Delhi District Court
State vs ) Julmat on 31 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 15/01/10
Unique Identification No.02404R0191972011
State
Versus
1) Julmat
Son of Sh. Hareez
R/o H.No. B7/40, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
2) Shamsher Alam
Son of Atfar Rehman
R/o B7/294, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
3) Khalid
son of Sh. Mohsin Ali
R/o B7/340, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
FIR No. 146/2010
PS - Bhalswa Dairy
U/s. 186/353/323/427/34 of IPC
Date of decision: 26/07/2012
Date of Sentence: 31/07/2012
ORDER ON SENTENCE
31/07/2012
Present. Ld. APP for the State.
All the three convicts in person with counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Julmat is aged about
SC No. 15/1/10 1
39 years. He is a rag picker. He has five children to support, out of which, two
daughters have already been married. He is also supporting his parents.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that he is neither previous
convict nor habitual offender. No other criminal case is pending against him. It
is further contended that he remained in custody from 08/11/2010 to
16/11/2010. It is further contended that convict has faced trial of this case since
2010 and has appeared regularly.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Khalid is aged about
30 years. He is a rag picker. He has three children and all are school going. He
is also supporting his parents. Learned defence counsel has further contended
that he is neither previous convict nor habitual offender. No other criminal case
is pending against him. It is further contended that he remained in custody
from 04/04/2011 to 24/04/2011. It is further contended that convict has faced
trial of this case since 2010 and has appeared regularly.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Shamsher Alam is
aged about 22 years. He is rag picker. He has only one child to support,aged
about one year only. He is also supporting his parents. Learned defence counsel
has further contended that he is neither previous convict nor habitual offender.
No other criminal case is pending against him. It is further contended that he
remained in custody from 08/11/2010 to 16/11/2010. It is further contended
that convict has faced trial of this case since 2010 and has appeared regularly.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP for state has contended that all
the three convicts have been convicted for the offences U/s.
186/323/353/427/34 of IPC, hence, appropriate sentence be awarded.
I have considered the submissions of learned defence counsels and
ld. APP for State.
SC No. 15/1/10 2
Offence U/s. 186 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description, which may extend to three months or with fine, which may extend
to Rs. 500/ or with both.
Accordingly, sentence of already undergone imprisonment is
imposed upon each convict U/s. 186 read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of
Rs.500/. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Offence U/s. 323 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term, which may extend to one year or with fine, which may
extend to Rs. 1000/ or with both.
Accordingly, sentence of already undergone imprisonment is
imposed upon each convict U/s. 323 read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of
Rs.1000/. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Offence U/s. 353 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term, which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
Accordingly, sentence of already undergone imprisonment is
imposed upon each convict U/s. 353 read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of
Rs.3500/. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Offence U/s. 427 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
Accordingly, sentence of already undergone imprisonment is
imposed upon each convict U/s. 427 read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of
Rs.3500/. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
SC No. 15/1/10 3
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run
concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.PC be given to each convict according
to his custody period as mentioned above.
Fine deposited. Out of fine, Rs. 5,000/ each be given as
compensation to Constable Deepak and Constable Satish.
Announced in the open court
On 31st of July, 2012
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track court, Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 15/1/10 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 15/01/10
Unique Identification No.02404R0191972011
State
Versus
1) Julmat
Son of Sh. Hareez
R/o H.No. B7/40, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
2) Shamsher Alam
Son of Atfar Rehman
R/o B7/294, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
3) Khalid
son of Sh. Mohsin Ali
R/o B7/340, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
FIR No. 146/2010
PS - Bhalswa Dairy
U/s. 186/353/308/427/34 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 08/06/2011
Arguments heard on: 24/07/2012
Date of reservation of order: 24/07/2012
Date of Decision: 26/07/2012
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of Constable Satish dated 08/11/10 U/s. 186/353/308/427/34 of IPC.
During investigation, rough site plan was prepared. Copies of DD SC No. 15/1/10 5 entries were collected. From the place of occurrence, brick pieces were collected. MLCs of Constable Deepak and Constable Satish were also taken into possession. PCR form was collected.
Accused Shamsher Alam and Julmat were arrested. Their arrest memos and personal search memos were prepared. Both the accused made disclosure statements. Accused Khalid had surrendered before the Court and was remanded to JC.
Complaint U/s. 195 of Cr.P.C. was obtained and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s. 186/353/308/427/34 of IPC against all the three accused persons.
Case was committed to the Court of Session on 23/07/2011. It was received on 29/07/2011.
Charge U/s. 186/34 of IPC, U/s. 353/34 of IPC, U/s. 308/34 of IPC and U/s. 427/34 of IPC was framed against all the three accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW15 in all. On completion of evidence of prosecution, statements of all the accused persons were recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
I have heard learned Addl. PP for State, learned counsel for all the accused persons and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced.
According to DD No. 35B dated 08/11/2010, it was informed that one boy was apprehended near jhuggi, JJ Colony road, Shradhanand Colony, S.Nagar and 5060 persons were pelting stones. SI Rajender was informed on SC No. 15/1/10 6 telephone about the same.
PW15 SI Rajender Singh has stated that on 08/11/10, he was posted as SI at PS Bhalswa Dairy. On that day, on receipt of DD No.35, he alongwith PW8 Constable Satya Prakash reached at the spot i.e. C5, JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, near mother dairy, where PW4 Constable Satish and PW12 Constable Deepak met him in injured condition alongwith other police staff including the staff of PCR van. Driver side window glass of PCR van was found broken. Broken pieces of bricks were also found at the spot. Statement of PW4 Constable Satish was recorded Ex. PW4/A. Meanwhile, PW11 Constable Lokender also reached there. He sent PW4 Constable Satish and PW12 Constable Deepak to BJRM hospital for their medical examination through PW11 Constable Lokender and after their medical examination,PW11 Constable Lokender handed over to him their MLCs. Thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex. PW15/A on the statement of PW4 Constable Satish alongwith MLC of both the injured and got this case registered. The case was got registered by PW8 Constable Satya Prakash, who came back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him.
PW15 SI Rajender Singh has further deposed that he prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of PW4 Constable Satish, which is Ex. PW15/B. Broken pieces of bricks were collected. These were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "RS" and were seized vide memo Ex. PW4/F. He recorded the statements of police officials and thereafter tried to find out accused persons.
PW1 Satish is a public witness. He has stated that on 08/11/2010, at about 3.30/4.00 p.m., he was passing through JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy near Mother Dairy. At that time, he saw a gathering of public persons, who were SC No. 15/1/10 7 quarreling with police officials and were throwing pieces of bricks on those police officials. He immediately informed the police at 100 number and went away from there. On 18/02/2011, local police met him and recorded his statement to this effect. PW1 Satish has not been cross examined in any manner, hence, he has corroborated with the evidence of the witnesses to the extent that a quarrel had taken place and public persons had thrown pieces of bricks on the police officials and further he informed the police on 100 number.
PW2 HC Naresh Pal has deposed that on 18/11/2010, he was working as duty officer at PS Bhalswa Dairy from 8.00 am to 8 p.m. On that day, at about 6.50 p.m., PW8 Constable Satya Ptrakash handed over to him rukka sent by PW15 SI Rajender Singh, on the basis of which, he got registered the case on computer. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW2/A. After recording FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to PW8 Constable Satya Prakash to further handover the same to PW15 SI Rajender Singh. He also made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW2/B. PW2 HC Naresh Pal has not been cross examined in any manner, hence, he has also corroborated with the depositions of PW15 SI Rajender Singh and PW8 Constable Satya Prakash, who got registered the case from him.
According to PW13 ASI Charan Singh, on 08/11/2010, he was posted at PS Bhalswa Dairy. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. and on receipt of copy of DD No. 34B, he reached at the spot i.e. C5, JJ Colony, near Mother Dairy, where one complainant Lalu, son of Parmeshwar met him, who had caught hold one Noor Alam and produced him before PW13 ASI Charan Singh. Complainant Lalu told him that said Noor Alam had robbed mobile phone and Rs. 600/ from him. He interrogated said Noor Alam.
SC No. 15/1/10 8
PW13 ASI Charan Singh has further deposed that in the meantime, PW10 Constable Manjeet, PW12 Constable Deepak and PW4 Constable Satish, who were beat constables, came to him, while patrolling, at about 3.10 p.m. At that time, four persons, who were familiar to Noor Alam, came to him and asked him to release Noor Alam, on which, he told those persons that Noor Alam had robbed Rs. 600/ and mobile phone from PW6 Lalu, which were recovered from him, so, they should not intervene in his duties. Beat Constables were knowing those four persons earlier and told the names of those persons as Julmat, Shamsher and Khalid and the name of fourth person was not known to them, who all were resident of the area of their beat.
PW13ASI Charan Singh has further deposed that in the meanwhile, those four persons attacked on them by throwing pieces of stones and bricks, due to which, PW12 Constable Deepak sustained injuries on the back side portion of his left ear. In the meanwhile, Noor Alam managed to run away and climbed up the roof of a room of a nearby house and jumped down towards the backside of the room, but he was chased and was apprehended by them.
PW13 ASI Charan Singh has further deposed that PCR van also came there and other persons from the area gathered there. Due to pelting of stones, window of driver side seat got damaged. PW4 Constable Satish and PW12 Constable Deepak were sent to BJRM hospital through PW10 Constable Manjeet and PW11 Constable Lokender. Prior to the departure of PW10 Constable Deepak and PW4 Constable Satish to hospital, PW15 SI Rajender had also come there, who had recorded statement of PW4 Constable Satish, on which, he made endorsement for registration of the case and got the case registered through PW8 Constable Satya Prakash.
PW13 ASI Charan Singh has also identified accused Julmat, SC No. 15/1/10 9 Shamsher and Khalid before the Court as the same boys, who were amongst those four boys, who had come to him to get release Noor Alam and has further identified pieces of bricks pelted by the accused persons on the police party collectively as Ex. P1.
Learned defence counsel has contended that all the three accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case as they were known to the beat Constables and in fact, they were not present at the spot nor had pelted stones on the police party. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in the cross examination, PW13 ASI Charan Singh has stated that he can tell the names of accused persons only, but cannot pointed out, who is Julmat, who is Shamsher and who is Khalid. So, identity of the accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubts.
Lalu has been examined as PW6. He has stated that on 08/11/2010, he had gone to sell Lassi in the area of C5 block, JJ colony, Bhalswa Dairy. At about 2/2.30 p.m., after selling Lassi, while he was returning from there and was present near C5, JJ Colony, three boys came to him and asked him to provide Lassi, which he provided to them. Meanwhile, his mobile phone rang and on hearing the ring of the mobile phone, those boys tried to snatch his mobile phone. When he opposed the same, they started beating him with legs and fist blows. One of those boys snatched his mobile phone and the other boy took out Rs. 600/ from his pocket. When he raised alarm, one of the boy was caught hold with the help of public persons. Police also came there and said boy was handed over to them. He came to know the name of said boy as Noor Alam.
PW6 Lalu has further deposed that in the meanwhile, some other police officials also came there. Four other boys also came there and they tried SC No. 15/1/10 10 to get release Noor Alam from the custody of the police and due to intervention of those boys, Noor Alam ran away from there. The four boys started pelting bricks on the police party. The police officials again apprehended said Noor Alam, who had snatched his mobile phone. Two police officials had sustained injuries. Later on, other police officials also came at the spot. His statement was recorded. PW6 Lalu has identified one of the accused Shamsher Alam before the Court as the same, who was amongst those four boys and had pelted bricks on the police party, but failed to identify remaining two accused persons as he ran away from there to save himself.
Learned defence counsel has contended that identity of the accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubts because PW6 Lalu has admitted in the cross examination that several persons had gathered there, who were pelting stones and he had run away from there to save himself.
In my view, the contention of learned defence counsel is not forceful in any manner. If several persons had gathered there and were pelting stones, then it does not mean that accused persons were also not present there and had not pelted brick pieces on the police party. PW6 Lalu is an independent witness. He was not having any reason to falsely implicate the accused persons in this case nor was having any enmity with the accused persons. At the most, he was having complaint against Noor Alam only, for which, a separate case was got registered by PW13 ASI Charan Singh from PW2 HC Naresh Pal i.e. FIR No. 145/10, U/s. 392/411/34 of IPC, copy of which is Ex. PW2/C. So, these facts itself prove the case of the prosecution that Rs. 600/ and mobile phone were robbed from PW6 Lalu and one Noor Alam was apprehended.
It is also proved that accused persons tried to get release Noor Alam from the police party and on the same issue, started pelting stones/bricks on the SC No. 15/1/10 11 police party. PW6 Lalu has identified one of the accused Shamsher Alam, who was present amongst the said boys, who had started pelting bricks on the police party. So, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW6 Lalu, which is further corroborated by PW13 ASI Charan Singh, hence, in my view, from the depositions of witnesses, identity of the accused persons is proved beyond reasonable doubts and merely that they have been identified by the witnesses being the resident of the area and were known to beat constables does not mean that they were not present at the spot and had not pelted pieces of bricks on the police party.
Constable Satish has been examined as PW4. He has stated that on 08/11/2010, he was posted as Constable at PS Bhalswa Dairy and was working as beat constable. On that day, he alongwith PW12 Constable Deepak and PW10 Constable Manjeet was on patrolling duty in the area of Beat No.3 and while patrolling at about 3.00 p.m., they reached near Mother Dairy Booth of C5, JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, where PW13 ASI Charan Singh had caught hold one person, whose name they came to know as Noor Alam. One more boy,namely, Lalu i.e. PW6 was also present there. At that time, PW13 ASI Charan Singh was making inquiries from Noor Alam. In the meanwhile, four more boys, who were acquainted with Noor Alam, also came there. Out of those four boys, he was knowing three boys, who were Julmat @ Julne, Shamsher Alam and Khalid and the fourth person was not known to him. All those four persons asked PW13 ASI Charan Singh to leave Noor Alam, but PW13 ASI Charan Singh told them not to disturb in discharging his duties as Noor Alam was caught hold because he had snatched a mobile phone.
PW4 Constable Satish has further deposed that thereafter, those boys became aggressive and attacked the police party. Meanwhile, Noor Alam SC No. 15/1/10 12 managed to run away and climbed the roof of a house and jumped down from there, but he was again apprehended by the police party. On seeing this, the above said accused persons alongwith their 4th person started pelting bricks on them, due to which, he sustained injuries on the back portion of his left ear. PW12 Constable Deepak sustained injuries on his head. Somebody had informed the police. PCR also came there. Due to pelting of bricks, the driver side mirror of the PCR van got broken.
PW4 Constable Satish has further deposed that after sometime, PW15 SI Rajender Singh came there. He recorded his statement and sent him alongwith PW12 Constable Deepak to BJRM hospital for their medical examination through PW11 Constable Lokender.
PW4 Constable Satish has further deposed that after medical examination, they again came back to the spot, where PW15 SI Rajender Singh had prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence at his pointing out. PW4 Constable Satish has also identified three of the accused persons before the Court as the same persons, who had obstructed PW13 ASI Charan Singh, while he was discharging his duties as public servant and had also pelted bricks on the police party, due to which, they sustained injuries.
PW4 Constable Satish has also deposed that PW15 SI Rajender Singh had collected pieces of bricks from the spot. These were sealed with the seal of "RS" and were seized vide memo Ex. PW4/F. He has identified these pieces of bricks before the Court as Ex. P1 collectively.
Learned defence counsel has contended that it has not come in the evidence as to whether any blood was found at the spot or not on the brick pieces. Learned defence counsel has further contended that neither blood stained clothes of PW4 Constable Satish nor of PW12 Constable Deepak were SC No. 15/1/10 13 seized in this case, hence, it is not proved that both these Constable had sustained injuries in the pelting of bricks. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 Constable Deepak had sustained simple injuries. He sustained only one lacerated wound on occipital region measuring about 2 to 3 c.m. in length and PW4 Constable Satish had sustained abrasion on the para auricle region. He had also sustained simple injuries. Hence, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that accused persons were having any intention or knowledge, while causing injury to both the Constables in pelting bricks, that their such act could have caused death of both the Constables, hence, prosecution has not been able prove offence U/s. 308/34 of IPC.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP for State has contended that from the cross examination of PW4 Constable Satish, it is clear that Noor Alam ran away from the spot after intervention of the accused persons, which proves that accused persons had obstructed public servant PW13 ASI Charan Singh, while he was discharging his duties as such, so, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 186/34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts.
The contradiction as to whether public persons had pelted stones on the police party or not is minor in nature because identity and presence of the accused persons has been proved as the same, who had pelted brick pieces on the police party at that time because they became aggressive, when Noor Alam was apprehended by the police and was not released on their asking.
PW10 Constable Manjeet has also deposed the same facts as of PW4 Constable Satish as he was also with him during patrolling duty. PW10 Constable Manjeet has also stated that accused persons,namely, Shamsher, Khalid and Julmat, who were known to him previously being beat constable of the area, came there alongwith one more person and started asking for the SC No. 15/1/10 14 release of Noor Alam, on which, PW13 ASI Charan Singh told that accused Noor Alam had robbed money, which was recovered from him and further asked not to intervene in the matter. On this, all the accused persons became aggressive and started attacking the police party by pelting stones. PW12 Constable Deepak sustained injuries on his head and started bleeding. PW4 Constable Satish also sustained injuries on the backside portion of his left ear.
PW10 Constable Manjeet has also explained in the cross examination that there was one wooden ladder to climb the roof of the said house, which was climbed by accused Noor Alam, and had jumped on the other side of the house. PW10 Constable Manjeet has further stated that PW12 Constable Deepak was in uniform, when he had sustained injury with a brick piece, which proves that PW10 Constable Deepak was on duty at the time of incident, so, the testimony of PW10 Constable Manjeet is inspiring confidence and nothing has come in his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony in any manner.
PW12 Constable Deepak has also deposed the same facts as of PW4 Constable Satish and PW10 Constable Manjeet as he was also on patrolling duty with both these witnesses. PW12 Constable Deepak has identified all these accused persons before the Court as the same persons, who had pelted brick pieces on the police party and in the cross examination conducted by learned Addl. PP, he has admitted that he was taken to BJRM hospital by PW11 Constable Lokender and after medical examination, he came back to the spot and thereafter, he also accompanied the police party to B7/40, JJ Colony, in search of accused persons, where PW4 Constable Satish identified accused Julmat as one of the boy, who had thrown brick pieces on the police party. So, he was arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/B. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/D. SC No. 15/1/10 15 Nothing came out in the cross examination of PW12 Constable Deepak to disbelieve his testimony.
PW11 Constable Lokender was also on patrolling duty in the area and reached at C5, JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, where PW12 Constable Deepak and PW4 Constable Satish were found in injured condition. As per directions of PW15 SI Rajender Singh, he took removed them to BJRM hospital and after collecting their MLCs, they came back to the spot and he handed over their MLCs to PW15 SI Rajender Singh.
In the cross examination, PW11 Constable Lokender has stated that they reached in the hospital at about 4.45 or 5.00 p.m. and he might remained there for about 20 to 25 minutes. According to MLC of Constable Deepak Ex. PW3/A, he was got admitted in the hospital at about 5.00 p.m. on 08/11/2010 and according to the MLC of PW4 Constable Satish, he was got admitted in the hospital at about 5.30 p.m. on 08/11/2010, which is corroborating with the cross examination of PW11 Constable Lokender, who has stated that he took PW12 Constable Deepak on motorcycle to the hospital and thereafter, he took PW4 constable Satish to the hospital. So, PW11 Constable Lokender cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
According to PW14 HC Brijpal Singh, on 08/11/2010, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Bhalswa Dairy. On that day, PW15 SI Rajender Singh got deposited with him one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of "RS". He made entry at serial No. 223 dated 08/11/2010. He has produced register No.19 in proof of entry, copy of which is Ex. PW14/A. PW14 has not been cross examined in any manner on behalf of the accused persons. So, he has corroborated with PW15 SI Rajender Singh to the extent that these brick pieces in a sealed condition were deposited with him on the same day, of which, he SC No. 15/1/10 16 made entry in register No.19, copy of which is Ex. PW14/A. According to PW4 Constable Satish, accused Julmat and Shamsher were arrested by the IO at his instance vide memos Ex. PW4/B and Ex. PW4/C and their personal searches were conducted vide memos Ex. PW4/D and Ex. PW4/E. In the cross examination, PW4 Constable Satish has stated that they might have reached at the hospital at about 5/5.15 p.m. and came back to the spot at about 6/6.15 p.m., which is corroborating with the MLC about their reaching time at the hospital. PW4 Constable Satish has further deposed that accused Julmat was arrested at about 9.00 p.m. and intimation was given to the family members of accused Julmat. According to the arrest memo of accused Julmat Ex. PW4/B, he was arrested at 8.00 p.m. and his wife Anju was informed about his arrest. So, the contradiction about the arrest of accused Julmat is minor and is not affecting the depositions of the witnesses to the extent that accused Julmat was arrested in presence of PW4 Constable Satish on his pointing. Arrest memo of accused Julmat Ex. PW4/B has been signed by PW4 Constable Satish as a witness and it is not suggested to PW4 Constable Satish in the cross examination that he had signed the arrest memo of accused Julmat in the PS. So, there is nothing in his testimony to disbelieve him about the arrest of accused Julmat.
PW10 Constable Manjeet has also deposed about the arrest of accused Shamsher Alam on his pointing and on the pointing of PW4 Constable Satish, who was arrested in this case vide memo Ex. PW4/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/E. In the cross examination, PW10 Constable Manjeet has also corroborated with other witnesses about the time, when PW12 Constable SC No. 15/1/10 17 Deepak and PW4 Constable Satish were taken to hospital i.e. at about 4.00 or 5.00 p.m. and has further admitted that he took PW4 Constable Satish to BJRM hospital. PW10 constable Manjeet has also deposed in the cross examination that firstly, accused Julmat was apprehended, which is corroborating with the deposition of PW4 Constable Satish, who has stated that firstly, accused Julmat was apprehended. According to arrest memo Ex. PW4/C, accused Shamsher Alam was arrested at about 9.00 p.m. and his mother was informed about his arrest. This memo is witnessed by PW10 Constable Manjeet and merely in the cross examination he has stated that accused Shamsher Alam was arrested at about 6.00 or 7.00 p.m. is not affecting his testimony in this respect being a minor contradiction.
According to PW12 Constable Deepak, accused Julmat was apprehended on the pointing of PW4 constable Deepak from his house No. B7/40, JJ Colony and PW12 Constable Deepak has again affirmed in the cross examination that accused Julmat was arrested at about 8.00 p.m., which is corroborating with the arrest memo of accused Julmat Ex. PW4/B. According to PW15 SI Rajender Singh, he alongwith the police party tried to find out the accused persons and accused Julmat was found present at his house No. B7/40, JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, who was apprehended at the instance of PW4 Constable Satish and was arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/D. PW15 has further deposed that thereafter, they reached at the house of accused Shamsher Alam, who was found present at his house No. B7/294, JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy. He was also apprehended at the instance of PW4 Constable Satish and was arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/C. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/E. Thereafter, both the accused were brought to PS and case property SC No. 15/1/10 18 was deposited in the malkhana. Accused persons were also sent for their medical examination.
According to cross examination of PW15 SI Rajender Singh, they reached at the house of accused Julmat at about 7.30 p.m. and at the house of accused Shamsher Alam at about 8.30 p.m. He has further deposed that accused Shamsher Alam was arrested at about 9.00 p.m., which is corroborating with the arrest memo of accused Shamsher Alam Ex. PW4/C. So, except certain minor contradictions about the time of arrest, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Julmat and Shamsher Alam were arrested in this case as the same persons, who had obstructed PW13 ASI Charan Singh for the release of Noor Alam and further pelted brick pieces on the police party and caused injuries to PW12 Constable Deepak and PW4 Constable Satish.
PW5 HC Jagdish Singh has stated that on 08/11/20010, he was posted at PCR from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. At about 3.45 p.m., a call was received about pelting of stones by some persons on police. So, he reached at C5, near mother dairy, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi and saw that four boys were pelting stones on 23 police officials. Crowd had gathered there. In the pelting of stones, one side glass of the gypsy was also broken. Two police officials had sustained injuries. PW15 SI Rajender Singh reached there and both the injured were removed to BJRM hospital. They were relieved from the spot.
PW5 HC Jagdish Singh has identified all the three accused persons present in the court as the same persons, who were present at the spot with 4th boy and had pelted stones on the police party. PW5 HC Jagdish Singh has not been cross examined in any manner by learned defence counsel for the accused persons, so, from the testimony of PW5 HC Jagdish Singh, prosecution has SC No. 15/1/10 19 been able to prove the identity of all the three accused persons beyond reasonable doubts as the same persons, who had pelted stones on the police party and further that at the time of pelting of stones by the accused persons, one side glass of the gypsy was broken.
To prove complaint U/s. 195 of Cr.P.C., PW7 ACP Sh. Jai Bhagwan has been examined. He has stated that on 02/06/2011, he was posted as ACP, Jahangir Puri. On that day, IO SI Rajender Singh produced before him case file and after perusal of the same, he was satisfied that accused persons had obstructed police officials PW4 Constable Satish, PW10 Constable Manjeet and PW12 Constable Deepak Kumar at PS Bhalswa Dairy, while they were performing their official duties at about 3.30 p.m. The accused persons also damaged PCR Commander 39 van No. DLCJ1007. Hence, he gave complaint U/s. 195 of Cr.P.C, which is Ex. PW7/A and list of witnesses is Ex. PW7/B. PW7 ACP Sh. Jai Bhagwan has not been cross examined in any manner on behalf of the accused persons, hence, his testimony is unrebutted.
To prove the MLCs of injured Constables, PW3 Dr. Vinod Kumar has been examined. He has stated that on 18/11/10, he examined patient PW12 Deepak Kumar, who was brought by PW11 Constable Lokender with alleged history of physical assault and beatings by public. On examination, he found lacerated wound on occipital region measuring about 2 to 3 c.m. in length. He also prepared MLC Ex. PW3/A in this respect.
PW3 Dr. Vinod Kumar has further deposed that on the same day, he also examined PW4 Satish, who was brought by PW10 Constable Manjeet with alleged history of physical assault/beating by public. On examination, he found abrasion on the para auricle region. He prepared MLC Ex. PW3/B in th is respect.
SC No. 15/1/10 20
PW3 Dr. Vinod Kumar has further deposed that on 25/11/2010, on the request of police, he opined the nature of injuries as simple on MLCs Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. PW3 Dr. Vinod Kumar has not been cross examined in any manner on behalf of the accused persons, hence, he has proved the MLCs of both the injured and also nature of injuries sustained by them as simple.
PW9 Dr. Sanjay Kumar has deposed in place of Dr. Ritu in respect of both the MLCs Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B of PW10 Constable Deepak and PW4 constable Satish. According to him, their MLC were prepared under the supervision of Dr. Ritu being CMO. Dr. Ritu has left the hospital and her present whereabouts are not known. He has seen her writing and signing during the course of duty and has identified writing and signatures of Dr. Ritu at point C on MLCs Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. In view of above discussion, all the witnesses have corroborated each other and they are inspiring confidence. There is nothing on record to disbelieve their testimonies. PW13 ASI Charan Singh, who had caught hold accused Noor Alam on the complaint of PW6 Lalu, was obstructed by the accused persons for release of Noor Alam and on refusal, the accused persons became aggressive and started pelting bricks/stones on the police party. PW4 Constable Satish, PW10 Constable Manjeet and PW12 Constable Deepak Kumar were on patrolling duty and had reached there and they were present there with PW13 ASI Charan Singh at the spot. Complaint U/s. 195 of Cr.P.C. has been proved by PW7 ACP Sh. Jai Bhagwan, so, in furtherance of their common intention, all the accused persons voluntarily obstructed public servants i.e. said police officials, while they were discharging their public functions. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. SC No. 15/1/10 21 186/34 of IPC against all the three accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
From the deposition of witnesses, particularly of PW4 Constable Satish, PW10 Constable Manjeet and PW12 Constable Deepak Kumar alongwith PW13 ASI Charan Singh, it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention with their fourth associate used criminal force against these police officials, while they were discharging their duties as such public servants with intent to deter them from discharging their public duties as such by getting released accused Noor Alam from their custody, who was apprehended on the complaint of PW6 Lalu in a case of robbery. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 353/34 of IPC against all the three accused persons, for which, they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
In this incident, PW12 Constable Deepak and PW4 Constable Satish sustained injuries in the pelting of stones/bricks by accused persons alongwith their fourth associate, of simple nature. Although according to MLC of PW12 Constable Deepak Ex. PW3/A, he sustained injury on occipital region and similarly, PW4 Constable Satish vide MLC Ex. PW3/B sustained abrasion on para auricle region, which are vital part of the body but pelting of stones was indiscriminatory, hence, it cannot be said that accused persons were having any intention or knowledge that such pelting could have caused death of police officials and for which, they could have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. So, Offence U/s. 308/34 of IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubts, hence, all the three accused persons are acquitted for the offence U/s. 308/34 of IPC, instead offence U/s 323/34 of IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubts as both PW4 constable Satish and PW12 constable Deepak SC No. 15/1/10 22 Kumar had sustained simple injuries and that too one single injury each during the pelting of stones at the hands of accused persons. Hence, all the three accused persons are held guilty for offence U/s. 323/34 of IPC and are convicted for the same.
According to PW5 HC Jagdish Singh, who was posted in PCR and had also reached at the spot, in the pelting of stones by accused persons and their fourth associate, one side glass of gypsy was broken and certainly, it was within the knowledge of all the accused persons that such pelting of stones could have caused damage to the government vehicle i.e. PCR Van No. DL CJ1007 and the value of the damage could be more than Rs. 50/ and in the circumstances, as deposed by the witnesses, which are unrebutted and unshaken, all the three accused persons with their fourth associate caused damage to PCR van in pelting of stones of more than RS. 50/ and thereby, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 427/34 of IPC against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
Announced in the open court On 26th of July, 2012 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track court, Rohini/Delhi SC No. 15/1/10 23 SC No. 15/01/10 Unique Identification No.02404R0191972011 State Versus
1) Julmat Son of Sh. Hareez R/o H.No. B7/40, JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
2) Shamsher Alam Son of Atfar Rehman R/o B7/294, JJ Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
3) Khalid
son of Sh. Mohsin Ali
R/o B7/340, JJ Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
FIR No. 146/2010
PS - Bhalswa Dairy
U/s. 186/353/323/427/34 of IPC
Date of decision: 26/07/2012
Date of Sentence: 31/07/2012
31/07/2012
Present. Ld. APP for the State.
All the three convicts in person with counsel.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Julmat is aged about 39 years. He is a rag picker. He has five children to support, out of which, two daughters have already been married. He is also supporting his parents. SC No. 15/1/10 24 Learned defence counsel has further contended that he is neither previous convict nor habitual offender. No other criminal case is pending against him. It is further contended that he remained in custody from 08/11/2010 to 16/11/2010. It is further contended that convict has faced trial of this case since 2010 and has appeared regularly.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Khalid is aged about 30 years. He is a rag picker. He has three children and all are school going. He is also supporting his parents. Learned defence counsel has further contended that he is neither previous convict nor habitual offender. No other criminal case is pending against him. It is further contended that he remained in custody from 04/04/2011 to 24/04/2011. It is further contended that convict has faced trial of this case since 2010 and has appeared regularly.
Learned defence counsel submits that convict Shamsher Alam is aged about 39 years. He is a rag picker. He has five children to support, out of which, two daughters have already been married. He is also supporting his parents. Learned defence counsel has further contended that he is neither previous convict nor habitual offender. No other criminal case is pending against him. It is further contended that he remained in custody from 08/11/2010 to 16/11/2010. It is further contended that convict has faced trial of this case since 2010 and has appeared regularly.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP for state has contended that all the three convicts have been convicted for the offences U/s. 186/323/353/427/34 of IPC, hence, appropriate sentence be awarded.
I have considered the submissions of learned defence counsels and ld. APP for State.
Offence U/s. 186 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either SC No. 15/1/10 25 description, which may extend to three months or with fine, which may extend to Rs. 500/ or with both.
Accordingly, sentence of already undergone imprisonment is imposed upon each convict U/s. 186 read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of Rs.500/. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Offence U/s. 323 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend to Rs. 1000/ or with both.
Accordingly, sentence of already undergone imprisonment is imposed upon each convict U/s. 323 read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of Rs.1000/. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Offence U/s. 353 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
Accordingly, sentence of already undergone imprisonment is imposed upon each convict U/s. 353 read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of Rs.5000/. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Offence U/s. 427 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
Accordingly, sentence of already undergone imprisonment is imposed upon each convict U/s. 427 read with Section 34 of IPC with fine of Rs.5000/. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run SC No. 15/1/10 26 concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.PC be given to each convict according to his custody period as mentioned above.
Fine If fine is deposited, then out of fine, Rs. 7,000/ each be given as compensation to Constable Deepak and Constable Satish. Announced in the open court On 31st of July, 2012 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track court, Rohini/Delhi SC No. 15/1/10 27 SC No. 15/1/10 28