Delhi District Court
State vs . Karan Singh & Ors. on 12 September, 2012
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02 (NORTH) DELHI
Case No. 223/ST/06
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0004841990
State Vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
FIR No. :170/90
PS : Roop Nagar
U/s. 186/353/34 IPC
Date of institution: 05.12.1990
Date of Arguments: 12.9.2012
Date of Judgment: 12.9.2012
JUDGMENT
a) Serial No. of the case 02401R0004841990
b) Date of commission 18.7.1990 of the offence
c) Name of the complainant SI Mahinder Pal Singh No.2037/D, Traffic Unit, PHG, Delhi
d) Name of the accused person, 1. Karan Singh, S/o Sh.Mohinder and his parentage and Singh, R/o 26/3, Shakti Nagar, Delhi address.
2. Amitabh Sharma S/o Late Sh.C.P. Sharma, R/o 40/19, Shakti Nagar, Delhi (since deceased, proceedings abated v/o dt.08.6.09)
3. Ashwini Chhabra (Proclaimed Offender), S/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan Chhabra, R/o 24/24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi
4. Narender Goel, S/o Late Sh.Paras Dass Goel, R/o 17/27 Shakti Nagar, Delhi FIR No. 170/90 PS: Roop Nagar Page 1 of 7 : 2 :
e) Offence complained or 186/353/34 IPC proved
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
g) The final order Acquitted
h) Date of such order 12/09/12 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. The Prosecution story runs to the effect that on 18.7.1990, SI Mahinder Pal Singh alongwith HC Mohd. Akbar and Ct. Trilok Singh were on traffic duty at Shakti Nagar Chowk. At about 4.45 pm a Maruti Car bearing registration no. DAC 4183 came from the side of Rana Pratap Bagh and hit a scooterist at the red light of Shakti Nagar Chowk. The scooterist fell down alongwith the scooter. The traffic officials rushed towards the scooterist and help him in lifting the scooter. IO enquired the name and address particulars of the person driving the car in question who disclosed his name as Karan Singh R/o afore reflected address. The said driver also produced his licence and the RC of the vehicle on being demanded by the SI of the traffic police. Further, when SI Mahinder Pal Singh tried to challan the driver of the car, the driver of the car alongwith 3-4 persons sitting in the very car started arguing with him and did not allow him to challan the driver of the vehicle for the alleged incident. A scuffle took place b/w them and during the scuffle, the right side pocket of the uniform of SI was torned. The rest of the two traffic officials intervened. However, in the meantime, all the persons sitting in the car absconded therefrom while leaving the RC and DL with the SI of the traffic police. After a short while, SI Vikram Singh (Delhi Police- PS Roop Nagar) who was on patrolling duty happened to be there and the entire incident FIR No. 170/90 PS: Roop Nagar Page 2 of 7 : 3 :
was narrated to him. He recorded the statement of complainant SI Traffic Police and got lodged the present FIR. Thereafter, the car in question was seized/recovered by SI Vikram Singh from the R/o Karan Singh on the very next date i.e. 19.7.1990 in the absence of the accused. Accused persons were arrested and the chargesheet i.e. final report u/s 173 CrPC was filed in the court as on 05.12.1990.
2. Cognizance of the offences was taken vide the very order i.e. order dated 05.12.1990 and the copies etc. were duly supplied to the accused persons in the due course. Notice u/s 251 CrPC for the offence u/s 186/353/34 IPC were framed as against all the four accused persons vide order dated 10.7.1992 to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the course of trial accused Amitabh passed away as on 24.01.2008 and the proceedings against the deceased accused were ordered abated vide order dated 08.6.2009.
Absentee/absconding accused viz. Ashwini was declared a Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 19.11.2011.
4. The prosecution got examined seven witnesses in support of its version. PE stood closed vide order dated 12.01.2007. Statements of the accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.PC were recorded as on 21.3.2007. During the course of SA the accused persons denied the incriminating evidence put to them. However, they opted not to lead evidence in defence.
FIR No. 170/90 PS: Roop Nagar Page 3 of 7: 4 :
5. File perused. Counsels heard.
6. All the witnesses; except PW5, are the police officials.
PW5 is Sh.S.K.Kaushik, Ld.ASJ who was posted & designated as MM as on 21.7.1990 and an application for TIP had been moved before the then Ld.MM by SI Vikram. The accused; on being asked whether they want their TIP proceedings conducted, had refused for the same. The proceedings so conducted have been proved as Ex.PW5/B.
7. Out of the rest of the witnesses PW1 is HC Manbir Singh who was the DO as on 18.7.1990 and had lodged the present FIR which stands proved as Ex.PW1/A. PW2 is the DO/DD Writer who stated that such 'n' such officials were posted on duty at Shakti Nagar Chowk at the relevant time. PW3 happens to be SI Mahinder Pal Singh. PW4 is ASI Mohd. Akbar who was on duty as HC on the fateful day at Shakti Nagar Chowk. PW6 is Ct. Trilok Singh who was also on duty alongwith SI Mahinder Pal Singh. PW7 is the IO/SI Vikram Singh.
8. The complainant/PW3, the accompanying officials i.e. Ct. Trilok Singh (PW6) and the then HC Mohd. Akbar (PW4); have deposed almost on the dotted lines of the narration appearing in the chargesheet/final report of the case. As a matter of fact, none of the seven witnesses has been cross examined at all. However, despite that, the prosecution story cannot be said to be free from loop holes. Certain material aspects have not at all been touched upon which in a way adversely affect the prosecution version. Alongwith the same, the objection raised by the defence cl. (i.e. objection to the effect that the FIR No. 170/90 PS: Roop Nagar Page 4 of 7 : 5 :
cognizance was taken on the final report u/s 173 CrPC despite the fact that it should have been on a complaint u/s 195 CrPC) also appears to be on a sound footing. The following are the observations in this regard -
i) The accused persons have been charged with the offences punishable u/s 186/353/34 IPC. For an offence u/s 186 CrPC the cognizance was mandatorily required to be taken on filing of a complaint u/s 195 CrPC. However, the very 1st ordersheet i.e. the order dated 05.12.1990 is clear enough to reveal that the then Ld.MM had taken the cognizance of the offences as above on the final report filed u/s 173 CrPC. The final report u/s 173 CrPC can in no way be construed to be a Complaint within the meaning u/s 2(d) CrPC.
ii) The starting point of the incident in question is/was that the accused Karan Singh while driving the Maruti car had hit a scooterist viz.
Sh.Rajesh. The said scooterist fell down and the complainant i.e. SI of theTraffic Police helped him to stand up. Said Sh.Rajesh was cited as a witness. However, he could not be examined as a witness despite the fact that the matter remained listed for PE for more than 14 yrs.
iii)In the entire prosecution story it has nowhere been made clear as to whether any sort of damage was caused either to the scooter which had allegedly been hit by the Maruti car being driven by the accused no.1 or to the Maruti car. Nothing sort of mechanical inspection etc. of the vehicles was ever conducted. The prosecution story is also silent with regard to any sort of injury to the scooterist.
iv)The statements of the prosecution witnesses FIR No. 170/90 PS: Roop Nagar Page 5 of 7 : 6 :
clearly depict that accused no.1 was a 'learner' having the learning licence. The said licence alongwith the RC of the car in question had also been seized by the traffic sub inspector. However, neither the said official/witness nor any other witness; including the IO, deemed it fit to depose as to whether the person driving the vehicle on a learner's licence was or was not being accompanied by a person having a valid driving licence and sitting beside him.
v) The prosecution story is also silent on the aspect whether the vehicle in question was being driven at a high speed or in rash & negligent manner or otherwise in violation of any traffic rules. In the given eventuality, it thus remained unexplained as to for what sort of 'wrong' the traffic sub inspector had tried to challan the driver of the car in question. Moreover, as a matter of fact, the licence and the RC of the vehicle in question had duly been furnished by the accused no.1/driver on being demanded by the complainant/ traffic sub inspector. Both these documents remained with him until he handed over the same to the IO of the case. However, despite that, no action/no challan for the alleged violation of Motor Vehicle Act/ Rules was ever initiated.
vi)The material on record is also reflective of the fact that none of the traffic police officials either made any call to the PCR or intimated about the alleged incident to the nearest police station.
Infact, even the police official/IO of the case happened to be there at the spot as a matter of chance.
9. The appreciation of the material reflected herein above is clear enough to conclude that the prosecution story through out remains under a shadow of doubt. The accused persons facing trial deserve to be FIR No. 170/90 PS: Roop Nagar Page 6 of 7 : 7 :
given the benefit thereof. Accordingly, both the accused persons facing trial viz. Karan Singh and Narender, are hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
10. File be consigned to record room sin-e-die for being taken up as and when the proclaimed offender viz. Ashwini is apprehended and produced before the court.
Announced in Open Court on 12th September, 2012 (RAGHUBIR SINGH) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02/North/Delhi FIR No. 170/90 PS: Roop Nagar Page 7 of 7 : 8 :
FIR No.170/90PS Roop Nagar 12.9.2012 Present: Ld.APP for State Accused Ashwini is PO Proceedings against accused Amitabh (since deceased) already abated Accused Narender and Karan Singh are present on bail with cl.
Arguments heard. Vide separate and detailed judgment of this day, accused Narender and Karan Singh stand acquitted. At this stage, Sh. Narender has furnished fresh bail bond u/s 437 A CrPC (in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with surety in the like amount). Same is hereby accepted as per the provision. His previous surety stand discharged and the previous bail bonds stand cancelled. At request, the previous bail bond of the other accused viz. Karan Singh are hereby accepted to be bail bond as u/s 437 A CrPC and are hereby extended for the period inscribed therein.
File be consigned to record room sine-die and be produced as and when the proclaimed offender/accused viz. Ashwini is apprehended and brought before the court.
(RAGHUBIR SINGH) ACMM-02/North/12.9.2012 FIR No. 170/90 PS: Roop Nagar Page 8 of 7