Delhi District Court
State vs : (1) Narender Kumar @ Sunny on 12 April, 2007
...1...
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR, ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
SC NO.: 81/06
State Versus : (1) Narender Kumar @ Sunny
S/o Mohan Lal
R/o V.P.O. Daryapur, PS Narela, Delhi
(2) Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Khem Chand
R/o D-126, Yadav Nagar, Samai Pur, Delhi
Permanent Address : Village Garhi
Shahjan Pur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana
(3) Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Chander Singh
R/o V.P.O. Pipti, PS Kharrohoda,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana (since deceased)
(4) Vijender S/o Sh. Rampat
R/o Village Thana Kalan, PS Kharkhoda
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana
FIR No.: 432/97
PS : ASHOK VIHAR
Under Sections: 452/323/324/307/34 IPC r/w 25/54/59 Arms Act
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report U/S 173 Cr.P.C. is as under:-
"On 17.07.1997 at about 5:00pm 5/6 persons trespassed into the office of one Umed Singh at premises no.: B-25/1, W.P.I.A. Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Umed Singh who used to work as a contractor under APMC was threatened by the said persons by pointing Contd....
...2...
out a revolver and knife with a view to extort money and to also prevent him from applying for obtaining tenders of APMC. However, when Umed Singh tried to confront them then they all threatened him of dire consequences and cut the telephone wires of his office besides giving him repeated stab blows. At the time of incident besides Umed Singh two of his nephews namely Ranbir Singh and Jagjeet Singh were also sitting inside the office. They were also given beating and Ranbir Singh was also given tooth bites. Umed Singh who had sustained grievous injuries on his person was removed initially to Northend Medical Center and from there to Pantamed Hospital. Matter came to be reported to the police and a case was got registered at PS Ashok Vihar. In his complaint Umed Singh had mentioned about name of one person Ramesh Fundi of village Bawana as being one of the persons who had come inside his office. However, when inquiries were made by IO-SI Manoj Kumar from said Ramesh Fundi then he denied his involvement in the matter and even complainant stated that he was Contd....
...3...
not one of the assailants who had come inside his office.
Thereafter on the basis of a secret information accused Narender was apprehended in the present case and a knife was also allegedly recovered at his instance. After preparing sketch etc. the knife was taken into possession after sealing in a pullanda. Accused was also produced for judicial TIP wherein he however refused to participate. He also allegedly pointed out the place of occurrence to the IO. Subsequently on 21.07.1997 one other accused namely Satish was apprehended followed by one other accused namely Vijender. Both of them also refused to participate in TIP. One other accused Ashok Kumar was also apprehended in the matter. All the said persons were identified by complainant Umed Singh before the police as the assailants who had entered inside his office and given him injuries."
2. Thus, upon completion of necessary further investigation challan was prepared and filed in the court for trial.
Contd....
...4...
3. Upon committal of the case to the Court of Sessions charge for the offence under Sections 452/323/324/307/34 IPC was framed against accused Narender, Satish and Vijender as the fourth accused namely Ashok Kumar had by then expired. A separate charge for the offence U/S 25 Arms Act, 1959 was also framed against accused Narender. The accused persons however pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined nine witnesses. Accused persons were thereafter examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C. They however refused to lead any evidence in their defence.
PW-1 Dr. Sudhanshu Mohan Mishra had examined injured Umed Singh at Pentamed Hospital and proved the record prepared by him in this regard.
PW-2 ct. Gulzar was the DD writer PP Wazir Pur Industrial Area who had received the initial information about the present incident.
PW-3 HC Devender Singh had reached the spot first in point of time upon receipt of information about the incident and thereafter had gone to Pentamed Hospital where SI Manoj Kumar had taken over the further investigation.
Contd....
...5...
PW-4 Umed Singh, PW-5 Ranbir Singh and PW-6 Jagjeet Singh were the three injured persons. They all deposed almost on identical line as to the manner in which the incident took place but did not support the case of prosecution on the material aspect as to the identity of the present accused persons being the assailants involved in the incident. I shall be discussing their nature of testimony at the later stage of my judgment.
PW-7 ct. Tejveer Singh was DD writer PS Ashok Vihar who had received information on 18.10.1997 about presence of Vijender in the area of APMC and had recorded information about apprehension of accused Vijender singh.
PW-8 SI Manoj Kumar was the IO of the case. In his deposition he reiterated the prosecution story besides proving the various documents/memos prepared by him during the course of investigation.
PW-9 Rajesh Kumar was the then ld. MM who had carried out the TIP in the present case and he accordingly proved the necessary proceedings carried out by him in this regard.
5. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons however stated the case of the prosecution to be false and the prosecution witnesses to be depositing falsely.
Contd....
...6...
6. I have heard ld. APP as well as ld. defence counsel Sh. Ashok Chhikara for all the accused persons.
7. It has been submitted by ld. defence counsel that the prosecution in the present case has miserably failed to connect the accused persons with the offence in question. It was submitted that the identity of the accused persons being the assailants or as the persons who had entered inside the office of Umed Singh has not been established. It was thus prayed that all the accused persons be acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
8. On the other hand ld. APP stated that complainant Umed Singh and his two nephews deviated away on account of fear of dreaded gangsters viz. the present accused persons. It was stated that all the evidence as led on record by the prosecution clearly proves the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts. The accused persons were thus prayed to be convicted.
9. I have carefully perused the record.
10. At the outset, I may state that irrespective of the nature or manner of incident which allegedly took place with complainant Umed Singh in his office or the subsequent proceedings carried out by the IO the most important issue which crops up for consideration is as to whether the present three accused persons were the intruders in Contd....
...7...
the office of Umed Singh on the date of incident or not or that the injuries sustained by Umed Singh were caused by anyone of them or not or by any of their accomplices.
11. At the outset, I may however state that the answer to the aforesaid query is a big NO. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identity of the present accused persons as being the intruders in the office of Umed Singh or his assailants. In this regard we have on record the testimony of three witnesses namely PW-4 Umed Singh, PW-5 Ranbir Singh and PW-6 Jagjeet Singh. While PW-5 Ranbir Singh and PW-6 Jagjeet Singh claimed their complete inability to identify any of the accused persons as being the intruders and even in their cross examination by ld. APP nothing material could be elicited from their mouth which may benefit the case of the prosecution. As regards the testimony of complainant/injured Umed Singh I may again state that though he pointed out towards the accused persons stating that they were probably amongst those persons who had entered inside his office and had attacked him but a perusal of his testimony shows that he was not sure in this regard. Subsequently in his cross examination also he stated that he was not sure as to whether the accused persons were the same persons who had attacked him on the day of incident or not. In these Contd....
...8...
circumstances it cannot be concluded that the identity of the accused persons as being the intruders in the office of Umed Singh or his assailants stood proved by the prosecution.
12. As regards the testimony of SI Manoj Kumar-IO I may state that he apprehended accused Narender or the other accused persons on the basis of a secret information I may again state that these fact does not inspires confidence. Admittedly the incident took place inside a closed office where only Umed Singh and his two nephews namely Ranbir Singh and Jagjeet Singh were present and thus their apprehension by the police in a stereo type fashion on the basis of a secret information given by a secret informer does not inspires confidence. The prosecution has also been unable to explain properly as to why Umed Singh in his initial complaint specifically named a person namely Ramesh Fundi of Bawana village as one of the intruders in his office. The said person was also interrogated and later on complainant stated that he was not the person involved in the incident. No investigation seems to have been made as to why at all the complainant initially chose to name the said person as one of the intruders in his office.
13. As regards the issue of refusal to participate in TIP by the accused persons I may state that when the witnesses have not Contd....
...9...
identified the accused persons during the course of trial so, the mere refusal to participate in TIP cannot lead to a conclusion whereby to establish their identity as being the assailants in the present case. In fact the nature of proceedings in which the accused persons came to be apprehended and were later on produced for judicial TIP does not rules out the fact that they could not have been seen by any other public person being produced for TIP.
14. In fact, in the case of accused Narender it also appears all the more strange that complainant was also present at the spot when accused was arrested on the basis of a secret information. This fact does not appears to be a mere coincidence. In fact this piece of evidence viz. identification of accused Narender by complainant at the time of his arrest itself does not inspires confidence. It has also not been proved on record that the knife which was allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Narender was the same which was used in the commission of the incident. Even the said knife was not shown to the Doctor who examined Umed Singh which could have established the fact that it was the same knife which was used in the commission of crime. No scientific investigation in this regard was carried out. Even otherwise the recovery of knife from accused Narender does not inspires confidence. Except IO SI Manoj Kumar no other witness in Contd....
...10...
this regard has been examined by the prosecution. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case the testimony of IO-SI Manoj Kumar in the absence of corroboration from any source whatsoever much less from any independent pubic witness does not inspires confidence.
15. Keeping in view my aforesaid discussion I am thus of the considered opinion that the prosecution has thus been unsuccessful in proving on record the identity of the accused persons as being the assailants who entered inside the office of Umed Singh or caused injuries to him. There thus does not arises any further need to discuss the prosecution case in other details.
16. I accordingly hereby giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons acquit all of them of the offences under Sections 452/323/ 324/307/34 IPC and also acquit accused Narender of the offence U/S 25 Arms Act, 1959.
Accused Narender be released from jail, if not required in any other case. Bail bonds, surety bonds of accused Satish and Vijender stands cancelled. Case property be confiscated to State.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court today i.e. on 12.04.2007.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FTC:ROHINI:DELHI Contd....