Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Singh Etc. on 9 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN ARORA : ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : (SE) DELHI
STATE VS. Ram Singh Etc.
FIR NO: 140/89
P. S. Vasant Kunj
Date of institution of case : 10.09.1990
Date on which case reserved : 09.05.2011
for judgment
Date of judgment : 09.05.2011
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C
.:
a) Date of offence : 24.07.1989
b) Offence complained of : U/s 448/34 IPC.
c) Name of complainant : Sh. Gauri Shankar
d) Name of accused, his : 1 Ram Singh S/o SH. Banwari
Lal.
2 Sushila W/o Sh. Ram Singh
Both are R/o Soni Farm House,
Village Ghitorni, New Delhi
e) Plea of accused : They are falsely implicated.
g) Final order : Accused persons are acquitted.
FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 1/37
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1 The facts of the present case have been disclosed in the complaint
of the complainant that on 24.07.89, all the three accused persons namely Ram Singh,
Sushila and Sohan Lal Mehta, in furtherance of their common intention committed
house trespass in the Soni Farm House village Ghitorni. Also the accused persons
namely Ram Singh and Sushila, dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their
own use the articles such as cement, gunny bags and the house hold goods belonging
to one Sh. Gauri Shankar.
2 On the complaint of the complainant FIR U/s 448/380/452/
403/342/34IPC was registered against all the three accused persons, investigation were carried out and challan was prepared and presented in the court after completion of the investigation.
3 Subsequent to the filing of the challan, cognizance was taken and the accused persons were summoned. Thereafter, the matter was listed for the framing of charge/notice against the accused persons. The court vide its detailed order dated 30th March, 1993, found no allegation for the offence U/s 380/452/342/34 IPC against any of the three accused involved in the present case and has opined that only offence U/s 448/34 IPC was made out against all the three accused persons and offence U/s 403/34 IPC was made out against two accused persons namely Ram Singh and Sushila. Thus, the notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/s 448/34 IPC was served upon against all the three accused persons. However, the notice for the offence U/s 403 /34 IPC was served upon only two accused persons namely Ram Singh and Sushila on 23.08.93, to which the accused FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 2/37 persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and hence the matter was thereafter listed for PE.
1 PW1 Ct. Abdul Rahim, who had duly proved on record the present case FIR as Ex.PW1/A, DD No. 8 A dated 11.04.1989 is exhibited as Ex. PW1/B, DD No. 3 A dated 12.8.89 Ex. PW1/C, DD No. 4 A dated 12.8.1989, Ex. PW1/D, DD No. 6 A dated 02.4.1989 Ex.PW1/E and DD No. 7 A dated 30.3.1989, Ex. PE1/F and DD NO. 19 A dated 31.3.1989, as ex. PW1/9 has duly proved on record these records.
2 PW2 Gauri Shankar, who deposed that he purchased the farm house in question in the year 1985 vide sale deed mark A from Jupiter Radio, Greater Kailash and in the said farm house there was one kothi, five servant quarters, one old tube well and at the time of purchase, one Ram Saran who was working as Mali in the said farm house was also employed by him as Mali at the monthly salary of Rs. 600/ and was given accommodation on one portion of garage. He further submitted that Ram Singh, accused No.1 started residing in the farm house at the instance of Ram Saran in the year 1988 without the complainant's permission and knowledge and when he came to know about this, he objected and asked both of them to vacate the premises which Ram Saran and Ram Singh vacated on 28021989. Thereafter he himself started looking after the farm house and he appointed one Shri Kishan Ojha his servant and allowed him to live there. He stated that Sh Kishan Ojha was employed by him as servant even prior to leaving of Ram Saran and Ram Singh. He stated that there was one government tube well in the farm house which has been operated by Avdesh Kumar Sharma who was also residing in the farm house along with his family in servant quarter. Jagan Nath was also residing with Avdesh Kumar FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 3/37 and one servant Suraj Pal was also residing with them. He further submitted that mutation (Girdawari) of the farm house is in his name and his wife name. The Girdwari was Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/I. The electricity bills of the motor of tube well is also in his name. The photocopy of the same is Ex.PW2/J. In the year 1988, he also got excavated a well for the tube well purposes and the receipt of payment of labour charges is Ex.PW2/K. He also got a wall of the farm house prepared in the same year and the receipt of the payment of labour is Ex.PW2/L .
In the year 1989, he also applied for the electricity connection as the old meter got burned and he also applied the transfer his name. The copy of the application is Ex.PW1/M .
One Mr. Brar had sent some persons to him who had given to one chit to him with instruction to meet Mr. Barar. The said chit was proved as Ex.PW2/N. He also proved on record, the certified copy of the electricity bills which he paid is Ex.PW2/O to Ex.PW2/T. He also lodged a complaint against Lakhvinder Singh Barar, Inspector Special Cell Staff, Lajpat Nager, Delhi. The photocopy of the same is Ex.PW2/U dated 10.04.1989. He also filed a civil suit and obtained stay order ie. is marked A. He stated that Inspector Lakhvinder Singh Brar wanted to extort money from him and after obtaining stay order, accused Ram Singh on 31.03.1989 (i.e on same day) wanted to forcibly occupy the farm house regarding which the complaint had already lodged regarding Inspector Lakhvinder Brar Singh. Thereafter he reported the matter to DCP Khan who sent Sh. S.L Mehta alongwith me to PS Vasant Kunj who after discussion left from there and thereafter Inspector Babu Singh went to the farm house with him. Sh. Daryao Singh, ASI PS Vasant Kunj brought some gunda elements to the farm house and tractor and they broke open the lock of FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 4/37 my farm house and started ploughing my farm house. He sent complaint to Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, Commissioner of Police and DCP South through telegram . The certified copies of the same are Ex.PW2/X and he also received a reply from PM House i.e Ex.PW2/Y. On 31.03.1989 accused Ram Singh alongwith his children came there and stayed outside the farm house. On this he got appointed local Commissioner from the Court vide order marked B (to give report regarding physical position). He also received a letter from DCP Vigilance with respect enquiry against Sukhvinder ie. Ex.PW2/X. He stated that it was him who got ploughed his farm house and in this regard he relied upon the receipts Ex.PW2/Z1 and Ex.PW2/22. The receipt with receipt of installation of tube well in the farm house are Ex.PW2/Z2 to Ex.PW2/Z4 and the receipt of labour or installation of tube well is Ex.PW2/Z5. It is submitted that Ram Singh had gone to Narnol where his wife also gave a birth to a daughter. The copy of the same was Ex.PW2/Z6 (objected by the accused). He stated that he was sitting in his shop in Paharganj where one person namely Javed Ahmad holding himself to be a man of DCP AS Khan came there and gave him a chit ie. Mark C and said if there is any work worth DCP Khan or Ministry labour then he should tell him and he also stated that he also heard that on 24.07.1989 some dispute is going with respect to his farm house and thereafter DCP Khan got my farm house forcibly occupied. Ram Singh, his wife and Sh. SL Mehta had gone to the farm house snatched the keys and forcibly occupied two rooms (not complete farm house)and in this respect a DD entry mark B is lodged. He went to the police station that but his complaint was not lodged. SHO also reached at the spot but stated that until Mr. Khan comes there he will not right any complaint. Mr. FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 5/37 Khan also reached at the spot and thereafter he recorded complaint statement and then they all went to the farm house with various officers. Statement of the complaint was also recorded. Telegram to the Hon'ble Chief Justice was sent which is Ex.PW2/Z7. Thereafter Javed came to my shop and demanded Rs. 10 lacs against which complaint was lodged in PS Paharganj ie. Ex.PW2/Z8. The matter was also reported to senior officers i.e Ex.PW2/Z9. The notice of enquiry was proved as Ex.PW2/Z10 and the report of enquiry was proved as Ex.PW2/Z11. Thereafter he again lodged a complaint and gave notice ie. Ex.PW2/Z12 (Objected to) and Ex.PW2/Z13 . Thereafter again notices were given Ex.PW2/Z14 and Ex,PW2/Z15 (Objected to). The matter was also reported in newspaper ie. marked E. Again notice was given ie. Ex.PW2/Z17 (Objected to) which was replied vide Ex.PW2/Z18 (Objected to). Again notice was given ie. Ex.PW2/Z19(Objected to) which was again replied vide Ex.PW2/Z20. In enquiry Mr. Brar was terminated and four other persons were suspended vide letter Ex.PW2/Z21 and Ex.PW2/Z22. The kalandra mark F which was made against him by the police was quashed vide order mark G. Mr. Khan deputed two persons as Chowkidar and in respect of which there is an entry in roznamcha and in between the entire crop was cut by Ram Singh and he forcibly occupied the entire farm house. The employees of the complaint were thrown out the farm house and police seized certain documents vide memo Ex.PW2/Z23. Thereafter witness was cross examined by the Counsel for accused.
During his cross examination he admitted that accused no. 1 Ram Singh is one of the witness in the sale deed between the complainant and Jupiter Radios. He stated that he took possession of farm house one or two days before the registration of sale deed. He also stated that he cannot tell when he put his locks and FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 6/37 he cannot say if he at all put his locks. He stated that he does not remember that the accused purchased the stamp papers for the execution of said sale deed. He also denied it was accused no. 1 who introduced him to the seller of Jupiter Radio. He denied that as the accused was in possession of the land as agriculturist and that is how he introduced the both parties. He also denied that the accused and family members were residing in the farm in dispute. He could not tell that whether Ram Saran was residing in the farm house as servant of previous owner before the purchase of farm or not. He stated that he employed him one or two days after purchased of the farm house. He stated that he does not know the names of the employees of vendor, removed by him. He stated that he employed of Sh. Kishan Ojha in the farm house in the year 19871988 and he worked with him two to three years and now he is not with him but he has no documentary proof of the same. The witnesses submitted that Ram Singh left on 28.02.1989 alongwith Ram Saran and he took in writing from Ram Saran for payment of salary but he does not remember the dates of writing and he also does not remember he obtained any writing on. He denied that he never kept Sh. Kishan Ojha or Ram Saran as his servant. He stated that Jagan Nath was not employed with him. Though Suraj Pal was his employee and both of them were residing in servant quarter of farm house. He denied that they were not residing there and he also denied that he falsely introduced the name of Suraj Pal and Jagan Nath. He stated that Avdesh was residing in servant quarter and he was operator of government tube well and his names appears in the voter list but no such documents was relied upon by the complainant in his evidence. He denied that in application for contempt of Court in civil court he described that Avdesh is his servant. He stated that first Girdwari in his name took place after about 2 years of purchase by him (but FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 7/37 not placed on record) and he lodged first report against accused no. 1 on 31.03.1989. He admitted that accused no. 1 lodged a report against him before his report but he does not remember the contents of his report. He stated that at the time of lodging said report he was living in the farm house and police recorded complainant statement in the present case and he did not tell the police about any exchange of hot words over vacation of farm house in 1988. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW2/DA from portion A to A where it so recorded. He denied that after exchanger of hot words the complainant got fictitious entry in Khasra Girdawari in his name in the year 1988. He admitted that there was no entry in his name prior to 1988. He stated that he does not know if the accused no. 1 filed any objection against the said entry. He stated that he has not brought the original mutation or Girdwari today. The same must be with him. He stated that he has filed the same in civil court but he cannot tell the exact date when he filed. He stated as per his memory police itself collected the original mutation/Khasra Girdawari. He stated that the original papers of tube well were in civil court at the time of his chief. He denied that Ex.PW2/J and Ex.PW2/K and fictitious documents and no such documents were filed in civil court to which complainant replied that he filed the same in civil suit on 29.03.1989 but perhaps but he did not file either the original copy of Ex.PW2/J and Ex.PW2/K at the time of filing the civil suit. He stated that he cannot tell whether he showed the certified copies or something else of Ex.PW2/L and Ex.PW2/M at the time of his examination in chief as original of same are in civil Court. He stated that date typed on Ex.PW2/M is 10.10.1988 which was cut and changed to 23.03.1989 on which it was sent to DESU. He admitted that there is no endorsement of receipt on the said document by the department of DESU and he denied that the all the documents are FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 8/37 fictitious documents. He stated that he know accused no. 1 since 198283. He stated that he is not a money lender and stated that he had no money transaction with accused no. 1. He admitted that post card Ex.DX1 and Ex.DX2 are in his hand writing (post card written by complainant to accused elder brother). He stated that he is in gold profession and the said business is in his wife in Paharganj. He admitted that the number of t he said property is 5417/5422. He stated that accused no. 1 and 2 had occupied the said property for some period, which he does not remember. He stated that money demand from accused Ram Singh is Ex.DX1 and Ex.DX2 could be explained by two other letters which are missing. When he was posed with a question that he had filed a wrong civil suit in the name of Gauri Shanker wherein the WS and reply of temporarily injunction application on behalf defendant no. 1 ie. Ram Saran was typed on the same type writer on which the suit was typed and the same was also filed by his counsel Sh. D.K. Sharma instead of denying the same he stated that he cannot say. He stated that he cannot say if he filed the site plan with the report of LC and purposely withheld the same. He stated that he does not remember if local Commissioner had shown a well in the farm or not. Thereafter he was confronted with the site plan Ex.DX3 and on seeing it he stated that it might be one supported by LC at the time of inspection and he admitted that well is not shown in the site plan. He denied that vide letter Ex.DX1 and Ex.DX2 the lease amount was not demanded from accused Ram Singh and instead of disclosing the transaction involved that he stated that brother inlaws of Ram Singh are aware of that money as he has told that orally and stated that money relates to father of Ram Singh but did not tell the transaction. He denied that on 31.03.1989 he alongwith SHO PS Vasant Kunj and other police station tried to disposes Ram Singh and his family. He stated that he FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 9/37 cannot say that in departmental enquiry against Inspector Babu Singh, he was reverted as SI and Commissioner of Police also wrote against him /complainant and Inspector Babu Singh. He stated that on 24.07.1989 he had informed the police personally. Thereafter he volunteered that Additional SHO did not record his statement that in the PCR in the evening at 6/7 PM. He stated that he reported the police about the tress pass about accused no. 1 and 2 in Soni Farm House but he did not receive the copy of compliant and he does not remember if he received the copy of FIR Ex.PW2/DX. DD No. 38B. He stated that he filed complaint against Inspector Lakhvinder Singh Barar on 26.03.1989 and he filed a civil suit on 28.03.89. He stated that he sent telephonic information to DCP South, Prime Minister of India and Commissioner of Police on 24.07.89. He stated that he used to show expenditure and income from agriculture and in his income tax return but he did not supply the details to the police. He stated that when Javed Ahmad, Agent of DCP Khan had come to him to get the possession back from accused Ram Singh and he further stated that he had come before and after 24.07.1989 but not before 31.03.1989 and he also lodged a complainant against DCP Khan about the demand of Rs. 10 lacs for the said purpose. He stated that after tress pass i.e 24.07.1989 he could not enter in the farm house. He denied that in order to create evidence he fabricated documents though infact suit property was leased out to the accused but when he sought exorbitant increase of lease amount to which accused did not agree, the complainant attempted to forcibly dispossess the accused in the mid night of 31.03.1989 and 01.04.1989 and with the help of Inspector Babu Singh of PS Vasant Kunj and other police officials tress pass in Soni Farm house and took the all the inmates including accused no. 1 and 2 and their children alongwith all the household articles and looted the property of the FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 10/37 accused no. 1 and 2 including cash of Rs. 13,000/ and gold ornaments worth 50 gm in weight.
3 PW3 Rajeshwar Dalal (Retired Head Master from MCD School) who deposed that on 19.04.1989, he along with the Gauri Shankar, Raj Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Marwah who was appointed by Court as a Local Commissioner went to Sony Farm, Ghitorni Village, where two servant of Gauri Shankar namely Avdesh Kumar and a watchman Kishan Ahuja were present and the local commissioner inspected the farm house consisting of servant quarters, building and agricultural land which were under the physical possession of Gauri Shankar and that one constable was walking outside the farm house. He also stated that accused Ram Singh and Sushila, were sitting along with their kids and their belongings under the wall outside farm house and local commission tried to serve the notice upon these accused Sushila to which she refused to accept and the local commissioner prepared the list of the belongings of the Sushila Devi which was also signed by this witness and the same is ex. PW3/A consisting of two pages. He also stated that the IO recorded his statement. This witness was also cross examined by the accused Ram Singh himself and for accused Sushila, where by he admitted that he knows Mr. Ram Saran who had worked in the shop of his son for the last 1516 years in the year 198890. He also stated that Ram Singh along with his wife Smt. Sushila and kids were sitting outside near the wall of the Farm house on the road and was also confronted with the statement Mark A where it was only record that Shushila along with kids were siting outside the farm house near to the wall on the road. That the witness admitted that there is no mention of farm house in the LC report, nor the report has signed by the witness as to show their presence at the FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 11/37 time of alleged inspection. No photographs of the farm house were taken to show the possession of complainant on it. He denied that he in collusion with police officials and complainant criminally trespass into the farm house He also stated that at about 6PM the LC started the proceedings and completed the proceedings within 2 hours at about 7:30 PM and that the LC did not prepare any list of articles of the articles lying outside the gate and that no police official was present at the spot at the time of the LC proceedings.
4 PW4 Raj Kumar (also examined as PW6) who deposed that in the year 1985, SH Gauri Shankar Soni, his brother in law had purchased Soni Farm House and in the said farm house one Ram Saran who was working as gardener with the previous owner of the farm house and was retained by Gauri Shankar. He further stated that after sometime the accused Ram Singh along with the family started living in the servant quarter of the farm house with the gardener/Mali Ram Saran and Gauri Shankar objected as to why Ram Singh is living in the said farm house and asked the Ram Saran that Ram Singh would not be allowed to live in the farm house and on this Gauri Shankar has turned out the Ram Saran from the job at the end of February 1989 and Ram Saran had left the premises. Thereafter this witness was again examined as PW6.
5 PW5 Retired SI Roshan Lal, who deposed that in the month of the March 1990, the present case file was handed over to him for further investigation and during the investigation the complainant Gauri Shankar produced certain photostate documents to him which were three papers of written statement on behalf of the defendant Ram Saran, Photocopies of receipt dated 25.03.1987 of Messrs. Sunder Lal Raj Kumar, one photocopy receipt dated 25.3.1987 of Messrs. Sunder Lal, FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 12/37 one photocopy receipt dated 21.03.1988 in the name of the Sunder Lal Raj Kumar, Two receipts dated 15.03.1988 and two photostate bank Statements of the complainant Gauri Shankar having Account No. 3163 and the said documents were seized vide memo ex. PW5/A. He further stated that he also collected the record in respect of the mutation of the disputed property and recorded the statement of the witness and later on , during the investigation on24.8.1990, he arrested the accused Sohan Lal (expired) and on completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet. This witness was also cross examined by the accused Ram Singh himself and for accused Sushila whereby he admitted that he only seized the photocopies of the documents vide Ex.PW5/A and that original documents were never shown to him. He also stated he had seen the petition for contempt filed in the Civil Court, filed by the complainant and the said document was exhibited as Ex.PW5/D1. He also admitted that in the present case, he also arrested Inspector Sohan Lal Mehta on the basis of the statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C of SH. Raj Kumar. This witness after carefully gone through the received seized vide Ex.PW5/A, stated that the same receipts do not bear the signatures of the commission agent on them which are 5 in number Mark A to E. He also stated he had shown the receipt to the commission agent who stated that these receipts had been issued by them.
6 PW6 Raj Kumar (earlier examined partly as PW4) in his statement stated that he is doing the business of jewellery for the last 30 years and Gauri Shanker complainant is his elder brother in law who is also having the jewelery shop in Paharganj who had purchased one farm house i.e Soni farm house in 1985 where Ram Saran alongwith 23 persons were working. Ram Saran who was working as mali continued doing the same work as he was employed by the complainant and FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 13/37 after the purchase of farm house accused Ram Singh started residing with his family alongwith Ram Saran in the garage and when complainant objected to the same the Ram Singh did not comply the direction. On This Ram Saran was thrown out his job and in the Feb 1989 Ram Saran left the premises,. In the month of March 1989 ie. after 45 days Ram Saran came to premises of PW6 and stated that he received the call from Lakhvinder Singh Barar and thereafter he alongwith complainant/Rejeshwar Dalal went to meet him but could not meet him and after one month (26.03.1989) he received a call from Gauri Shanker complainant that the complainant received a call from nearby farm house that Ram Singh had tried to tress pass into the farm house alongwith 1012 persons in a tractor. Immediately he alongwith complaint rushed to PS Vasant Kunj and lodged a report from there they came to the farm house with the SHO PS Vasant Kunj. While he himself remained in front of PS Vasant Kunj in his car. After about 2 hours Gauri Shanker alongwith Police officials brought 89 persons including Ram Singh to the Police Station. Thereafter Gauri Shanker filed a civil suit and obtained a stay order within one or two days of that incident (ie. on 31.03.1989). On the same evening while they were present at police station, Ram Singh and other accused persons were brought to Police Station and after sometime, again an information was received that 14/15 persons have come to farm house and trying to tress pass and at that time Ram Singh was in police station. Police officials went to farm house and brought 1415 persons to police station and on the same night wife of Ram Singh alongwith children and household articles left for Narnol and Ram Singh remained at Police Station. Thereafter one or two members of the complainant family used to remain present in the farm house around the clock to avoid to further incident but the after 56 days meaning thereby on 56 April, 1989 FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 14/37 the wife of Ram Singh alongwith children and household goods came back and started residing on a patri on the side of farm house with Ram Singh, During the pendency civil suit the court had also appointed the local commissioner on 19.04.1989 who visited the farm house and prepared the report regarding possession. Thereafter in the month of July 1989 in the evening hours at about 5.00 PM one inspector alongwith 23 persons accompanied Ram Singh to the farm house and demanded the keys of farm house from him ie. PW6 and on refusal they threatened and snatched the keys of his possession and after snatching the keys the police officials kept the household of Ram Singh in the garage and he was forced to leave the farm house. On this he immediately he called the Gauri Shanker but could not contact him. Thereafter he passed the information to his son and on the same night police officials visited the farm house but they did not heard of us and left the spot. During his cross examination he stated that he does not know if Gauri Shanker filed any contempt petition in the said suit and his name is not mentioned in the contempt petition as he was not present at the farm house when the alleged incident of key snatching has been shown. He stated that he remained at the farm house 34 times and there are four corners of the farm house. He does not know the name of the owner nearby the farm house and does not remember the exact length wall of farm house He denied that he never visited the farm house. He stated that he does not know if the sale deed was signed by the Ram Singh as witness.
7 PW7 Inder Kumar, who stated that in the year 1989, on request of the Gauri Shankar his maternal uncle, who was having some property dispute with Ram Singh, he used to reside in the Soni Farm House. He also stated that sometimes he himself, sometime Gauri Shanka, sometimes Anil Kumar and some time Raj FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 15/37 Kumar, used to stay there to look after the farm house. He also stated that on the night of 56.4.1989, he along with the Anil Kumar stayed at the farm house for looking after the farm house and at about 11 to 11:30 PM, accused Ram Singh jumped inside the farm house from the grill over the wall fixed near the gate and they request him to go away but the accused started quarreling with them and police came there and they were taken to the PS Vasant Kunj where the compromise took place between them . He also stated that prior to 2 or 3 days of 5 April, 1989, Accused Ram Singh th along with his wife and children had been staying on a road in front of the farm house and during the investigation the police recorded his statement.
This witness was cross examined by the accused Ram Singh himself and also for accused Sushila, whereby the witness could not give the description regarding the said farm house such as number of corners of the farm house or the wall surrounding the farm house, names of owner nearby the farm house, length of front wall of farm house or width of road. The witness stated that it was 25 ft though as per Halka Patwari it was 100 fit which shows that he had not seen/visited the farm house at any point of time. He denied the suggestion that he did not take care of the farm house or that infact he wen to the farm house along with other to attack upon the accused and his family.
8 PW8 Raj Rani, who deposed that she knew the accused Ram Singh and his family, for about 5 to 6 years prior to the year 1986, and was having having family terms with the accused's family and used to treat Ram Singh as her brother. She has further stated that her husband purchased one farmhouse in the joint name of her and her husband and that one Ram Saran was working as Mali/chowkidar and they continue the services of Ram Saran and kept the Ram in the farm house .
FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 16/37 She has also stated that in the year 1989, accused Ram Singh started residing in the garage of the farm house along with his family without their knowledge and with the intervention of the police, her husband vacated the premises from the Ram Singh and his family members and Accused Ram Sing remained outside the farm house for about 15 days and even left for Narnol along with the household goods and after about one and one a half month Accused Ram Singh again forcibly took the possession of the farm house with the help of the police official i.e. DCP Khan and since then he has been occupying the farm house unauthorizedly and illegally. This witness was also cross examined by the accused Ram Singh for himself and for accused Sushila, whereby he stated that she denied of having any knowledge regarding the civil litigation filed by her husband against the accused Ram Singh and Ram Saran. He also denied that the said farmhouse was given on lease by her and her husband to the accused for agricultural purposes in the year 1985. She also stated that she does not remember as to whether the accused Ram Singh accompanied them to Sub Registrar office to witness the sale deed executed at the time of the purchase of the farm house or that her husband Gauri Shankar got purchased the stamp papers through Ram Singh.
9 PW9, Rajesh Kumar Marvah, who has been examined being appointed as Local Commissioner in the year 1989, by the Court of Sh. Y S Zonwal, the then Sub Judge, in Suit NO. 75/89 titled as SH. Gauri Shankar vs Ram Saran and another, who stated that in pursuance to the order dated 19.04.1989, he visited the suit premises on 19.4.1989, bearing Khasra No. 365, 357/3. 357/2, 347/ (2), 365/ (2), 355/12 (15), 48/1 (15), 365/(3), 355/1/ 2, 356 (Min), 348/2/ 1, 366/1/ 2, situated at Village Ghitorni, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi at 6.10 premises and FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 17/37 inspected the said premised and prepared the rough report Ex. PW9/A and on the basis of this report prepared the typed report dated 21.04.1989, Ex. PW9/B and submitted the same before the concerned Court. He also stated that as per his report the articles of the defendant were found lying outside the main entrance. This witness was also cross examined by the accused Ram Singh himself and also on behalf of the accused Sushila, whereby the witness stated that he had mentioned the name of the persons who refused to sign on his rough report Ex. PW9/A and got the signatures of those persons who signed the same. He also stated that he had mentioned in the report ex PW9/A that the second page is containing the list of the articles which is a part of the same report. He also stated that he mentioned in his report only to the extent of the instruction given by the Court and that he had not seen the boundary wall of the farm house and that he had not inspected the possession of the farm house as there was no direction in this regard to him and that he also had not got the spot photographed and had not joined any neighbourer as witnesses.
10 PW10 Neelam Sudhir, who has been examined being the Patwari Village Ghitorni. he has stated that as per the Khasra Girdwari Khasra bearing NO. 356. 355/2, 347, 348/1, 365, 366/2 are in the name of Gauri Shankar, and has exhibited the Khatoni consolidated as Ex. PW10/A regarding the disputed land and have also brought the Khasra Girdwari, of the year 20042005 i.e. ex. PW10/B ad the site plan is ex. PW10/E. He also stated that as per the records Khasras bearing No. 348/2/1, 357/3. 37/1/ 2, is in the name of the Rajrani, the khatoni consolidation is ex. PW10/C and Khasra Girdawri of the year 20042005, is ex. PW10/D and the site plan is ex. PW10/F. This witness was also cross examined by the FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 18/37 accused Ram Singh himself and for accused Sushila whereby she admitted that all the khasras mentioned in him chief are situated within one boundary wall. In her cross examination he admitted the documents ex. PW10/DA prepared in his hand writing and that the site plan is the joint plan. He also stated that asper the Ex. PW10/DA, there are ten corner of the boundary wall of the farm house and the road in front of the ram house is 99 feet wide. He also stated that as per the revenue record, he had filed up the form 5, for recording the possession of the accused No.1, and had submitted the proposal to Tehsildar but the same was not cleared by the Tehsildar. He also stated that whenever, they used to visit there for filing the Girdawri, he saw the possession of the Ram Singh in the premises.
Thereafter, after granting number of opportunities to the Prosecution to conclude the Prosecution Evidence, and even on several occasions, last opportunities were granted, no other witnesses could be produced for further examination, and thus the Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 05.02.05 and the matter was listed for the purpose of the recording of the Statement of the Accused.
Statement of the both the accused persons have been recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded after putting all the incriminating evidence to which they pleaded innocent and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case and also wish to lead defence evidence in their defence. Hence the matter is therefore, listed for the purpose of the DE.
The accused persons in their defence have examined as many as 7 witnesses.
1 DW1, SH. Deep Chand, who is the UDC, Central
Administrative Tribunal Principal Branch, New Delhi who had brought the
FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 19/37
summoned record pertaining to OA No. 2510/90, in the matter of Babu Singh Vs. Union of India and others, vide covering letter NO. 10.8.05, including the order sheet from 30.11.90 to 18.7.90 in four pages, final order / judgment dated 27.08.1993 one page, CP NO. 51/91 disposed off vide order sheet dated 26.04.1991 running into two pages and exhibited the photocopies of the documents collectively as Ex.DW1//A (10 pages).
2 DW2 Sanjay Kumar, LDC Record Room Session Tis Hazari Courts, who also produced the summoned record vide Goswara NO. 1302/D/ the copy of the judgment and order passed in MCA NO. 471/93 in the matter of the Ram Singh Vs. Gauri Shankar and others, decided on 10.11.1994 by the then Ld. Addl. Senior, Sub Judge, Delhi, the photocopy of the same running from Page 1 to 16 as ex. DW2/A. He also brought the summoned record pertaining to MCA No. 176/1 vide Goswara No.774/D, the matter of Gauri Shankar Vs. Ram Saran decided on 10.9.2003, the photocopy of the said appeal and order dated 10.9.03, are ex. DW/B. 3 DW3 Suresh Kumar, being the Dist. Ahlmad in the court of Mr. Sarveen Singh, Civil Judge, who have exhibited certain documents as Ex.DW3/A to DW3/L, regarding the Suit NO. 183/02 titled as Gauri Shankar Vs. Ram Saran.
4 DW4 Ravi Kama from DESU, who had brought the summoned record pertaining to M/S Jupiter Radio Regal Twell in Khasra NO. 347 Village Ghitorni and stated that according to their records the said electricity connection stands in the name of the M/s Jupiter Radio and the relevant documents are ex. DW4/A collectively. This witness was also cross examined by the FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 20/37 Ld. APP whereby he stated that he did not have any personal knowledge about the documents and did not know as to by whom the payment were made against the raised bills. He also stated that he could not say if any document has been filed in their section so as to prove the name of the persons as to whose name the Jupiter Radio exists where the meter were installed.
5 DW5 P K Bhardwaj, who has been summoned in respect of the notice dated 27.06.01 purported to be sent to Sh. Ram Singh. He stated that he was not in possession of any such notice, as he had left the office 4064/21 Ansari Road, for the last about 3 years , however, identified the copy of the notice dated 27.06.01, when the same was shown by the accused to him and also identified his signatures and marked as ex. DW5/A. He had also identified the application U/o 40 Rule 1 Read with section 151 CPC filed under his signatures and exhibited the same Mark DW5/B and affidavit ex. DW5/C and also identified the signatures of SH. Gauri Shankar at point C and C1, the certified copy of the appeal being MCA NO. 2/2001, has been marked as Mark DW5/D, the copy of the supporting documents is mark DW5/F and certified copy of the vakalatnama as mark DW5/F. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP, whereby he stated that he was the counsel for the complainant SH. Gauri Shankar and was not more counsel for the complainant since 2002. He also admitted that at the time of the issuing the legal notice I was the regular counsel but he had not taken any vakalatnama specifically for sending the notice.
6 DW6 Sushil Kumar Kala, he had brought the summoned record in respect of CRP NO. 325/1994 titled as Gauri Shankar Vs. Ram Saran, and tendered the copy of the order dated 04.10.202 passed by Hon'ble Justice Mr. S N FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 21/37 Kapoor.
7 DW7 SH. B N Shrivastava who is the Handwriting Expert, and had examined the English writing of the upper portion of the Vakalatnama of SH. D K Sharma and English writing of another vakalatnama of SH. A K Sharma, and had stated that after comparison , he found that they have been written by one and the same persons and certified copy of the two vakalatnama are ex.DW7/A, and his opinion in his report dated 06.02.08 is ex.DW7/B and DW7/C. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP whereby he stated that only the certified copies were given to him for comparison and that he was engaged by the accused and compared the above mentioned writing on the request of the accused.
Thereafter, the accused persons wished to close his defence evidence and hence his DE was closed vide the statement of the accused persons dated 26.02.08 and thereafter, the matter was listed for the purpose of the final arguments.
I have heard the submission of Ld. APP for the State and the accused himself. I have also carefully perused the record.
It is argued on behalf of prosecution/complainant that present case is a live example of land grabbing with the help of senior police officials. It is submitted that after the registration of present FIR, the accused filed a criminal writ petition no. 283/89 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court stating that accused has no ostensible or any interest in the property and the plea of the accused that he had taken the farm on lease was out rightly rejected. Accused Ram Singh also filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the complainant vide suit no. 1091/89 but he did not pursue the same and same was dismissed on 02.02.1990. It is submitted that on 31.03.1989 the complainant and received an information that some persons have to FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 22/37 come to the farm house and wanted to tress pass. On this he went to the PS Vasant Kunj and reported the matter vide DD No. 7A . On receipt of this information ASI Daryao Singh alongwith other police officials went to the farm house and brought nine persons to the police station who attempted to tress pass alongwith a tractor which clearly shows that on 31.03.1989 complainant was in possession of the farm house. In the intervening night of 31.03.1989 and 01.04.1989 complainant lodged a complaint vide DD No. 19A against the accused no. 1 for preparation for criminal tress pass which also shows that the complainant was in possession at that time. It is further submitted by the prosecution that the possession of complainant Gauri Shankar also fortified from the statement of PW3 Rajeshwar Dalal and PW9 Rajesh Marwah that is the local commissioner appointed by the Civil Court. It is stated that Sh. Rajesh Marwa has proved his rough report Ex.PW9/A and typed report as Ex.PW9/B and in his statement he has stated that some household articles were lying outside the main gate of the suite premises i.e farm house which belonged to accused Ram Singh and his wife admitted the goods belonged to her and there is no suggestion to this witness that his rough report or typed report are incorrect. It is submitted by the complainant that on 01.04.1989, 02.04.1989 and 11.04.1989, he lodged the complaint against accused no. 1 and Inspector Lakhvinder Singh Barar regarding attempt to take forcible possession in themselves shows that it was complainant who was in possession. When accused persons committed the offence after the court dated 31.03.89 the complainant filed a contempt petition dated 09.08.89 and the Hon'bel Court of Sh. P.D. Gupta in suit no. 73/89 vide its order dated 06.12.1990 restrained the accused from taking forcible possession of the suit property. When the accused persons are obeyed the directions passed by the Hon'ble FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 23/37 Court of Sh. P.D. Gupta, vide its order dated 06.12.1990 restrained the accused from today, forcible possession of the suit property. When the accused persons not obeyed the direction passed by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. P.D. Gupta vide its order dated 06.12.1990 then PW2 Gauri Shankar filed the second contempt petition against accused persons and others. It is submitted that accused persons in connivance with the local police booked the PW2 Gauri Shankar, but the said proceedings were set aside by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. PD Gupta vide its order dated 17.04.1983 by clearly mentioning the high handedness of police against PW2 Gauri Shankar. The charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 23.08.1993 by the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Anu Malhotra, MM, New Delhi. It is submitted that accused no. 1 was also arrested in another case in between the trial of case and remained in Judicial custody for the about 1 year in the said case which is still pending in the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Pandey, ACMM, New Delhi. Thereafter the accused persons moved an application for discharge after completion of the prosecution evidence and statement of the accused which was rejected by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Digvijjay Singh, MM, New Delhi with the comments that "the application is absolutely misconceived"
and the accused persons further challenged the said order by filing the Revision Petition no. 437/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter DCP A.S. Khan illegally demanded Rs. 10,000,00/ from the PW2 Gauri Shankar through one Javed Ahmad and PW2 Gauri Shankar made a complaint regarding the same which is Ex.PW2/Z28.
Another DD No. 3A dated 12.08.1989 of PS Vasant Kunj on the statement of one Jagan Nath Prasad, servant of complainant corroborated the allegation against the accused persons and show that complainant was in possession.
FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 24/37 It is argued on behalf of the defence that the accused no. 1 and 2 were residing in the premises in Paharaganj owned by the complainant since the year 1979 and thereafter the accused shifted to 22 Prithviraj Road, the residency of Ambassador of Turky as the accused no. 1 was working as PSO to the Ambassador. That in year 1984 the form house in question was put on fire by the miscreant after the gruesome murder of Mrs Indra Gandhi on 31.10.1984. The accused protected/took care of the farm house at the behest of the owners who were Sikhs i.e owner of Jupiter Radio. Thereafter in May 1985, the farm house was got transferred by way of registered sale deed in the name of the complainant and his wife. It is a matter of record that the said sale deeds were witnesses by the accused no. 1 and even the stamp papers were purchased by him, though denied by the complainant.
That soon after the execution/registration of the transfer papers favouring the complainant and his wife, the said agricultural land forming part of the farm house was given on oral lease to the accused by the complainant and his wife for a period of nine years, for which for the first three years the lease money in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ per annum thereafter @ 20,000/ per annum for the next three years and lastly @ 25,000/ per annum for the last three years. That the accused paid the lease amount upto 1988 and thereafter the complainant demanded the enhanced lease amount and demanded the lease amount vide post card addressed to the brother and parents of accused. The complainant filed a collusive suit no. 75/89 citing his servant Ram Saran as defendant no. 1 and accused no. 1 as defendant no. 2. The WS of the defendant no. 1 is collusive and typed on the same type writer and filed the Vakalatnama having similar writings on the vakalatnama of the plaintiff/complainant and defendant no. 1. An exparte "status qua" order was passed but the compliance of FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 25/37 order 39 rule 3 was not made by the complainant. Under the garb of the status qua order dated 31.03.1989 an attempt was made to dispossess the accused from the suit property in which the complainant failed. The application under order 39 rule 4 CPC was kept pending by the Ld. Civil Court. The service of the summons of the suit were not effected on accused and an exparte order of appointment of local commissioner was made on 19.04.1989. That the Ld. Successor court confirmed the stay order against the accused vide order dated 06.12.1990, which order was challenged by the accused before the Court of Ld. Senior sub judge, Delhi vide MCA no. 471/93 and the Ld. Lower Appellate Court of Sh. S.M. Chopra passed a detailed order vide dated 10.11.1993 wherein the Ld. Court observed that the suit was a collusive suit with the assistance of the bogus defendant no. 1 Ram Saran, police and the Court staff provided help to the complainant in tempering with the judicial file by entering two documents in the list of the documents at page 683 of the trial court record. It was further observed that the defendant no. 2/accused was in cultivating possession of the suit land as on the date of the filing of the suit on 31.03.1989.
That during the course of proceedings before the Ld. Civil Court, a contempt petition was filed against the accused on 09.08.1989 stating inter alia that the accused has tress passed in the suit property and that an FIR vide no. 140/89 has already been registered by PS Vasant Kunj on 25.07.1989.
It is further submitted by the defence that the complainant challenged the order 10.11.1993 vide civil revision petition no. 325/94 before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi which became infructous vide order dated 02.02.2005. Thereafter the complainant preferred a CM (M) petition no. 446/05 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and during the course of proceedings, the suit no. 75/89 was dismissed by the FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 26/37 Ld. Civil Judge vide order dated 22.07.2005 and the review petition was also dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court on 22.02.2006 and resultantly the CM main petition no. 446/2005 was also dismissed on 31.03.2007 by the Hon'ble High Court. The complainant preferred a regular civil appeal no. 100/2006 before the Ld. District Judge, Delhi, which appeal was dismissed on 04.10.2010 by Sh. Bhupesh Kumar, Ld ADJ, Delhi and thus the order dated 10.11.1993 vide MCA no. 471/93 passed by Sh. S.M. Chopra, ASSJ, Delhi, attained finality.
That it is the case of the defence that the alleged victim PW6 Raj Kumar did not lodge any FIR/complaint with regard to the incident dated 24.07.1989 at 4.00 PM rather it was the complainant Gauri Shankar who made a PCR call vide DD No. 374A PCR at 10.00 hours stating that there was a quarrel at Sethi Farm House, Ghitorni. However, no complaint was given to the police and a case FIR as stated above was registered on the copy of the DD entry by SI Kishan Singh. The investigation was transferred to SHO PS Dabri as the bona fide of PS SHO Vasant Kunj was not above board.
That the complainant did not join the investigation in PS Dabri and ultimately the matter was transferred to the Crime Branch who investigated the matter and filed the challan.
That during the course of the arguments on charge, the accused summoned the records from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi wherein it was transpired that the Commissioner of Police has filed a reply to the OA of Inspector Babu Singh, SHO PS Vasant Kunj wherein vide para no. 4.16, it was stated that "if there was any conspiracy, it was on the part of applicant Inspector Babu Singh who in connivance with one Gauri Shankar tried to circumvent the rule of law by FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 27/37 dispossessing one Ram Singh from Soni Farm House, Ghitorni.
That during the course of trial, the PWS were examined and cross examined. The PW2 complainant stated that the accused has vacated the farm house on 28.02.1989 and that he had further tress passed on 24.07.1989. This PW2 had relied upon a birth certificate Ex.PW2/Z6 dated 30.06.89 pertaining to the birth of a daughter of accused persons at Narnol, Haryana wherein the address of the accused persons is Soni Farm House, Ghitorni, New Delhi110030.
That PW2 has specifically in his cross examination that he was not a money lender and that he had sent two post cards Ex.DX1 and Ex.DX2 to the father and brother of the accused no. 1 demanding money from the accused no. 1 to which he has no explanation as to what for the complainant had made the demand of money from the accused no. 1 and it is submitted that in fact it was the enhanced lease money.
It is further submitted by the defence that PW2 has proved the false documents during his examination in chief as is evident from his cross " original papers of purchase of tube well and boring are in civil court. The same were not with me at the time of my examination in chief (Ex.PW2/J)".
"Original receipt of payment of labour charges to Virender was filed in civil court and was not available with me at the time of my examination in chief (Ex.PW2/L)". Same is my reply regarding Ex.PW2/M (transfer of electric connection)".
In these facts the defence has criticized the evidence of PW2 as to be false.
The testimony of PW3 Rajeshwar Dayal specifically stated that Ram FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 28/37 Saran (PW) defendant no. 1 had been working with his son in the year 1988, 1989 and 1990 and further that the local Commissioner (PW9) did not show the possession of PW2 complainant in the suit property as on 19.04.1989.
It is further argued by the defence the testimony of PW4/6 Raj Kumar is a bogus evidence firstly that in the contempt petition dated 09.08.1989 this witness has not been shown to have present in the suit property on the date of the incident as on 24.07.1989, so there was no question of snatching any key from PW6 by the police in any manner or whatsoever. The complainant even has not cited PW6 as a witness in the civil suit as is evident Ex.DW3/F (the list of witnesses filed by the complainant in the civil court on 27.04.1995). Secondly PW6 could not described the geography of the suit land/farm house as it evident from the testimony of PW10, the Halka Patwari, Village Ghitorni. The PW6 has described that the suit property was having four corners whereas the Halka Patwari has proved that the said property having ten corners. The PW6 stated that the width of the road on which the suit property was located, was in 25 ft in width whereas the Halka Patwari had proved that it was 99 ft wide. So it is proved that the PW6 was a planted witness, who has not even been relied upon by the complainant/PW2 in his chief and cross in the present matter. The defence has further submitted that the evidence of PW9. PW9 (local Commissioner) is very important wherein during the course of cross examination he specifically submitted that I had not seen the boundary wall of the farm house and thus I cannot say as to how many sides were there of farm house. PW9 further submitted that he had not inspected the farm house to see who is in possession of farm house as there was no such direction by the Court.
The prosecution examined PW5 SI Roshan Lal, who filed the challan.
FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 29/37 The evidence as adduced by this PW5 has proved that complainant never cultivated the suit land and rather had produced fake receipts of the sale of the alleged crops to the commission agents vide mark A to E on which no signatures of the commissioned agents were found and that is why the commissioned agent did not turn up for evidence.
It is the case of the defence that the entire case of prosecution is further falsified with the legal notice dated 22.10.2010 issued by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, whereby the lease of the accused was terminated after prosecuting him for more than 22 years for the act of tress pass.
That the examination of defence witness are a matter of record whereby the accused persons have disproved the case of the complainant that he was cultivating the suit lands, that any electricity connection was transferred in the name of the complainant. Rather the DW7 the hand writing expert had proved that the vakalatnama that he had examined English writing of the upper portion of the vakalatnama of Sh. D.K. Sharma (Counsel for the complainant) and in English writing in another Vakalatnama of Sh. A.K. Sharma (counsel for defendant no. 1 Ram Sharan). After comparison of two sets of writing this PW7 found that they had been written by one and the same person.
It has been submitted by the defence that the conduct of the complainant is further proved by the enquiry conducted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Jain , the then Ld. ASJ, New Delhi vide dated 05.09.2002, the contents of which are a matter of record and the above fraud and forgery committed by the complainant before the civil Court and this Court as is evident from the preceding paras.
The defence has submitted that the non examining of the main FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 30/37 investigation officer of the case has prejudiced him and the prosecution witness have come out with contradictory evidence with bogus documents and based on falsehood and claimed acquittal in view of the above.
I have heard the submission of Ld. APP for the State and the accused himself. I have also carefully perused the record.
The both parties being filed detailed argument which shows the basis of their stand in this case and there is no need to reiterate them again and again.
If we see the case of prosecution it solely rests upon one fact that on 28.02.1989 accused vacated the farm house. It is alleged that before 28.02.1989, it was accused no. 1 and 2 who were in possession of said farm house and as per the complainant they vacated the farm house on 28.02.1989 and after one month they again tried to forcibly dispossess the complainant and occupy the farm house. Thereafter another incident of 19.04.1989 has been emphasized upon by the complainant to show his possession over the farm house by showing to the Court that on that day when Local Commissioner visited the farm house, the wife of the accused was present outside the wall of the farm house with her belongings to show that they had already been dispossessed from the farm house and thereafter the incident of 24.07.1989 comes when complainant was dispossessed by the accused in order to show his possession. Complainant has relied upon various documents of period i.e from 28.02.1989 to 24.07.1989. Though as per the case of defence they were never dispossessed from the farm house and accused was always in possession of farm house. It was submitted that by relying upon false documents the complainant has tried to show his possession over the farm house. And in the garb of status quo order of the Court he tried to dispossess the accused persons on 31.03.1989.
FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 31/37 I have gone through the entire record. It is pertinent to mention here that the documents relied upon by the complainant starts from ExPW2/A to 2/I which are Khatoni of the land in question. All these Khatonies ie. Ex.PW2/E to Ex.PW2/I shows that property was purchased by the complainant and his wife on 05.01.1988. PW2/J and PW2/K were not proved legally by examining the author of the documents. Hence it has no legal sanctity. Even otherwise it pertains to date 16.05.1988 and not for the period in question. Even otherwise this Court is not to decide the civil rights of parties with respect to ownership of land. Hence, said document is not relevant. PW2/M is the copy of application for replacement of burnt meter by the complainant but it does not find mention any acknowledgment of the department6 to show that it was ever given to the DESU as alleged. Hence, the document is of no legal consequence. E.PW2/N is a chit of Inspector LS Brar which is of no consequence. Ex.PW2/O, Ex.PW2/P, Ex,PW2/Q and Ex.PW2/S are the electricity bills in the name of previous owner which are of no legal consequence. Ex.PW2/R and Ex.PW2/T are also receipts of DESU in the name of previous owner dated 03.04.1989. Ex.PW2/U is a complaint dated 10.04.1989 against Inspector LS Brar about illegal attempt to take forcible possession on 26.03.1989 and 31.03.1989 but in the absence of any evidence of police officials in this case in prosecution evidence the same cannot be appreciated merely on the basis of contained in it. Ex.PW2/V and 2/W is a telex sent to Prime Minister of India and DCP South regarding incident 31.03.1989. Ex.PW2/Z the receipt of labour was not proved as per law by examining the author of the same and it was only a photocopy which cannot be read in evidence. Same is the case of Ex.PW2/Z1 to 2/Z5. If we see the documents Ex.PW2/Z6, it is a birth certificate of the daughter of the accused wherein the FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 32/37 address of accused has been shown as Soni Farm House as on 30.06.1989 and this document was filed by the complainant himself. Rest are the complaints from PW2/Z7 to 2/Z22. It is pertinent to mention here that in the prosecution has not examined any police witness to afford an opportunity to the accused to cross examine them therefore all these complaints of complainant written to various authorities including senior police officials are of no consequences and cannot be read in evidence against the complainant. Complainant himself stated in his cross examination as role of police officials in this case was not proper and even it has been pointed by the accused that Inspector Babu Singh was even demoted for his collusive involvement with the complainant.
It is pertinent to mention here that the conduct of the complainant in this case has not proper since beginning. I have perused the complaint which talks about the accused Ram Singh as if Ram Singh was not known to him and he was known to Ram Saran as that was said in the complaint. In the entire complaint, complainant did not tell about the fact that the Ram Singh was known to him earlier also. He hide this fact from the Court and higher authorities and no explanation was given by the complainant in this regard and even complainant could not explain his conduct in his cross examination. In the cross examination of the complainant he admitted that accused no. 1 was an attesting witness of the sale deed vide which the farm house was purchased and this fact was not told earlier and the name of the accused no. 1 was mentioned in the complaint as if he is a stranger to the complainant and known to his servant Ram Saran. The complainant even could not tell that which money he is demanding from the accused's brother in law vide document Ex.DX1 and Ex.DX2 and complainant gave only evasive reply when these documents were confronted to FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 33/37 him. It was revealed in the evidence that the parties were known to each other prior to the purchase of the farm house and the wife of complainant used to treat the accused no. 1 as his brother which clearly shows that the entry of the accused in the farm house was not done in the manner as alleged by the accused and therefore it raises a doubt about the said incidence and presence of Ram Saran in the farm house as alleged by the complainant as it is also admitted by the PW3 Rajeshwar Dalal that Ram Saran used to work in the shop of his son in the year 19881990. I am unable to believe if a person is being thrown by the complainant from his farm house then why he would be employed by one of his close friends and what a coincidence that he got job in such a close relation of the complainant and even suit was filed making the said servant as defandant no. 1 just after one month of the vacation from the farm house. All the witnesses of the prosecution case which revolves around the prosecution story are so connected to each other even in all together different issues which creates a doubt about their actual role in the case.
All these facts create a doubt regarding the role of Ram Saran in the entire episode and the Court is no left option to believe that accused Ram Singh was earlier residing in the farm house even prior to the purchase to the same by the complainant. Now the fact comes that on 28.02.1989, the accused vacated the farm house. In this regard, there is no evidence except bald allegation by the complainant to prove that and even Ram Saran was not brought to the witness box to prove this fact. It is also pertinent to mention here that if on 28.02.1989, accused was evicted from the farm house then why civil suit was filed by the complainant without the photographs of farm house showing his possession over the same, especially when the entire civil suit is based upon on the plea of possession. It is also pertinent to mention here that if FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 34/37 accused had such an intention to forcibly occupy the farm house again then why he vacated the farm house on 28.02.1989 and why he waited for one month period to attempt such an act especially on the date of passing of status quo order. The accused was not aware about any suit filed against him by the complainant. He was not aware that any status quo order has been passed. Again look at the coincidence that date on the passing status quo order, he attempted to forcibly occupy the said farm house or it can be vice versa that it was accused who was in possession of the farm house and complainant unable to take possession of the farm house attempted it by obtaining the status quo order first. Civil Court findings in this regard has already come against the complainant and the higher police officials have already punished by their department in this regard for facilitating such an act of complainant.
It is also pertinent to mention here that if the complainant was in possession of the farm house on 31.03.1989 and thereafter then where was the need to get appointed a Local Commissioner from the Court to prove its possession over the farm house and this could have been done by simply placing the photograph of the farm house before the Court. It is also pertinent to mention here that it has not been explained by the complainant that if he was in possession on 19.04.1989 then why he did not take the Local Commissioner to the farm house itself and what was the need for preparing the Local Commissioner Report by standing outside the farm house? Why there was a police man walking outside the farm house? Why Local Commissioner did not give his unequivocal findings in his report regarding the possession of the farm house? If seen collectively all these facts clearly show that complainant was never in possession of farm house till 19.04.1989. He himself has said in his evidence that DCP Khan approached him for getting his possession back FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 35/37 from the accused and demanded money which in itself shows that it was accused who was in possession.
It is pertinent to mention here that this allegation that agent of DCP Khan had come to him to get the possession back from accused Ram Singh. He himself stated in his evidence that he had come before and after 24.07.1989 but not before 31.03.1989. Meaning thereby before 24.07.1989 it was accused who was in possession otherwise there was no occasion for DCP Khan to come to the complainant to get the possession back.
All these facts goes in favour of accused and against the complainant. PW6 Raj Kumar in his statement stated that on 24.07.1984 in the evening at about 5.00 PM, one inspector alongwith two or three police officials accompanied by Ram Singh came to farm house and where he demanded the keys from him and on refusal they threatened and snatched the keys from his possession and they also kept the household of the Ram Singh in the garage and he was forced to leave the farm house.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the contempt petition there is no mention of presence of PW Raj Kumar at the time of incident, though in the complaint, it has been mentioned that keys were snatched from the possession of Raj Kumar. All these facts clearly shows that the facts alleged by the complainant in his testimony are not correct.
In these circumstances in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to proved its case to the satisfaction of this Court. In my opinion, it was accused who was in possession of the said farm house since very beginning instead of adopting the procedure of law, the complainant resorted to illegal ways of getting the farm house vacated in collusion with the police officials. Hence, accused persons are acquitted.
FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 36/37 P/B stands discharged. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open Court (NAVEEN ARORA) TODAY ON 09th May, 2011 ACMM/SE/Saket FIR NO. 140/89 State Vs. Ram Singh 37/37