Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit @ Babloo on 19 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02/WEST : DELHI
FIR No. 515/2014
STATE Vs. Amit @ Babloo
U/SEC : 186/353/332 IPC
PS Hari Nagar Delhi
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0341622014
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 2942/II/14 Date of commission of offence 19.05.2014 Date of institution of the case 21.07.2014 Name of the complainant SI Vijay Kumar Name of accused, parentage & Amit @ Babloo S/o Sh. Mahender address Offence complained Sections 186/353/332 IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Date of arguments 19.05.2015 Final order Acquitted Date of Judgment 19.05.2015
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by ASI Amar Singh (hereinafter referred as IO) on the complaint of SI Vijay Kumar (hereinafter referred as complainant) against accused Amit @ Babloo (hereinafter referred as accused) for committing offences under section 186/353/332 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter FIR No. 515/14 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1 of 7 referred as IPC).
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 19.05.2014 at about 08:35 AM, accused refused to sit in the kharja in jail van as he was to be produced before Sohana Court from Central Jail No. 8, Tihar Jail.
Despite several efforts accused did not sit in the jail van and started using abusive language. When the complainant tried to made him sit in jail van, accused pushed the complainant and slapped him due to which complainant fell down and sustained injuries on his right hand. Matter was reported to the police. Accused was formally arrested.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under sections 186/353/332 IPC against the accused on 21.07.2014. Charge for offences under section 186/353/332 IPC was framed against the accused on 25.08.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was put up for prosecution evidence. EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL:
4. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 SI Vijay Kumar is the complaint and he deposed on the lines of prosecution case. He exhibited his complaint as Ex. PW1/A and FIR No. 515/14 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2 of 7 seizure memo as Ex. PW1/B.
6. PW2 Dr. G. Adhikari exhibited the medical examination No. 6694 dated 19.05.2014 as Ex. PW2/A.
7. PW3 HC Dashrath being the duty officer exhibited FIR as Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B.
8. PW4 HC Brahmanand, PW5 Ct. Suraj Mal, PW6 Ct. Sanjay, PW7 Ct. Parveen and PW8 ASI Karam Vir Yadav deposed on the lines of prosecution case. They are alleged eye witnesses of the incident.
9. PW9 S. K. Tewari, DCP IIIrd Battalion DAP exhibited complaint under section 195 CrPC as Ex. PW9/A.
10.ASI Amar Singh is the IO of this case and he deposed about the investigation being carried out by him in this case.
11. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 24.04.2015. Statement of accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 02.05.2015 in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he denied in toto and stated that he is innocent. He stated that he is patient of seizure disorder. On the day of incident, he was not feeling well and he requested the police staff for a well ventilated place in the van. He was asked to sit quite. He was beaten by the police officials. He fell upon the ground and his hand crushed a glass and he suffered injuries on his right hand. The injury was FIR No. 515/14 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 3 of 7 accidental and was not inflicted on him by any of the police official. This false case has been planted upon him by the complainant to save the skin from legal consequences as they had beaten him in the jail. He opted not to lead defence evidence.
12.I have heard the final arguments put forth by ld. APP for the State and by Sh. Sanni Garg, Ld. LAC BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
13.It is alleged against the accused that on the date of incident he obstructed the complainant SI Vijay Kumar in performance of his duty in the capacity of a public servant. It is further alleged that he wrongfully restrained the complainant and also misbehaved with him during the incident. It is alleged that the whole incident occurred as complainant directed the accused to sit in kharja in jail van for production before Sohna Court, Haryana.
14. It is interesting to observe that the alleged eye witness are giving different versions of the alleged incident. PW1 has stated that accused had tried to injured himself with glass and table in the Command Room. PW4 HC Brahmanand has stated that accused picked up a glass and broke the same in his hand and threw the same. PW5 Ct. Suraj Mal, PW6 Ct. Sanjay and PW8 ASI Karam Vir Yadav stated that accused picked up a glass which was kept on the table and threw the same on SI Vijay after breaking the same whereas PW7 Ct. Praveen FIR No. 515/14 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 4 of 7 stated that accused had broken a glass by pressing the same in his palm and sustained injuries. PW4 HC Brahmanand, PW5 Ct. Suraj Mal, PW6 Ct. Sanjay, PW7 Ct. Praveen and PW8 ASI Karamvir stated that accused gave leg blows and fist blows to SI Vijay whereas PW1 SI Vijay has not stated the same, however, in his cross examination PW1 SI Vijay stated that he had sustained injuries on his finger as he fell down on the ground and his finger came under the shoes of guard. Who was that guard, has not been brought into the picture by the prosecution. Therefore, the so called alleged eye witnesses present with the complainant are giving different versions of the incident which makes the prosecution's case more dubious as these witnesses are not corroborating each other on material aspects and have created a doubt in the prosecution's story.
15.PW1 has stated that accused refused to sit in kharja and thereafter, he was brought to the command room and the whole incident occurred in the Command Room. Meaning thereby, PW1 was present when the accused refused to sit in kharja; whereas PW4 stated that PW1 was not present in the jail van when accused refused to sit in the same. Same is the version of other eye witnesses. All these eye witnesses have stated that PW1 complainant came subsequently in command room when the accused was taken by them to pacify him. Therefore, these are glaring contradictions between the statement of PW1 and FIR No. 515/14 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 5 of 7 other eye witnesses of the incident and they are not supporting each other on the bone of contention arose between the parties on that day.
16. It is also surprising to observe that the seized broken pieces of glass are not having any blood stains over them. It is quite unnatural that a person is breaking a glass by his hand and the glass will not have any blood stain over it after the occurrence of incident. If PW1 was caught hold by the accused after suffering the injuries then the uniform of PW1 should have blood stains over it which is absent in this case. It is quite unnatural that despite presence of other police officials, accused caught hold of the complainant and thrashed him with fist and leg blows.
17. IO has not given any specific reason as to why CCTV footage of deodhi or command room has not been taken by him. If accused was brought to jail van for production in Sohana Court then his movement of going outside from deodhi to jail van, altercation between the parties at the gate of jail van and the instance when accused was taken back to control room from the jail van, must have been recorded in the CCTV camera. It seems that police officials have more to hide then to reveal in this case.
18.From the comparative study of PWs and absence of CCTV footage, it is clear that an altercation took place between the parties but it is not clear till what extent the altercation had extended. The version of the FIR No. 515/14 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6 of 7 prosecution witnesses are under serious scanner as material contradictions have occurred in their deposition. Law is settled that if any doubt exists in a criminal trial, benefit must go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
19.Hence, keeping in view the above discussion and material available on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused Amit @ Babloo is hereby exonerated for committing offences under section 186/353/332 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DHIRENDRA RANA
ON 19th March, 2015 MM02/WEST DELHI
FIR No. 515/14 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 7 of 7