Delhi District Court
State vs Taseen Etc. on 26 April, 2011
1
State Vs.Taseen etc.
FIR No.548/05
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE - IV : ROHINI (OUTER) : DELHI
Sessions Case No. : 93/09
FIR Nos. : 548/05,550/05 and 552/05
Police Station : Rajouri Garden
Under Sections : 399/402 IPC r/w section 25/54/59 of Arms
Act
State Versus 1. Taseem S/o Sh. Mashim Ali,
R/o A block, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
2. Dilshad S/o Sh.Pushkar
R/o H.No. 380,HMP, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi
3. Raghubir S/o Sh. Panni lal
R/o Ablock, Raghubir Nagar ,Delhi
4. Rakesh S/o Shri Yaadram
R/o H.No. 376, HMP, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi.
5. Mahender s/o Prabhati lal (since expired)
R/o Jhuggi No.2, Rblock Raghubir Nagar
Delhi.
Other Details
a) Date of Committal 07.112005
b) Date of Institution 14.11.2005
before this Court
1/
2
State Vs.Taseen etc.
FIR No.548/05
c) Date on which reserved
for Judgment 26.04.2011
d) Date of Judgment 26.04.2011
e) Final Order Acquitted
Under sections 399/402 IPC
read with section 25/54/59
Arms Act
J U D G M E N T
1. By this order, I shall dispose off three cases pertaining to FIR Nos. 548/05, 550/05 and 552/05, Police Station Rajouri Garden .
2. The chargesheets U/s 173 Cr.P C in the above mentioned cases have been filed by the prosecution against the accused persons namely Mahender (since deceased), Taseen S/o Sh. Mashim Ali, Dilshad S/o Shri Pushkar, Raghuvir @ Beere S/o Sh. Panni Lal and Rakesh S/o Sh. Yaad Ram on the allegations of committing offences as punishable under sections 302/402 IPC read with Section 25/54/59 Arms Act.
3. Briefly stating the case of the prosecution is that on 15.6.2005, at about 10.50 p.m, all the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention gathered at Tikriwala Mandir, below Flyover, Rajouri Garden, Delhi to make preparations for committing dacoity which information was also secretly 2/ 3 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 received by the police officials whereupon they constituted a raiding party and reached at the spot and when the police officials asked the accused persons to surrender, they tried to escape but were apprehended. It is further the case of the prosecution that from the possession of accused Taseem, one country made pistol along with one live cartridge and five more live cartridges were recovered from the left pocket of his pant . It is further alleged that from the possession of accused Dilshad and Raghubir, one buttondar knife each was recovered which they hd kept without any justification and in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration and from the possession of accused Rakesh and Mahender, iron rods were recovered.
The police officials after the arrest of accused persons namely Taseem, Dilshad, Raghubir, Rakesh and Mahender (since expired) and after recovery of weapons from their possessions conducted other necessary proceedings in the matter including preparation of their arrest memos personal searches, recorded their disclosure statements after which other necessary investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, chargesheets under section U/s 173 Cr.P.C. were filed in the Court of Ld. concerned MM who after compliance of necessary legal provisions U/s 207 Cr.P.C. had committed the cases to the court of Sessions whereupon my Ld. predecessor vide order dated 06.12.2005 had served the charge under section 399/402 IPC on all the accused persons and separate charge under section 25/54./59 Arms Act has been framed against accused Ragubir 3/ 4 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 Singh and Dilshad to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 18.5.2006, FIR No. 550/05 and 552/05 under section 25 of Arms Act have been clubbed with the case FIR No. 548/05.
5. In order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses in all namely HC Kamlesh Kumar as PW1, Anil Yadav as PW2, HC Sanjeev as PW3, SI Puran Chand as PW4 , ASI Dilbagh Singh as PW5 & ASI Bhagat Ram as PW6, HC Jaswant as PW7, HC Krishan Kumar as PW8, HC Jai Prakash as PW9 and Inspector Narender Singh as PW10 and thereafter, statements of all the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C during which they pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have not committed the alleged offences and have preferred not to examine any witness in their defence.
6. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by Sh.Anil Kumar Gupta,Ld. APP for State, and Advocate Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, amicus curaie appearing for all the accused persons and have given my thoughtful consideration to the rivals submissions made by them and have also gone through the material as placed on record.
7. Ld. APP has vehemently argued that HC Sanjeev (PW3), SI Puran Chand (PW4), ASI Dilbagh Singh (PW5), ASI Bhagat Ram (PW6) and HC Jai 4/ 5 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 Prakash (PW9) had joined the investigation who have corroborated the versions of each other on all material aspects and have proved on record beyond reasonable doubt regarding commission of alleged offences by the accused persons and have also proved the recovery of weapons of offences from their possession. Ld. APP has prayed that since the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of all the accused persons, hence they must be convicted for committing offences as punishable under sections 399/402 IPC read with section 25/54/59 Arms Act.,
8. Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently rebutted the same contending that though the aforesaid witnesses are shown to have joined the investigation and are shown to have been arrested the accused persons while planning to commit dacoity, but the testimonies of the said prosecution witnesses suffer from several inherent and grave infirmities which go to the root of the matter and shake their basic versions. She has further submitted that keeping in view the glaring contradictions regarding the time of leaving the police station after receiving the information, time of apprehension of the accused persons etc and also that infact none of the accused persons had committed the alleged offences who were lifted from their respective houses hence, they must be acquitted of the charges leveled against them under sections 399/402 IPC read with section 25/54/27 Arms Act. 9(a). In the present case HC Kamlesh Kumar (PW1) is duty officer, who has testified that on the intervening night of 15/16.06.2005, he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi from 5.00 p. m to 1.00 a.m. He 5/ 6 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 has testified that at about 11.58 p.m, he received one rukka which was brought by Constable Lokender as sent by SI P.C Yadav on the basis of which, he registered FIR No. 548/05 under section 392/402 IPC and proved its copy on record as Ex.PW1/A. He has further testified that he also recorded DD Nos. 24A and 25A copies of which are Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively as per which DD No.25 A was recorded at 10.20 p.m which also reflects the departure of SHO and other staff to the spot .
9(b) During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he has inter alia stated that it took about 10 minutes in recording the FIR.
10. Anil Yadav (PW2) has proved on record the original notification bearing No. F13/203/78home (G) dated 17.2.2009 issued by the then Under Secretary Home as Ex.PW2/A. 11(a). HC Jaswant (PW7) has deposed that on 16.06.2005 after the registration of the case, further investigation of the case was entrusted to him during which he was handed over original tehrir and rukka after which he along with constable Amarjeet reached at the spot where he met HC Bhagat Ram who had apprehended accused Raghubir handed him over one pullanda consisting of of a knife and he thereafter, prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/A at the instance of HC Bhagat Ram and arrested the accused Raghubir and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C respectively and also recorded statement of HC Bhagat Ram after which he came back to the police station along with the 6/ 7 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 accused Raghubir and recovered knife and thereafter the accused was sent to judicial custody and pullanda of knife was deposited with the MHCM. 11(b). During cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, he has interalia stated that he reached at the spot at about 2.30 a.m and remained there till about 3.30 a.m and the writing work was done while sitting under the bridge.
12.(a) HC Krishan Kumar (PW8) has testified that on 16.06.2005, the duty officer had handed over him the original tehrir and copy of the FIR No. 550/05 in pursuance of which he went to the spot along with constable Jai Prakash where HC Dilbagh Singh met him who handed him over the custody of accused Dilshad, who was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/B and was also handed over the sealed pullanda of knife along with its sketch. He has further deposed that he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/B, recorded statements of HC Dilbagh Singh and constable Jai Prakash and returned to the police station with the said accused and recovered knife after which the accused Dilshad was sent to judicial custody and pullanda of knife was deposited with the MHCM.
12(b). During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he has inter alia stated that he reached the spot at about 2.00 a.m and remained there till about 4.00 a.m and also stated that all the writing work was done while sitting on the pavement under the street light.
13(a). ASI Bhagat Ram (PW6) has testified that on 15.6.2005, at about 10.00 p.m, the concerned SHO had received the information that five persons 7/ 8 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 would come under the bridge near Tipriwala temple, Rajouri Garden , who are likely to commit robbery, whereupon the SHO constituted a raiding party consisting of himself, SI P.C Yadav, SI Puram Chand, ASI Dilbagh Singh, HCAmit, Ct. Harpinder, Ct. Amarjeet, Constable Sanjeev and Constable Surjeet etc. after which they all went to the said place in a Government Gypsy and TATA
407. He has furtrher deposed that after reaching at Tipriwala Mandir, SI P.C Yadav again briefed them and asked 45 public persons to join the raiding party but they refused and went away without disclosing their names and addresses. He has further deposed that they had taken their respective positions and in the meantime, SHO V.K.Dham also arrived at the spot. He has further testified that HC Dilbagh Singh who was in plain clothes was directed to stand on the pillar under the bridge to listen the conversation of the accused persons with the instructions that if they were talking regarding commission of dacoity, then he would give a signal by crossing his hand over his head. He has further deposed that after about 5 minutes, HC Dilbagh Singh gave designated signal whereupon all the members of the raiding party surrounded the accused persons who though, tried to run away but were apprehended. He has further deposed as which of the accused was apprehended by which of the police official. He has further deposed that SI conducted the formal search of accused Mohd. Taseem and one country made pistol was recovered from his right side pant dub and was also having one live cartridge and five more cartridges in his pocket and in a polythene smack like 8/ 9 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 powder was also recovered from him from his left hand side pocket. He has further deposed that from the possession of accused Dilshad and Raghubir, knives were recovered and from the possession of accused Rakesh and Mahender, iron rods were recovered. He has further deposed that the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/A and sketch of knife as recovered from accused Raghubir was prepared by him which is Ex.PW6/A which was seized after sealing it vide memo Ex.PW6/B and thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex.PW6/C and sent constable Amarjit for the registration of the case. He has also deposed that SI P.C Yadav had also prepared the recovery memo of of both the rods recovered from the accused Rakesh and Mahender which are Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW3/A respectively. He has further submitted that separate case FIR Nos. 548/05 and 552/05 were also registered. He has further deposed that HC Jaswant Singh came at the spot whom he handed over the further investigation and documents who prepared site plan at his instance and arrested the accused Raghubir Singh and conducted his personal search. He has identified the accused persons and has further identified the rods recovered from accused Rakesh and Mahender as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 , identified the knife recovered from accused Raghubir Singh as Ex.P3 and identified the country made pistol and five live cartridges and one fired cartridge. 13(b) During cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, he has interalila stated that they left the police station in Govt. Gypsy and TATA 407 at about 9.50 a.m. at which point of time they all were in uniform and reached at the 9/ 10 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 spot at about 10.20 p.m. He has also stated that HC Dilbagh Singh was at a distance of about 5060 meters from them and the nearby temple was closed. He has also stated all the writing work was done while sitting on the pipes and pillars which were lying there under the street ligh.
14. HC Sanjeev (PW3) has deposed on the lines of ASI Bhagat Ram hence, his examination in chief is not repeated for the sake of brevity, however, he has deposed that the accused Rakesh was apprehended by him and an iron rod was recovered from his possession. .
15(a). SI Puran Chand (PW4) has also deposed on the lines of ASI Bhagat Ram (PW6) and HC Sanjeev (PW3), hence, his examination in chief also not repeated for the sake of brevity, however, he has deposed that he apprehended the accused Dilshad S/o Peshkar and from his search, a knife was recovered and deposed that other accused persons were also apprehended and from their possession, weapons were recovered.
15(b). During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he has inter alia stated that all the members of the raiding party except HC Dilbagh Singh were in uniform and the spot was approximately 1 km. from the police station. He has also expressed his inability to state whether SI P.C Yadav had asked the Pujari of the mandir to join the raiding party and has stated that at the relevant time, HC Dilbagh Singh was at a distance of about 2025 meters from them. 16(a) ASI Dilbagh Singh (Pw5) has also deposed on the lines of ASI 10/ 11 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 Bhagat Ram (PW6) and HC Sanjeev (PW3), hence his examination in chief also not repeated for the sake of brevity.
16(b) During cross examination on behalf of all the accused persons , he has interalia stated that they went from the police station at about 10.15 p.m. and the spot was about ½ k.m away from the police station and they took the position at a distance of about 1015 paces from HC Dilbagh Singh. He has also stated that all the writing work was done while sitting under the bridge under the street light. 17(a) HC Jai Prakash (PW9) has also deposed on the lines of ASI Bhagat Singh (PW6) and HC Sanjeev (PW3), hence his examination in chief not repeated for the sake of brevity. He has also proved on record that the knife recovered from the possession of the accused Dilshad was measured and its sketch Ex.PW9/A was also prepared and signed by him at point A which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW9/B . He has further deposed that seal after used was handed over to him.
17(b). During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he has inter alia stated that they left the police station at about 10.00 p.m and they all were in uniform and reached at the spot at about 10.45 p.m. He has also stated that no public person was called from the nearby mandir. He has also stated that all the writing work was done while sitting on the ramp under the street light. 18(a). Inspector Narender Singh (PW10) has testified that on 15/16.6.2005, while he was posted as Incharge Police Post, Raghubir Nagar, the duty officer 11/ 12 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 informed him regarding the registration of the case and further investigation was entrusted to him during which he went to the spot near Tipri temple under the Rajouri Garden Flyover along with Constable Lokender alongwith original rukka and tehrir where he met with SI P.C Yadav along with other police staff and five accused persons. He has further deposed that during investigation, he prepared site plan Ex.PW10/A at the instance of SI P.C Yadav who also handed him over two iron rods alongwith respective memos and arrested accused Rakesh, Taseem, Mahender, Dilshad and Raghubir Singh vide arrest memos Ex.PW10/B1, Ex.PW10/B3, Ex.PW.10/B4 and Ex.PW10/B5 respectively and conducted their personal searches vide memos Ex.PW10/B6, Ex.PW10B7, Ex.PW10/B8 , Ex.PW10/B9 and Ex,PW10/B10 respectively and after completion of the investigation, they returned back to the police station after which all the accused persons were sent to judicial custody after their medical examinations and the case property was deposited with MHCM.
18(b) During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he has inter alia stated that he reached at the spot at about 1.00 a.m (night) and remained there for about 34 hours.
19. In the present case, admittedly, all the prosecution witnesses examined in the case are police officials and none of the public witnesses have been joined during the investigation or at the time of the arrest of the accused persons or at the time of preparation of documents for which prosecution has explained that , efforts 12/ 13 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 were made by the Investigating Officer to join them but they had refused and left without disclosing their names and addresses and keeping in view their limitations, the police officials had constituted a raiding party consisting of accompanying police officials during which all the accused persons were arrested and other necessary investigation was conducted. In the present case, in the light of given facts and circumstances, it has to be seen whether the testimonies of police officials examined by the prosecution inspires confidence of the court and whether their evidence are trustworthy and have corroborated versions of each other on material aspects.
20. In the present case, it would be appropriate to mention that HC Kamlesh (PW1) though is shown to be a formal witness being DD writer yet, from material as placed on the record, it is shown that DD No.24A and DD No.25A were recorded on 15.6.2005 itself as per which it is clear that DD o No.24A was recorded by SHO at 9.50 p.m. and DD no. 25A was recorded at 10.20 p.m. by the SHO, which reflects the departure of SHO and other staff to the spot. Now keeping the same in mind, the relevant portions of other material witnesses are also been discussed .
20 (a). In the present case HC Sanjeev (PW3) has interalia stated that while leaving the police station, all the members of the raiding party were in civil dress and at about 10.45 p.m, HC Dilbagh (PW5) had reached behind the 13/ 14 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 pillar to hear conversation of the accused and at about 10.50 p.m, he made pre fixed indication whereupon all the members of the raiding party reached there and apprehended the accused.
20 (b). It is important to mention that SI Puran Chand (PW4) who was also joined in the raiding party has categorically stated that only HC Dilbagh (PW5) was in civil dress and at about 10.45 p.m, HC Dilbagh had heard the conversation and given them signal at about 10.50p.m. and he has also stated that" .... I cannot say if SI P.C Yadav had asked the Pujari of Mandir to join the raiding party..." He has also stated that when HC Dilbagh (PW5) was deputed to hear the conversation of the accused, he was at a distance of about 2025 meter from them.
20 (c) ASI Dilbagh (PW5) who has also joined the investigation has stated that on that day, SHO received the said information at about 10.00 p.m. and after they had reached to the spot, then only Inspector V.K.Dham has arrived at the spot. He has also stated that the accused persons after seeing them, tried to run away but were apprehended. He has also stated that on that day, they started from the police station at about 10.15 p.m. and DD entry was made by SI P.C Yadav and also stated that the spot was about ½ k.m away from the police station and they were at a distance of about 1015 14/ 15 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 paces from HC Dilbagh (PW5) who was visible to them. He has also stated that Tipriwala Mandir was closed at that time. He has also stated that all the writing work was done while sitting under the bridge under the street light. 20 (d). ASI Bhagat Ram (PW6) who has also joined the investigation has stated that SHO has received the said information on that day at about 10.00 p.m. and SHO V.K.Dham reached to the spot after them. He has also stated that HC Dilbagh (PW5), who was deputed to hear the conversation of accused was in plain clothes who after 5 minutes had given the designated signal and all the raiding party members surrounded the miscreants. He has also stated that they left from the police station on that day at about 10.50p.m. and all of them were in uniform. He stated that HC Dilbagh (PW5) was at a distance of about 5060 meters from them and the nearby temple was also closed. He has also stated that all the writing work was done while sitting on the pillars which were lying there under the street light.
20 (e) HC Jai Prakash (PW9) has stated that they proceeded for the spot at about 10.10 p.m. and SHO V.K.Dham had arrived after they had reached and when HC Dilbagh (PW5) was deputed to over hear the conversation of the accused, it was after 1520 minutes that he had given the designated signal and the accused persons had tried to run away after seeing them. He 15/ 16 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 has also stated that they left the police station at about 10.00 p.m. and all of them were in uniform and reached at the spot at about 10.15 p.m. and SHO also reached at the spot at the same time when they had reached. He has also stated that no public person was called from the nearby mandir and all the writing work was done while sitting on the ramp under the street light.
21. In the light of above discussion , the court is of the considered opinion that the information regarding the accused was received at about 9.50p.m vide DD No. 24A and police officials left for the spot vide DD No.25A which was recorded at about 10.20 p.m. but with respect to above grave contradictions have come on record. It is very strange that the police witnesses who have already been examined as discussed above are varying on all material aspects regarding their time of leaving the police station, time of receiving the information and their reaching at the spot . It cannot be lost sight off that there are glaring contradictions regarding the fact pertaining to the reaching of Inspector V.K.Dham at the spot and also that the nearby mandir was opened or closed. It also needs to be noticed that as per certain prosecution witnesses, all the police officials were in uniform whereas some of them state that except HC Dilbagh (PW5) all of them were in official uniform. It is also observed that there are discrepancies regarding the distance where HC Dilbagh (PW5) was deputed to over hear the conversation of the accused persons and the time when he had given the designated signal and the 16/ 17 State Vs.Taseen etc. FIR No.548/05 manner in which accused persons were arrested.
22. Considering the above and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the considered opinion that since glaring contradictions have crept in on record in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses which undoubtedly are grave and effect the merits of the case on material aspects and certainly cannot be over looked, hence, in view of above, and on the basis of the material as placed on the record, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not succeeded in bringing home the guilt of all the accused persons on record beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly all the accused persons namely Taseem, Dilshad, Raghubir and Rakesh are acquitted of the charges levelled against them for committing the offences punishable under sections 399/402 IPC and section 25/54/59 Arms Act . Their sureties, if any, are discharged. Original documents of sureties, if any, be returned as per rules and endorsement on documents, if any be cancelled as per rules. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary legal formalities.
Announced in the open Court (BARKHA GUPTA)
th
on this 26 day of, April 2011 Additional Sessions Judge - IV
Outer District
Rohini District Courts
Delhi
17/