Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagpal Singh on 17 September, 2014
FIR no. 321/00
PS Narela
U/s. 353 IPC
State Vs. Jagpal Singh
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA
METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No.321/00
PS: Narela
U/s. 353 IPC
State Vs Jagpal Singh
Date of Institution of case:22.11.01
Date of Judgment reserved:17.09.14
Date of which Judgment pronounced:17.09.14
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 02401R0179832001
Date of Commission of offence : 22.10.2000
Name of the complainant : HC Rajbir Singh, No.1562/PCR,
North West Zone, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
Name and address of the accused : Jagpal Singh, S/o Sh. Anoop Singh, R/o Vill & P.O. Khera Khurd, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 353 IPC Plea of accused : Not guilty Date of order : 17.09.2014. Final Order : Acquitted BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:
Accused Jagpal Singh, S/o Sh. Anoop Singh has been sent up for the trial for the offence U/s. 353 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) for the reason that he on 22.10.00at about 12:00 night at Pana Sadh, Vill. Khera Khurd, Delhi, he used criminal force to H.C. Rajbir Page no.1 of 9 FIR no. 321/00 PS Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs. Jagpal Singh Singh a public servant who was in the execution of his duty as such public servant or with intent to prevent or deter HC Rajbir Singh from discharging his duties as such public servant and he thereby committed the offence punishable U/s. 353 IPC and on the basis of which FIR no.
321/00 was registered at PS Narela.
2. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused & after supplying the copies to him in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C), a charge U/s. 353 IPC was framed against accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution examined three witnesses.
4. PW1 is ASI Rajbir Singh, No.1476D, PCR, Outer Sone, Delhi. He deposed that on 22.10.00 he alongwith driver Ct. Karamvir, Gunman Ct. Rajender were present at Prahladpur and at about 12:00 midnight, he received a wireless message from Commander 67 PCR Van regarding one Maruti Van bearing DL 1CG 5724 ran away after accident from Sultanpuri area and they were chasing the said van coming from Pooth Kalan side to Prahladpur side. Thereafter, they stood in between Pooth Kalan to Prahladpur road, near Dal Mill. Meanwhile, the above said Maruti car was coming from the Pooth Kalan side and they signalled them to stop but he did not stop and ran away alongwith the Maruti car towards Khera Khurd side. He further deposed that they chased the said Maruti van and the said van was stopped in front of one house at Khera Khurd and we saw that two persons deboarded from the said van. He further deposed that I told him to stop and he grabbed his collar and dislocated the strips of his shoulder. Thereafter, he called his staff and both the accused persons Page no.2 of 9 FIR no. 321/00 PS Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs. Jagpal Singh ran away inside the said house. He further deposed that later on, he came to know the name of one person as Jagpal. He further deposed that he called at police station upon which ASI Umed Singh alongwith Ct. Vijender came at the spot and ASI Umed Singh recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A and prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Vijender for registration of the case. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan at his instance. Meanwhile, Ct. Vijender came at the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. This witness correctly identified the accused.
5. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that Maruti Van was coming at a very high speed and struck against their PCR van i.e. commander 79. He did not sustain any injury. He further deposed that due to the collision, the front part i.e. bonnet of the PCR van was damaged. No mechanical inspection of PCR Van commander 79 was got conducted. He further deposed that he could not see any damage on the offending vehicle before it collided with the PCR Van. He further deposed that when they reached at Khera Khurd it was night, and there was no public person available during the night but after sometime public persons gathered there. He further deposed that public persons had not joined the investigation in his presence. He further deposed that the residents of the locality told the name of the accused and that time Ct. Rajender and Ct.Karamvir were present with him. He further denied the suggestion that he had not chased the accused or that no quarrel took place between him and accused or that no person had told him about the name of the accused. He further denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that he had deposed falsely.
6. PW2 is SI Ram Mehar, 4595/D, Kamla Market Traffic Page no.3 of 9 FIR no. 321/00 PS Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs. Jagpal Singh Circle, Delhi. He is the duty officer who on receipt of rukka from Ct. Vijender sent by ASI Umed Singh registered the present FIR and he has exhibited the FIR as Ex.PW2/A and the endorsement on rukka Ex.PW2/B. He has not been cross examined by accused despite given opportunity.
7. PW3 is Ct. Rajender, No.2195, Security, Main Line, Vinay Marg, New Delhi. He has also deposed on the similar lines as that of PW1 SI Rajbir Singh. Therefore, his testimony is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid verbosity/repetition. He also correctly identified the accused.
During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that Maruti van was coming at a very fast speed and struck slightly against their PCR Van and ran away. He further deposed that he did not remember at what side of PCR Van, he was standing. He further deposed that HC Rajbir inquired from public persons and came to know that the name of the accused person was Jagpal. He denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place at the spot or that they had not chased the accused. He further deposed that IO did not join any public person in the investigation in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that accused has deposed falsely in the present case.
8. It is a matter of record that after the examination of all the material witnesses vide order dated 18.09.2013, prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter, statement of accused was recorded separately on 27.01.2014, in which he has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and simultaneously stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence Page no.4 of 9 FIR no. 321/00 PS Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs. Jagpal Singh and final arguments were heard.
9. I have heard the contentions from Ld. APP for the state as well as from Ld. defence counsel and given my thoughtful consideration to the entire record.
10. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for offence U/s. 353 IPC and to convict the accused, the prosecution is supposed to prove that the accused assaulted or used criminal force to a public servant in execution of his duties as such public servant or with the intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duties as such public servant. Therefore, the prosecution had to specifically establish that the complainant HC Rajbir Singh was executing his official duties at the time when he was assaulted by the accused. The onus was upon the prosecution to show that the complainant was trying to stop the Maruti Van bearing aforementioned registration number being driven by the accused which was trying to run away after committing an accident in Sultan Puri area. In this regard, it is significant to highlight that according to the testimony of PW1 he received a wireless message from PCR van regarding one Maruti Van bearing registration no. DL 1CG 4724 has ran away after accident from Sultan Puri area but no such record of any wireless message has been produced during evidence and neither there is any record to show that any other criminal case is pending or even instituted against the accused in respect of any accident as mentioned in the deposition of PW1. There is not even iota of evidence even to the effect that the aforementioned Maruti Van had hit some other vehicle in Sultan Puri area which casts serious doubts upon the case of prosecution that PW1 was discharging his official duty in getting an offending vehicle stopped when it was running away after doing an Page no.5 of 9 FIR no. 321/00 PS Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs. Jagpal Singh accident. It is further pertinent to mention that during cross examination, PW1 for the first time stated that the aforementioned Maruti Van had struck against their PCR van but neither the said PCR van was ever brought nor any photographs of the same were placed on record by the prosecution. Even this averment of hitting the PCR van was never mentioned by PW1 during his police statement. The onus was upon the prosecution to clearly establish that PW1 was assaulted by the accused in execution of his duties as a public servant but prosecution has miserably failed in adducing any reliable or cogent evidence to show that PW1 was discharging an official duty at the relevant time. Neither the uniform of the complainant was ever produced during the evidence to show that the accused dislocated the strips from the shoulder as alleged by the complainant.
11. The another material thing, which is required to discuss about the case of the prosecution is that on 22.10.00, PW1 and PW3 were present at Prahladpur Village meaning thereby that at the relevant time they were not in the PS and it seems they were outside the PS, then as per Punjab Rules, they being on duty were required to enter their departure & arrival to & from the PS Narela in the DD Register of the said PS.
12. Now, as per Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934:-
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II-The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered.:-
(c) The hour of arrival and the departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty.
This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be Page no.6 of 9 FIR no. 321/00 PS Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs. Jagpal Singh attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. Note:- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines & Police Posts, where Register No. II is maintained.
13. But, in the present case, this provision appears to have not been complied with in respect of departure and arrival entry of PW1 and PW3. Prosecution has failed to produce any evidence, whatsoever on record in the nature of documentary entries of the required DD entries, so as to establish the presence of PW1 and PW3 and other staff at the spot. Hence, it creates doubt in the prosecution story.
14. It may further be appreciated that PW1 deposed public persons gathered on the spot but they were not joined the investigation and PW3 also deposed that some public persons were inquired for knowing the name of the accused but public persons were not joined the investigation.
15. In case law reported as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State" 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under:-
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
16. In a case law reported as "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Page no.7 of 9 FIR no. 321/00 PS Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs. Jagpal Singh Haryana" 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to to so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner".
"4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provision of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
Hence, it creates doubt in the story of prosecution.
Page no.8 of 9 FIR no. 321/00 PS Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs. Jagpal Singh
17. In view of the above said discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I hereby acquitted accused Jagpal Singh for the said offence U/s. 353 IPC, for which he has been charged with.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Court,Delhi ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 17th September, 2014 Page no.9 of 9 FIR no. 321/00 PS Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs. Jagpal Singh FIR No.321/00 PS: Narela U/s. 353 IPC State Vs Jagpal Singh 17.09.2014 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Jagpal Singh on bail with counsel. Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno in the open court, accused Jagpal Singh is acquitted of the said offence U/s. 353 IPC.
At the request of Ld. Counsel for the accused, his previous bail bond is extended in terms of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Sandeep Gupta) MM (North)-01/Rohini 17.09.2014 Page no.10 of 9