he is a photographer by profession and his shop in the name and style of Shiv Photo Studio at Main Budh Bazar, Nathu Pura and doing this profession since 1995. He deposed that he identify the accused Rajesh Kumar because he is also residing at Nathu Pura. On 31.05.1996 Rajesh Kumar had came to him for clicking his photograph STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
16FIR NO. 262/96 and there is fresh injuries mark on his back. I have clicked the photograph of Rajesh which is Mark X. Due to passage of time the negative of photograph has missing.
17.The case of the prosecution is that the accused had obstructed Ct. Vijay Kumar/public servant and caused injuries upon him by beating him. When Ct. Vijay Kumar asked the accused not to drink liquor at public place. They are three accused by the name of Rajesh, Rohtash and Tittu. All of the them were drinking liquor. Accused Rajesh caught the collar of Ct. Vijay and accused Rohtash and Tittu had slapped and punched the Ct. Vijay. Rohtash had torn shoulder and collar of the shirt of Ct. Vijay and the accused Tittu had thrown the cap of Ct. Vijay. The public servant was saved due to intervention of public person Gopal. The above facts are narrated by Ct. Vijay in his complaint to police vide Ex.PW3/A STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
17FIR NO. 262/96 on which Rukka was sent vide Ex.PW6/A. In the examination in chief of Ct. Vijay/PW3, PW3 has deposed that he was rescued by one person Mr. Gopal and the fact is also mentioned in complaint of PW3. The complaint Ex.PW3/A was recorded by ASI Dharam Pal and after discharge of PW3 from hospital the shirt was seized by IO which is proved torned from collar and shoulder and which is proved on record as Ex.P1. The suggestion is declined that PW3 was not posted at village Nathu Pura. The shirt which was produced before the Court vide Ex.P1 does not bear any name plate. However, PW3 has stated that the same was on the shirt at the time of incident. It is deposed by PW3 that after about 30 minutes after incident accused Rajesh was present on the spot. IO had reached earlier to PCR van and he had caught the accused Rajesh. IO had reached the spot after about 20-
18FIR NO. 262/96 25 minutes from the time of incident. PW3 had deposed that he is not aware whether accused Rajesh had fled away from the spot or present at the spot at the time of his arrest by IO. This shows that PW3 is not aware that when the accused Rajesh was arrested by IO and his deposition cannot be relied to the fact that accused Rajesh was arrested in his presence or IO had arrested the accused Rajesh at the spot. It is also difficult to believe that accused Rajesh remained waiting after beating of Ct. Vijay at the spot for about 20-25 minutes and the natural conduct of a person is to run away from the spot. The suggestion is declined that the accused Rajesh had sustained injuries due to the beating given by Ct. Vijay. It is admitted that accused Rajesh was also taken to hospital for medical examination. In MLC of accused Rajesh which is Mark A the nature of injuries are also reported as simple.
19FIR NO. 262/96 DW1/ Parmod Kumar has deposed that he has given complaint to ACP, Civil Lines on 31.05.1996 about illegal beating of accused Rajesh by Ct. Vijay and the complaint is Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2. The complaint to Chief Minister is Ex.DW1/3 and he has deposed that this is a false case. DW4 has deposed that on th said day of incident accused Rajesh came to him showing nature of injuries to him felling that he was wrongly beaten by Ct. Vijay. Suggestion was given to DW3 that on refusal to pay illegal demand of money the Ct. Vijay had beaten the accused Rajesh on which accused Rajesh sustained injuries. Suggestion was declined. The photograph is Mark X on record. DW2 has deposed that he was standing at the time of incident at the bus stop and one police constable was beating accused Rajesh by stick inside the shop of Thukral Builders and he went inside and STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
20FIR NO. 262/96 separated and saved the accused Rajesh. The Ct. had himself torned his uniform in his presence and many person from the locality had gathered. Nothing inconsistent came in deposition of the said witness. DW3 has also supported the version of accused and he has deposed that because the Ct. Vijay had beaten accused Rajesh mercilessly and to save himself this false case was implanted on the accused Rajesh at the instance of Ct. Vijay. Nothing inconsistent came in the testimony of the above witness during cross examination. The oral testimony of prosecution witness is controverted by oral testimony of defence witness. The Ct. Vijay has failed to prove his duty at the spot by any documentary evidence. The duty of police officers is usually assigned vide written order. PW2 who has saved PW3 has turned totally hostile to the case of the prosecution. He has deposed that no incident had STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
21FIR NO. 262/96 took place in his presence and he had given information to the police. When the public person were gathered at the spot then there was noting to stop the IO to join public person but no such efforts is shown to have been made which creates doubt in the case of the prosecution and benefit of which must go to the accused.
In AIR 1999 SC 234 in
case titled Nursy Vs.
State of Haryana it was
held that absence of
independent witness at
the time of arrest of
the accused when the
evidence of other
witness is doubtful goes
STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
22
FIR NO. 262/96
to the root of the case
of the prosecution.
It is seen that the IO in the case is ASI Dharam Pal and he has deposed as PW6. He has deposed that accused Rajesh was present at the spot and no separate arrest memo is proved on the record. The co-accused were arrested on 06.06.1996 who were Rohtash and Tittu. Their separate arrest memo is not proved on the record. The personal search memo of the above accused does not mention the time and place of arrest. Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove the arrest at at particular date, time and place. If injuries were caused by police on accused Rajesh then the prosecution has failed to show that under what reasonable circumstances the injuries were caused on accused Rajesh STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
23FIR NO. 262/96 and how the police is protected from such assault and how it come in the definition in reasonable force. The reaching of IO at the spot before the PCR shows that intimation must have reached to the Police Station first then to PCR. No liquor glass or bottle were seized to show that accused person were conducting any unlawful object. All these circumstances and doubt in the case of prosecution gives benefit to the accused person. Benefit of doubt is given to the accused. Hence all the accused are acquitted of the charged offence. Case property be confiscated to the State. Bail bond and surety bond stands discharged.
(Announced in the open court)
Dated: 02.01.2010 (J.P. NAHAR)
MM-01/NORTH
TIS HAZARI DELHI
STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.