Delhi District Court
State vs Ranjit Singh Kandola And Anr. on 22 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 04
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLND010001762012
SC No. 8800/16
FIR No. 129/12
PS - Old Delhi Railway Station
U/s 224/216 IPC and 25A NDPS Act.
State
Vs.
1. Ranjit Singh Kandola @ Raja Kandola
S/o Sh. Kewal Singh
R/o H. No. 3, NRI Enclave, Banga
DisttNawashehar, Punjab.
2. Gaganpreet Singh
S/o Jarnail Singh
R/o H. No. 337, New Ashapuri,
Badawal Road, Ludhiana,
State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012
PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 1/45
Punjab.
3. Pradeep Kumar (Discharged vide order dated 05.08.2013)
S/o Birender
R/o Piandel Medico, Via 101
H. No. 2 (Jasse Ankona), Italy
Permanent Address:
VillageReela, TehsilGarh Shankar
PSMetiana, DisttHosiyarpur,
Punjab.
Date of Institution : 29.11.2012
Date of Arguments : 07.12.2017
Date of Judgment : 22.12.2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Brief case of the prosecution as per chargesheet is:
(a) On 25.09.2012 on receipt of DD no. 8A regarding absconding of accused Ranjit Singh Kandola from police custody, PW10 SI Suresh Kumar from PSOld Delhi Railway Station (hereinafter referred as ODRS) reached near Pul Mithai where HC Satish Kumar met him along with his staff. Thereafter, PW10 SI Suresh Kumar State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.FIR no. 129/2012
PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 2/45 recorded statement of HC Satish Kumar and on the basis of said statement PW10 prepared a rukka and got registered the present FIR, prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of other witnesses and searched for accused Ranjit Singh Kandola.
b) On 30.09.2012 investigation was transferred to Special Cell, Lodhi Colony and the case was marked to PW16 SI Pramod for further investigation. He received an information that accused Ranjit Singh Kandola is staying in Hotel Class at Mahipalpur and would flee to Nepal with the help of his friends. PW16 along with his staff reached the said hotel. PW16 along with PW17 SI Shivraj were present outside the hotel. After sometime a person came out of hotel who was carrying a yellow paper bag in his hand and started moving towards a car which was parked outside Hotel The Class. Suspecting the said person to be Ranjit Singh Kandola, PW16 along with PW17 SI Shiv Raj apprehended him. On inquiry, the name of that person was revealed as Ranjit Singh Kandola. The paper bag which accused was carrying was searched and white tablets and a small red and blue State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 3/45 pouch in which white powder and glass tubes in red polythene wrapped with black tape were recovered. On interrogation accused disclosed that the tablets were methaqualone and pseudoephedrine and white powder contained ephedrine. IO asked the passersby to join the investigation but none of them agreed.
c) Thereafter IO checked the white colour tablets with Narcotics Detection Kit which gave positive result for pseudoephedrine and methaqualone. On weighing, the weight of said tablets was found to be 3.8 kgs and weight of powder was 10 gms. Two samples of 20 tablets each were taken which were kept in two small plastic boxes and were converted into a pullanda and were marked as S1 and S2. The remaining tablets along with polythene and paper bag were kept in a polythene and were converted into pullanda which was marked as E1. Two samples of 1 gm each were taken from powder which were kept in two small boxes and marked as S3 and S4. The remaining 8 gm powder along with polythene was converted into a pullanda and was marked as E2. Glass tubes were converted into pullanda and was given mark State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 4/45 E3. All pullandas were sealed with the seal of PK.
d) Thereafter PW16 interrogated accused Ranjit Singh. He disclosed that he wanted to flee to Nepal and he had procured the narcotics from one Sukhvinder and kept the same at his house in Nawashehar. Meanwhile two other persons were found coming out of hotel The Class. Accused Ranjit Singh identified those persons as his associates, who were helping him to provide shelter and to flee. These two associates of accused Ranjit Singh i.e. Gagan Preet Singh and Pradeep were also arrested from outside Hotel The Class. Both newly apprehended persons i.e. Gagan Preet Singh and Pradeep were also interrogated. PW16 also seized ZEN car no. PB 10BO 1701 along with other articles from accused persons. During investigation Skype ID of accused Pradeep Kumar and Ranjit Singh Kandola was opened and print outs were taken. The exhibits were deposited in FSL, Rohini. After completion of investigation, present charge sheet was filed.
2. In view of the allegations against the accused persons in the chargesheet, accused Pradeep was State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 5/45 discharged vide order dated 05.08.2013, charge u/s 224 IPC for intentionally escaping from custody, and 25A NDPS Act was framed against accused Ranjit Singh Kandola. Second charge, charge u/s 216 IPC was framed against accused Gagan Preet Singh. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in support of its case, examined 19 witnesses.
4. PW1 HC Satish Kumar, PW2 constable Subhash Chand and PW4 constable Hari Narain, were the members of escort team from whose custody accused Ranjit Singh allegedly fled. PW1 proved his complaint as Ex.PW1/A.
5. PW3 constable Vijay Pal, testified that on 25.09.2012 he was on patrolling duty. At about 6.00 am SI Suresh Kumar instructed him to reach between Pulbangansh and Pul Mithai. On reaching the said spot, he found HC Satish Kumar and his other team members along with SI Suresh Kumar, who was investigating the matter about escape of one Ranjit Singh Kandola from the custody of third battalion. At about 10.00 am SI State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 6/45 Suresh Kumar handed over him the original tehrir and instructed him to get the FIR registered. He handed over the said tehrir to duty officer at PSODRS and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he returned back to the spot and handed the FIR over to SI Suresh Kumar.
6. PW5 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, ExChief Reservation Supervisor, Northern Railway, Firozpur Division, Punjab, testified that in the year 2012 he was working as Chief Reservation Supervisor in Reservation Centre at Jalandhar city. On 28.09.2012 some police officials of Delhi came to his office and served him with a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC for providing the certified copy of reservation slip. He proved the reservation slip vide PNR number 2707726155 dated 26.08.2012, 2337240877 dated 20.07.2012 and 2437781293 as Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively.
7. PW6 constable Mahesh Kumar, testified that on 17.10.2012, he was posted at PSSpecial Cell. On that day on the instructions of IO SI Pramod Chauhan, he took two sample sealed pullandas mark S1 and S2 and FSL form having one seal of PK and RSS from MHC(M) and State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 7/45 deposited the same at FSL, Rohini.
8. PW7 SI Alok Kumar, joined the investigation of case with PW16 SI Pramod on 03.10.2012. He proved the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Ranjit Singh Kandola at Navashehar as Ex.PW7/A, pointing out memo prepared at Nakodar as Ex.PW7/B, identification memo as Ex.PW7/C. He further testified that on 04.10.2012 the mail box of accused Ranjit Singh Kandola i.e. [email protected] was opened with the help of password given by accused and 37 print outs were taken. He proved the said print outs as Ex.PW7/D (colly) and the documents seized vide seizure memo as Ex.PW7/E.
9. PW8 Nishan Dillon, testified that he knew accused Gagan Preet Singh for the last two and a half years . When accused Gagan Preet Singh used to come to offer prayer at "darbar" in Sunder Nagar, where he was sewadar Gagan Preet Singh used to stay with him. He further deposed that nothing had happened on 25.09.2012. However, in the first week of October, 2012 he was called telephonically to the office of Special Cell.
State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 8/45 He came to the said office and he was inquired about accused Gagan Preet Singh and one another person Ranjit Singh. He told the police officials that he knew Gagan Preet but he did not know Ranjit Singh. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was crossexamined by learned Addl. PP but nothing material came in his crossexamination and he denied to have ever stated to police that he provided shelter to accused Ranjit Singh Kandola.
10. PW9 HC Sanjeev, was working as MHC(M) with PSSpecial Cell during the relevant time. He deposed that the entire case property was deposited with him in the Malkhana.
11. PW10 SI Suresh Kumar, is the initial IO of the case. He proved his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW10/A. His testimony would be discussed at later stage.
12. PW11 Inspector R.S. Sehrawat, was posted as SHO on 30.09.2012 with PSSpecial Cell. He deposited the case property in the Malkhana on receipt of same from PW16 and after affixing his own seal on the same.
State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 9/45
13. PW12 constable Yogender Singh, testified that he was working as Reader to ACP Special Cell. On 01.10.2012 a report u/s 57 NDPS Act prepared by SI Pramod Kumar was received in the office of ACP vide diary no. 4171/ACP/NDR regarding seizure of narcotics from and arrest of accused Ranjit Singh Kandola. He proved the said report as Ex.PW12/A and the entry as Ex.PW12/B.
14. PW13 constable Satender, produced the record regarding production of accused Ranjit Singh Kandola before the NDPS court at Hoshiyarpur. He proved the copy of said record as Ex.PW13/A and DD no. 103B regarding accused being brought back to Delhi after producing him before the court as Ex.PW13/B.
15. PW14 W/SI Ram Saroha, testified that on 25.09.2012 she was posted at PSODRS as duty officer from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm. She received rukka from constable Vijay Pal which was sent by SI Suresh Kumar and on the basis of the same she recorded FIR no. 129/2012 through computer operator. She proved the FIR as Ex.PW14/A, endorsement on original tehrir as State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 10/45 Ex.PW14/B, DD no. 10A vide which she started registering the FIR as Ex.PW14/C and DD no. 11 vide which she finished recording the FIR as Ex.PW14/D.
16. PW15 Sh. Vikas Lohiya, is the owner of hotel "The Class" at Mahipalpur.
17. PW16 SI Pramod is the 2nd IO of the case. His testimony would be discussed at later stage of the judgment.
18. PW17 SI Shivraj Rawat, joined the investigation of case with PW16 SI Pramod.
19. PW18 Dr. Kanak Lata Verma, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Chanakya Puri, examined the samples and has proved the chemical analysis report prepared by her in this regard as Ex.PW18/A.
20. PW19 Dr. Virender Singh Assistant Director (Documents) FSL, Rohini examined the questioned documents with sample handwriting of accused Gagan Preet Singh and proved his report in this regard as Ex.PW19/A.
21. The entire aforementioned evidence was put to both State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 11/45 accused persons at the time of recording of their statement u/s 313 Cr.PC which was denied by them.
22. Accused Ranjit Singh Kandola stated that while he was being brought to Delhi through Jammu mail after his production before the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, police officials became drunk. The train stopped at Jalandhar railway station for about 03 hours where some bogies were attached to the main train. There his escort police staffs left him in his boggy. Thereafter he got down from the train but could not find escort police officials. Then he called his father to inform him about the same. Lateron, his father informed the office of special cell and he was brought to Delhi by special cell and was illegally kept in the office of special cell till the time his arrest was shown in the present case. No contraband was recovered from him and no proceeding of the case was conducted in his presence.
23. Accused Gagan Preet Singh stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the present case and that on 28.09.2012 he was called in the special cell office in relation to some inquiry in respect of vehicle no.
State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 12/45 PB 10 BQ 1701 and that he was kept in the office of special cell and was forced to sign on various blank papers, written papers and semiwritten papers and that he never stayed in hotel The Class and that the record of hotel The Class is fabricated and manipulated and his laptop and other documents were taken into possession by special cell official(s) and thereafter he was implicated in this case.
24. Accused Ranjit Singh Kandola, chose to lead evidence in defence.
25. DW1 Sh. Ankur Dheer, testified that he was doing business of ready made ladies garments. On 24.09.2012 he was travelling to Delhi along with his servant Sh. Rakesh Sharma, through Jammu Mail. He boarded Jammu Mail from Jalandhar at about 10.10 pm on 24.09.2012 and deboarded the same at ODRS. He and his servant were in coach S1. In the morning at about 5.00 am they came to know that some person from the train had run away from police custody.
26. Since there are two accused persons and accused Gagan Preet Singh, has been charged for intentionally State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 13/45 concealing and harbouring accused Ranjit Singh in Hotel The Class and thereby committing offence u/s 216 IPC. Court considers it appropriate to deal with accused Gagan Preet Singh first.
CASE AGAINST ACCUSED GAGAN PREET SINGH:
27. Evidence surfaced against accused Gagan Preet Singh and one Pradeep (discharged vide order dated 05.08.2013) is mentioned at page no. 8 of chargesheet. The same is reproduced herein below: Following evidence against the accused persons namely Gaganpreet Singh and Pradeep have come on file to prosecute them for the offences punishable u/s 216 IPC :
1. Statement of PW Nishan Dillon proves that accused Gaganpreet Singh provide shelter to accused Ranjit Singh Kandola.
2. Recovery of laptop and data card provided by State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.FIR no. 129/2012
PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 14/45 accused Gaganpreet Singh.
3. Documents of Hotel Class proves that accused Gaganpreet Singh provided shelter to accused Ranjit Singh Kandola.
4. Email contacts of email id and contacts of Skype id of accused Ranjit Singh proves that accused Pradeep is in touch with accused Ranjit Singh and came to India to provide a safe escape route from India to abroad.
5. Statement of Hotel Class Manager proves that accused Pradeep and gaganpreet Singh providing shelter and support for escaping from India.
6. Application submitted by accused Gaganpreet Singh before court for release of two laptop recovered proves that he is the owner of both laptops and he provides one laptop to accused Ranjit Singh.
28. The relevant witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove charge u/s 216 IPC against accused Gagan Preet Singh are PW8, PW15, PW16, PW17 and PW19.
29. Sh. Nishant Dillon whose statement was relied in the chargesheet, to prove that accused Gagan Preet Singh provided shelter to accused Ranjit Singh was State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 15/45 examined in the court as PW8. He categorically denied that accused Gagan Preet Singh had come on 25.09.2012 to his house along with accused Ranjit Singh and both of them spent the night in his house. He stated that he knew accused Gagan Preet Singh but accused Gagan Preet Singh had always stayed at his house alone and never stayed with any other man and accused Gagan Preet Singh used to stay in his house whenever he came to offer his prayers at the Darbar. Hence, there is nothing in the testimony of PW8 Nishant Dillon to suggest that accused Gagan Preet Singh had provided any shelter to accused Ranjit Singh from 25.09.2012 to 30.09.2012.
30. Second incriminating evidence against accused Gagan Preet Singh, referred in the chargesheet is laptop and data card provided by accused Gagan Preet Singh to accused Ranjit Singh Kandola. It is rightly submitted by learned defence counsel that nothing incriminating has been brought on record of the court from the said laptop or data card. There is nothing to suggest that accused Ranjit Singh Kandola operated any such laptop or data card.
State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 16/45
31. The third incriminating evidence as referred in the chargesheet are documents of Hotel The Class sought to be brought on record to prove that accused Gagan Preet Singh, provided shelter to accused Ranjit Singh.
32. PW15 Sh. Vikas Lohia, is the owner of hotel 'The Class' at Mahipalpur. He was examined by prosecution in order to prove the guest entry of accused Gagan Preet Singh, in his hotel. This witness stated that as per the hotel register on 29.09.2012 at about 2.00 am, one Gagan Preet Singh, had checkedin his hotel and two rooms were given to him by his Manager. He further stated that his Manager had told him that said Gagan Preet Singh came along with two more associates and all those persons were apprehended from his hotel two hours after their checkingin.
33. It is rightly submitted by learned defence counsel that this part of testimony of this witness is not admissible in evidence as the same is merely hearsay. He did not make any entry in the concerned register. He did not meet the person who checkedin. He did not do any formality of the checkingin of Gagan Preet Singh or of State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 17/45 any guest accompanying him. The court is not even willing to trust the entry made in the register which is produced by him as no signature of the customer is taken at the time of checkingin. The entries made in the register appear to be fabricated. Court finds substance in the submissions of learned defence counsel that the entry in the register is fabricated at the instance of police officials because as per the admission of PW15 proof of identity of customer is taken at the time of checkingin. In the present case a copy of PAN card is shown as the proof of identity of accused Gagan Preet Singh, which was allegedly submitted by him at the time of his checkingin the hotel. The said document however do not bear any address of accused Gagan Preet Singh. Though it is mentioned by PW15 that signature of customer are taken only at the time of checkout but copy of one Guest Register Card is filed along with the chargesheet which was allegedly seized from Hotel Class. The said document purportedly bears the address and signature of Gagan Preet Singh which was even sent for handwriting examination after taking sample handwriting/signature State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 18/45 of accused. However, the report of examination of handwriting does not conclude that signature or handwriting were of accused Gagan Preet Singh.
34. PW19 Dr. Virender Singh, in his report Ex.PW19/A had categorically mentioned that it was not possible to fix authorship on questioned signature on the Guest Registration Card with the sample handwriting/signature of accused Gagan Preet Singh. In addition to the Guest Registration Card, copy of guest/customer register was also sent for FSL examination along with sample handwriting of accused Gagan Preet Singh but there is no mention of examination or comparison of this questioned handwriting Ex.Q2, on the Guest Register or comparison of with the sample handwritings of accused.
35. There is another reason to suspect that the entries about accused Gagan Preet Singh in Hotel Class are fabricated because the address of accused Gagan Preet Singh was already written in the Guest Registration Register at the time of his checkin. In the copy of PAN card original of which was seized by IO, the address is found written by hand in a box just below the image of State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 19/45 PAN card. It is not clear as to who has written this address below the image of PAN Card. If the accused had already filled or got filled the Guest Registration Card and/or the relevant entry in the checkin register, court do not find any reason that accused would again right his address below the photocopy of his PAN card.
36. In the hospitality industry, where PW15 submits that signature of customer in the relevant column are not being taken at the time of his checkin though it is a requirement and there is a column in guest register for the same, it appears to be unreasonable that customer would be kept waiting for writing his same address in many documents. It is seen that PAN card of accused Gagan Preet Singh is shown to be recovered in his personal search memo. In the facts and circumstances, submission of learned defence counsel that the copy of PAN card after writing the address of accused Gagan Preet Singh was provided by police to Hotel Class and the entry about accused Gagan Preet Singh was fabricated, cannot be brushed aside easily. Apart from this there is no public witness who joined qua the arrest and other State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 20/45 proceedings of accused Gagan Preet Singh or of accused Ranjit Singh or discharged accused Pradeep. There are no CCTV footage of reception or lobby or inside/outside of Hotel Class or any other hotel in the locality in and around the area. It is matter of common knowledge for any resident of Delhi that area of Mahipalpur is surrounded with large number of hotels and is a very busy locality.
37. Apart from this PW15 stated that as per the information received from his Manager one Gagan Preet Singh, checkedin about at 2.00 am on 29.09.2012 and was apprehended after around two hours of his checkin. Hence, it can be concluded that the accused and his associates were apprehended on 29.09.2012 at about 45 am but according to PW16 accused persons were apprehended after 11.00 am on 30.09.2012.
38. Furthermore, investigation conducted in this FIR appears to be far from reality. As per testimony of IO PW10 SI Suresh Kumar and PW16 SI Parmod till 30.09.2012 investigation was being conducted by PW10 while he was posted in PSODRS. On 30.09.2012 itself State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 21/45 investigation was transferred to PSSpecial Cell and was conducted by PW16 SI Parmod Kumar. This witness categorically admitted in the beginning of his cross examination dated 14.11.2014 "Till 30.09.2012 when the investigation of the case was transferred to Special Cell, the case was under investigation of SI Suresh of ODRS PS. I received the entire file including the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC by SI Suresh".
39. Court fails to understand that if till 30.09.2012 PW 10 SI Suresh Kumar from PSODRS was carrying the investigation and file was with him, at what time order of transferring the investigation was passed and the same was handed over to PW16 or at what time the same was received by the concerned police stations and police officers i.e. PW10 and PW16 or at what time the file was handed over by PW10 to PW16 to enable PW16 to gather information about accused Ranjit Singh, to develop the same and to lay trap and to arrest accused in the morning hours of the same day.
40. In the facts and circumstances, arguments advanced by learned Sh. Saxena that accused Ranjit State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 22/45 Singh Kandola was already in custody of special cell becomes relevant. If the arrest of accused Ranjit Singh Kandola comes under doubt, the entire prosecution case against accused Gagan Preet Singh also falls flat.
41. Hence, this court is of the opinion that alleged documents of Hotel Class are of no use for the prosecution for bringing on record any incriminating documents and evidence against accused Gagan Preet Singh.
42. Next piece of evidence against accused Gagan Preet Singh as referred in the chargesheet is the email contacts of emailID and contacts of Skype ID of accused Ranjit Singh.
43. It is rightly submitted by learned defence counsel that there is no contact or email ID of accused Gagan Preet Singh in the document Ex.PW7/D (colly) to reflect that accused Ranjit Singh and accused Gagan Preet Singh were even known to each other. At this stage, court is not discussing that there is serious doubt about IO following any rules of law while taking the print outs from the alleged email ID of accused Ranjit Singh. Even State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 23/45 if these documents are taken on the face value, they do not connect accused Ranjit Singh with accused Gagan Preet Singh.
44. Next piece of evidence as referred by IO against accused Gagan Preet Singh is an application filed by Gagan Preet Singh for release of his laptops.
45. It is submitted by learned Sh. Kain that filing of said application reflects that accused Gagan Preet Singh was the owner of two laptops, one of which was recovered from the possession of accused Ranjit Singh and the other was recovered from his own possession.
46. The court is in agreement with the submissions of learned defence counsel that if accused Gagan Preet Singh and accused Ranjit Singh were both apprehended by police, it is not impossible for them to plant recovery of any laptop from either of accused. As already discussed above, there is no connection through email or through telephone between accused Gagan Preet Singh and Ranjit Singh, brought on record by the prosecution. Hence, mere application for release of laptop by accused Gagan Preet Singh does not prove that he was in any way linked with State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 24/45 accused Ranjit Singh or provided shelter to him during his alleged escape.
47. In view of aforesaid discussion this court is of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused Gagan Preet Singh and he is entitled for honorable acquittal.
CASE AGAINST ACCUSED RANJIT SINGH KANDOLA:
48. Points for determination raised by learned counsels for parties and the findings of court qua accused Ranjit Singh are as follows : Arrest and spot proceedings of police are doubtful:
49. As already discussed while discussing the case of accused Gagan Preet Singh that as per admitted case of prosecution till 30.09.2012 investigation of case was with PW10 SI Suresh Kumar, PSODRS. There is no order as to how and when the investigation was transferred to Special Cell. PW16 categorically stated that PW10 was conducting the investigation till 30.09.2012. Therefore, State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 25/45 the case file till 30.09.2012, must have been with PW10 of ODRS. Accused Ranjit Singh was apprehended in the morning hours on 30.09.2012. Court has already observed that it is unbelievable that the order for transfer of investigation was passed on 30.09.2012; same was received in the concerned police stations and thereafter by concerned police officials on 30.09.2012; file was also transferred in the morning hours on 30.09.2012; lead for stay of accused Ranjit Singh was also received by special cell in the morning hours of 30.09.2012 and accused was also arrested in the morning of 30.09.2012 itself. Court fails to understand, when after midnight of 2930.09.2012 the order of transfer of investigation was made and everything moved at missile speed to hit the target on 30.09.2012 morning.
50. While discussing the case of accused Gagan Preet Singh it has also come on record that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused Gagan Preet Singh stayed in the Hotel Class on 30.09.2012. In the facts and circumstances, it appears that entire case against accused Ranjit Singh Kandola has been fabricated. In the State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 26/45 facts and circumstance statement of accused Ranjit Singh recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC and the line of defence taken by him in the crossexamination of prosecution witnesses appears to be very relevant. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC accused Ranjit Singh stated that while he was being brought to Delhi through Jammu mail after his production before the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, police officials became drunk. The train stopped at Jalandhar railway station for about 03 hours where some bogies were attached to the main train, he remained in boggy but escort police officials were not there. Thereafter he got down from the train but could not find escort police officials. He called his father to inform about the same. Lateron, his father informed the office of special cell and he was brought to Delhi and was illegally kept in the office of special cell till the time his arrest was shown in the present case. Even if accused is unable to prove his defence, the conduct of police officials and the contradictions brought on record are sufficient to reflect that police has fabricated the facts and circumstances of the case.
State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 27/45
51. In addition thereto the first limb of charge against Ranjit Singh is u/s 224 IPC. Section 224 provides as under:
224. Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension - Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
52. As per prosecution story at about 5.30 am the train from which accused Ranjit Singh fled was between Sarai Rohilla and ODRS at Pull Mithai, Delhi. PW10 SI Suresh Kumar had recorded statement of two persons u/s 161 Cr.PC. They were passengers of some train through which accused was being brought to Delhi. Those persons were not examined by the prosecution nor were cited as witnesses in the present case. But PW16 in his cross examination dated 14.11.2014 admitted "I had gone State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 28/45 through the statement of Hari Dutt recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. In the said statement Hari Dutt has stated that at Jalandhar Police Station some police officials in police uniform bare foot going here and there in the train and looking the faces of the persons with the help of their mobile light. Vol. The statement was recorded by SI Suresh and as such only he can tell about the same. There was statement of one Ankur Dheer recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC in the file. In the said statement he disclosed that at 05.00 AM when he woke up in the train he came to know that some prisoner had escaped police custody. I did not call the aforesaid two persons to make any further enquiry". PW16 also admitted in his crossexamination "The investigation was correctly carried out by SI Suresh. I did make enquiry from SI Suresh. I did not conduct any enquiry from Sh. Satish Kumar of 3rd battalion. I do not know as to who made the call to PCR on 25.09.2012".
53. It is strange that PW16 did not consider it appropriate to verify the statements of Hari Dutt Malhotra and Ankur Dheer, recorded by previous IO PW 10, though he stated that investigation was correctly State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 29/45 carried out by PW10. It is further strange that without verifying the facts of escape of accused Ranjit Singh Kandola from PW1 HC Satish Kumar and from witnesses Hari Dutt Malhotra and Ankur Dheer, he filed the case u/s 224 IPC against accused Ranjit Singh.
54. In contrast to nonexamination of Hari Dutt and Ankur Dheer by prosecution, one of these persons was examined by accused Ranjit Singh Kandola in his defence. DW1 Ankur Dheer is the person whose statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded by PW10 during his investigation. In his testimony this witness stated that he was travelling by Jammu Mail on 24/25.09.2012. He boarded from Jalandhar in coach S1 and deboarded at ODRS. In the morning of 25.09.2012 at 5.00 am he came to know that some person had run away from police custody.
55. Hence, as per testimony of this witness at 5.30 am accused Ranjeet Singh Kandola was not in police custody. Therefore there is no question of his escape in Delhi at 5.30 am.
56. In addition thereto the testimonies of PW1, PW2 State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 30/45 and PW4 who were members of the escort team are highly suspicious. As per testimony of these witnesses accused Ranjit Singh at about 5.30 am at Pull Mithai, Delhi wanted to answer the call of nature and thereafter he was taken to toilet. There were many persons standing in front of toilet. Accused Ranjit Singh suddenly pushed PW4 constable Hari Narain and jumped from moving train and escort guard also jumped from train to catch hold of accused Ranjit Singh but they could not apprehend him.
57. Three of the escort guards i.e. complaint HC Satish Kumar, constable Subhash Chand and constable Hari Narain are examined as PW1, PW2 and PW4 respectively. Initial IO of the case SI Suresh Kumar has been examined as PW10. Constable Vijay Pal is examined as PW3, he assisted the first IO PW10 in initial investigation. PW10 has stated that on 25.09.2012 on receipt of DD no. 8A at about 8.30 am, he reached near Mithaipul, Sabzi Mandi where PW3 constable Vijaypal and complainant PW1 along with other constables met him. So according to PW10 he received first information State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 31/45 about the incident vide DD no.8A at about 8.35 am. Copy of said DD has been filed by prosecution on record in which it is recorded that at 8.35 am an information has been received from PCR that UTP Ranjit Singh had fled from custody. Hence, process of investigation must have been started after 8.35 am when intimation was given to PCR. However, PW3 stated "For the last five years, I have been posted at PS Old Delhi Railway Station and I state that on 25.09.2012, I was on patrolling duty when at about 06.00 AM SI Suresh Kumar instructed me to reach between Pulbangansh and Pul Mithai. On reaching the said spot, I found present on the spot, HC Satish Kumar from third battalion and his other team members alongwith SI Suresh Kumar. SI Suresh Kumar was investigating about escape of one Ranjit Singh Kandola from the custody of the third battalion". Hence, according to PW3 at 6.00 am PW10 SI Suresh Kumar was already present at the spot and was investigating about the escape of accused Ranjit Singh from the custody of 3 rd Battalion. Testimony of PW3 is logical because if accused escaped from the custody of police guards at 5.30 am, it is State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 32/45 natural course of conduct of police guards to inform their seniors as well as to local police in order to take help from them, but the document i.e. DD no. 8A as well as testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW4 reflect as if the first information about the escape of accused Ranjit Singh was given at 8.35 am. This is illogical that the police guards would keep waiting for three hours for giving first information of escape of any accused from their custody. Hence, it appears to be rightly submitted by Sh. Saxena that police appears to be concealing something.
58. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that accused did not escape or got out of their custody in the facts and circumstances as projected. Hence, the defence taken by accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC as well as in the crossexamination of witnesses that he was left by the police officials at Jalandhar, cannot be ruled out. Police officials might or might not have noticed the absence of accused at Punjab but they do not appear to be eye witness of the alleged escape of accused from custody. They might have searched the accused at their own end as suggested by the statements u/s 161 Cr.PC of Hari State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 33/45 Dutt Malhotra and Ankur Dheer recorded by PW10 as well as by examination of DW1. However, when accused was not found in their custody they must have been apprehensive. When the train reached in Delhi, they attempted to cover up their incapacity and for the same reason PCR call was made at 8.35 am, after due deliberation though the local police was already got informed much before, as suggested in the testimony of PW3 constable Vijay Pal.
59. Be that as it may, the story of prosecution qua the escape of accused Ranjit Singh appears to be full of doubts.
60. Moreover PW1 in his examination in chief stated that he went to PSODRS to lodge complaint with IO. PW2 stated that he called 100 number and thereafter he reached PSODRS. PW3 and PW10 stated that the statement of PW1 was recorded at the spot at Pull Mithaipur. Hence, there is material contradiction, how the complaint was lodged.
61. It is already observed that there is no order of transfer of investigation from PSODRS to PSSpecial State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 34/45 Cell. The manner in which accused has been shown as arrested by PSSpecial Cell in the morning hours of 30.09.2012 though till 30.09.2012 the file was pending with SI Suresh Kumar of PSODRS, makes the circumstances further highly doubtful. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that police escort had actually left accused Ranjit Singh somewhere. In the opinion of court, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused had intentionally escaped from the lawful custody of 3rd Battalion and thereby committed offence u/s 224 IPC.
CASE AGAINST ACCUSED RANJIT SINGH KANDOLA U/S 25A NDPS ACT:
62. As per first limb of charge on 30.09.2012, 3.80 kg of Pseudoephedrine and 10 gms of ephederine was recovered from accused Ranjit Singh, when he was apprehended outside Hotel Class, Mahipalpur.
63. From the submissions made, following points for determination arise : State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 35/45 Spot proceedings and presence of accused Ranjit Singh Kandola doubtful:
64. As already discussed, as per prosecution case, accused was staying in Hotel Class and the accommodation was booked by coaccused Gagan Preet Singh. In the earlier part of judgment, court has already held that record of hotel was fabricated and there is nothing to prove that accused Gagan Preet Singh had booked any room in the hotel and/or accused had stayed in the same. Hence, it is rightly submitted by defence counsel that presence of accused outside the Hotel Class and entire spot proceedings are under serious shadow of doubt. Apart from this the police officials have not filed any videograph or photograph of the spot proceedings. The police officials have even not filed the location chart of the mobile phones used by them or recovered from accused persons.
65. In the case of Tomaso Bruno and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178, Hon'ble Apex Court held that CCTV footage and call records are best electronic reliable evidence which could have State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 36/45 clinched the issue. It was further held "The High Court held that even though the appellants alleged that the footage of CCTV is being concealed by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the accused did not invoke Section 233 Cr.PC and they did not make any application for production of CCTV camera footage. The High Court further observed that the accused were not able to discredit the testimony of PW1, PW12 and PW13 qua there being no relevant material in the CCTV camera footage. Notwithstanding the fact that the burden lies upon the accused to establish the defence plea of alibi in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the prosecution in possession of the best evidence, CCTV footage ought to have produced the same. In our considered view, it is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act that the prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to them had it been produced."
66. Further no independent witness has been joined in the proceedings despite the fact that area of Mahipalpur State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 37/45 is busy locality and despite availability of hotel staff and guards etc. at the spot.
67. In the case of Mohd. Masoom Vs State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. A. 1404/2011, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi quoted the observations of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ram Prakash Vs State 2014 (146) DRJ 629, which is as follows : "... 16. Mr. Gaur pointed out that while the Appellant was apprehended around 3.30 pm, the formal arrest was recorded at 11 pm i.e. after eight hours. Throughout this period the police remained present at the spot and yet they could not get a single public witness to be associated.
17. This is perhaps the weakest line in the entire case of the prosecution. In his evidence PW9 stated that "he requested 5 6 public persons to join the proceedings but they did not join the investigation." It is not clear who those public persons were. Their names were not noted. In his cross examination PW9 stated "People who were managing the parking were present in the parking. I did not call any person from the parking, any employee of the Railway and the police officials deployed State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 38/45 there to join the proceedings."
18. It seems extraordinary that although PW9 and the entire raiding party remaining at the spot i.e. the parking lot of Old Delhi railway Station, well be beyond 11.15 pm, i.e. nearly eight hours (they ultimately left the spot at 11.45 pm to reach the Crime Branch at 12.30 am) they were unable to locate a single public witness including any railway official or any personnel of any other security force to be associated in the proceedings.
19. The trial Court has referred to the decision in Ajmer Singh Vs State of Haryana 2010 (2) RCR (Crl) 132 to hold that the failure to associate independent witness is not fatal to the prosecution case, as long as it is shown that efforts were made and none was willing. However, it is seen that in the said decision the Supreme Court emphasised that it had to be shown that after making efforts, which the Court considers in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer was not able to get public witnesses to associate with either the raid or the arrest of the culprit. In other words in every case it will have to be examined whether serious efforts made by the police to State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 39/45 associate public witnesses. In Ram Swaroop Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 14 SCC 235 the Supreme Court found the evidence of the police witnesses "absolutely unimpeachable" and therefore held that the failure to associate independent witnesses did not affect the prosecution case. However, as will be seen hereafter, that cannot be said of the prosecution witnesses in the present case.
20. In the present case as already noticed the entire raiding party remained at the Old Delhi Railway parking lot which is an extraordinarily busy area from around 3.30 pm till midnight. This is a place where apart from security personnel, there are bound to be parking attendants and railway employees as well. The IO in his crossexamination has admitted that he did not make any effort to associate any such member of the security forces (including the railway forces, parking attendants or railway employee). In other words no sincere effort was made.
21. It has almost become a routine practice for the police to state that passersby were asked to join and they declined and went away without disclosing their names. The Court should State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 40/45 be way of readily accepting such explanations. In a case where a raid takes place in broad daylight in a busy area, a more convincing explanation has to be offered why despite remaining at the spot for about eight hours the police did not find a single public witness to join the proceedings.
68. In the case in hand also despite ample opportunity and time for the investigating agency to associate any independent witnesses, no such witness was joined. This further makes the prosecution case doubtful and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
69. It is further rightly submitted by learned defence counsel that even as per the testimony of 2nd IO PW16 he had gone to the spot along with Narcotics Detection Kit. The court finds substance in his submissions that if he was not having information about the recovery of narcotics from accused, why IO would carry the Narcotics Detection Kit weighing machine etc. along with him.
State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 41/45 Concealment of material facts:
70. As already observed there is no record as to when and how the investigation was transferred from PW10 to PW16. There is further non production of material evidences. In his crossexamination PW10 stated "I might have visited Nawashahar on 29.09.2012. I had took permissions from my senior officers for out of station investigation. I do not recollect if I had handed over the said permission to SI Pramod when the further investigation was handed over to him. I did not record the statement of the father of accused Ranjit Singh about inquiries conducted by me in respect of Ranjit Singh Kandola.
71. It is important to mention here that Nawashehar Punjab is the residential address of accused. The above part of testimony of PW10 suggests the possibility that first IO PW10 had visited Nawashehar on 29.09.2012, had taken permission for out station investigation from his officers and had made inquiries from father of accused Ranjit Singh but this fact was concealed in the State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 42/45 chargesheet. Concealment of these facts and the transfer of investigation to Special Cell on the very next day of visit of PW10 to Nawashehar Punjab, makes the defence of accused probable that he was left by the escort team at Jalandhar. He thereafter called his father. His father in turn informed special cell. Special cell had taken accused Ranjit Singh in their custody without making any formal documents. When PW10 i.e. IO of PSODRS had visited Nawashehar on 29.09.2012, he got to know about these facts on inquiries from father of accused Ranjit Singh Kandola and thereafter in order to save police officials investigation was abruptly shown to be taken over by officials of special cell on 30.09.2012 and the accused was shown as arrested with narcotics drugs.
Noncompliance of section 52 (3) of NDPS Act:
72. As per section 52 (3) NDPS Act, after his arrest accused was required to be produced before SHO special cell. Neither the seizing officers nor PW11 SHO Inspector Rajender Singh Sehrawat, has stated that accused Ranjeet Singh Kandola was produced before him.
State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 43/45
73. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against either of the accused. Both accused persons are entitled for acquittal. Held accordingly.
74. Accused persons are thus acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Accused Ranjit Singh Kandola be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.
75. Both accused persons have already furnished their respective bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC which are accepted and shall remain effective for a period of 6 months.
76. Bail bonds of accused Gagan Preet Singh, furnished during trial stand cancelled and surety is discharged. Endorsement on the documents of surety, if any, be cancelled. Original documents of surety, if any, be returned against acknowledgment. The articles seized vide seizure memos and personal search memos of accused persons be released to them against acknowledgment.
77. Case property, if any, be confiscated to State and the same may be disposed off as per rules and procedures State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 44/45 after the lapse of period of filing of appeal.
78. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on the 22nd day of December, 2017 ( Ajay Pandey ) Addl. Sessions Judge 04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 45/45 State Vs. Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
SC No. 8800/16 FIR No. 129/12PS - Old Delhi Railway Station 22.12.2017 Present: Sh. S. K. Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Gagan Preet Singh on bail along with learned counsel Sh. Yogesh Saxena.
Accused Ranjit Singh Kandola not produced from Kapurthala jail despite issuance of production warrants.
Matter was fixed for order/judgment for today. Order/judgment is ready. Both accused persons have already filed their respective bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC. Judgment is ready for pronouncement.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, both accused persons are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Accused Ranjit Singh Kandola be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case. Both accused persons have already furnished their respective bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC which are accepted and shall State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 46/45 remain effective for a period of 6 months. Bail bonds of accused Gagan Preet Singh, furnished during trial stand cancelled and surety is discharged. Endorsement on the documents of surety, if any, be cancelled. Original documents of surety, if any, be returned against acknowledgment. Articles seized vide seizure memos and personal search memos of accused persons be released to them against acknowledgment.
Case property, if any, be confiscated to State and the same may be disposed off as per rules and procedures after the lapse of period of filing of appeal.
Copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Kapurthala Jail.
File be consigned to record room.
( Ajay Pandey )
Addl. Sessions Judge 04,
New Delhi District, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi/22.12.2017
State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr.
FIR no. 129/2012
PS - Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 47/45