Delhi District Court
State vs . Harminder Singh on 3 November, 2011
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL : M.M.01(SOUTH EAST),
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
State vs. Harminder Singh
FIR NO. : 357/95
P.S. : Badarpur
U/sec. : 353/332/186 IPC
J U D G M E N T
a. Sl. No. of the case and : 587/2 dt. 03.09.96 date of its institution b. Name of the complainant : Ct. Peeraji Patil No.2186 SD PS Badarpur c. Date of commission of offence: 04.08.95 d. Name of the accused : Harminder Singh @ Mahender Singh S/o Shamsher Singh R/o Village Jaitpur, New Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 186/353 IPC f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g. Case reserved for orders : 26.09.2011 h. Final order : Acquitted i Date of such order : 03.12.2011
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.08.95 at 7.50 PM near house of Nanak Singh Village - Jaitpur, accused FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 1 of 11 : 2 :
voluntarily obstructed Ct. Peeraji Patil in discharge of his public function and the accused assaulted complainant/ PW1 Ct. Peeraji Patil who was a public servant and wanted to check bad characters of the area with an intent to prevent him from discharging his duty as a public servant.
2. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court. Copies were supplied to accused and after completion of necessary formalities, charge for commission of the offence punishable U/s 186/353 IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined seven PWs. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC whereby the accused denied the story of the prosecution, but accused did not lead any defence evidence.
4. The relevant and material extract of evidence produced by the prosecution are as under:
5. PW1 Ct. Peeraji Patil is the complainant who deposed that on 04.08.95 he alongwith PW4/Ct. Prem Pal were checking the bad characters of the area and the accused present in the court FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 2 of 11 : 3 :
met them at 7.50 PM and the accused asked them as to why they were checking the bad characters. PW1 and PW4 replied that it was their duty. The accused got annoyed and started scuffling with PW1 and PW1 fell down on the ground. He received injuries on his left arm and elbow. He further deposed that accused had broken the upper two buttons of his shirt. Accused was overpowered by PW1 and PCR Van came at spot by calling someone. PW1 further deposed that local police also came. His statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by IO/ SI Lakhi Ram. He stated that accused was arrested vide his personal search memo Ex.PW1/B, shirt was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. This witness correctly identified the accused and shirt Ex.P1. This witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. Defence counsel. During cross examination, PW.1 deposed that his shirt got torn near the buttons after the accused had caught hold of his shirt Ex.P1. PW1 denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused.
6. PW2 Sh. Suresh Kumar IMRO AIIMS is the formal witness who had seen the Duty Card No. CS51216/95 dt.5.8.95 of Peeraji Patil. Casualty card was prepared by Dr. R. Bhasin and he identified the signatures of the doctor, same is Ex.PW2/A. The FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 3 of 11 : 4 :
Ld. counsel for the accused chose not to crossexamine this witness despite opportunity being granted.
7. PW3 Ct. Tilak Raj is the witness to investigation who deposed that on 4.8.95 PW6/IO SI Lakhi Ram received DD No. 15A, he went to spot where PW4 Ct. Prempal and PW1 Ct. Peeraji Patil met them and IO got recorded the statement of PW1 and got the case registered. He handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the IO at the spot after registration of FIR. PW1 and PW4 handed over the accused and also handed over the shirt to the IO. The shirt was taken into possession after sealing. He further deposed that medical examination of accused as well as PW1 got conducted by him from the AIIMS. He deposed that accused was arrested. His statement was got recorded. This witness correctly identified the case property i.e. shirt as Ex.P1. This witness was also crossexamined by length by Ld. Defence counsel at length. PW3 admitted that there was 23 public persons present at the spot. Neither statement of any public persons was recorded nor IO did made any inquiries from them.
8. PW4 Ct. Prem Pal is another star witness to the alleged incident who deposed on the lines of testimony of PW1. He also FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 4 of 11 : 5 :
proved the personal search memo Ex.PW1/B, seizure memo of shirt Ex.PW1/C. During the crossexamination he admitted that 15/20 persons had collected on the spot. He further admitted that his statement was recorded in the PS at 7.50 PM. PW4 denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated.
9. PW5 Inspector Ajit Singh deposed that on 12.03.96 he had given the complaint U/sec. 195 Cr.PC in the present case, same is Ex.PW5/A. During crossexamination he admitted that there is no date mentioned on the complaint U/sec. 195 Cr.PC.
10. PW6 SI Lakhi Ram is the investigating officer in the present case who deposed that on 4.8.95 he received DD No. 15 A regarding quarreling. He alongwith PW3/Ct. Tilak Raj went to house of Nanak Chand a bad character of the area where PW1 and PW4 met him. He recorded statement of Ct. Peeraji Patil as Ex.PW1/A and Ct. Peeraji Patil handed over the accused to him. He prepared Tehrir Ex.PW6/A and got the case registered through PW3. He proved the personal search of accused Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of Ct. Peeraji Patil Ex.PW6/B. He deposed that PW3 handed over to him copy of FIR and original Tehrir. He also FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 5 of 11 : 6 :
deposed that PW1 was sent for medical examination alongwith PW3. Doctor gave opinion on MLC as simple blunt. He prepared the seizure memo of uniform of PW1 vide memo Ex. PW1/C duly sealed with the seal of LR. He further deposed that accused was medically examined by him in AIIMS and he collected the MLC of accused. He also collected the complaint U/sec. 195 Cr.PC and same was filed with the challan. He deposited the case property in Malkhana. He correctly identified the case property Ex.P1. Crossexamination of this witness was deferred. Later PW6 was called again but counsel for accused failed to appear despite repeated calls.
11. PW7 ASI Rajpal Sharma is duty officer who recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka brought by PW3 by IO/PW6, same is Ex.PW7/A. Accused chose not to crossexamine despite opportunity being granted.
12. It is submitted by Ld. APP for State that the complainant, PW1 and other witnesses have proved the story of the prosecution and proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused is liable to be convicted. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the accused that there are FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 6 of 11 : 7 :
material contradictions in the in the testimony of PWs, therefore, accused is liable to be acquitted.
13. In the present case, PW1 Ct. Peeraji Patil is the complainant on whose statement Ex.PW1/A a case was registered. The complainant sustained injuries when accused caught hold of him with collar and started quarreling. As per his deposition, the shirt was taken into possession and sealed in a cloth Pullanda with the seal of LR. During the crossexamination he admitted that he does not know as to whom the seal was handed over after use. He also stated that it was mentioned in the seizure memo. He had seen the seizure memo where no such fact is mentioned, however, as per admission of PW3 he stated that IO had handed over the seal to him after using the same for sealing the shirt. Still he admitted that fact of handing over the seal to him after use is not recorded in his statement U/sec. 161 Cr.PC. As per version of PW4, IO after using the seal did not hand over to anybody and deposited it in the Malkhana. It was admitted by PW1/ complainant that his shirt got torn near the button after the accused has caught hold of his shirt. As per his admission, shirt Ex.P1 does not have a single torn part only three buttons FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 7 of 11 : 8 :
are missing. During the crossexamination of PW1, court had also observed that Ex.P1 i.e. case property was not torn from anywhere and only two buttons from one shoulder were found missing. PW1 specifically stated that accused was not medically examined in his presence and he was medically examined for his injuries but PW3 Ct. Tilakraj who joined the investigation with SI Lakhiram stated that medical examination of accused as well as Peeraji Patil was got conducted by him from the AIIMS. The investigating officer has also stated that accused was medically examined by him in AIIMS hospital and he collected the MLC of the accused and as per report of the doctor accused was found under influence of liquor but the MLC is not placed on record. The investigating officer had also admitted that he had collected the complaint U/sec. 195 Cr.PC regarding this case but PW5 during the crossexamination admitted that there is no date mentioned on the complaint U/sec. 195 Cr.PC but it was filed alongwith the charge sheet. PW5 specifically stated that when this incident occurred he was not posted as SHO PS Badarpur and as such he does not have any knowledge about the incident. The investigating officer deposited the case property in the FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 8 of 11 : 9 :
Malkhana after sealing the case property. The prosecution has also failed to rule out that the misuse of seal has not taken place. It has been held in "1997 JCC 520 Karambir Vs. State of Delhi", that if IO does not say or it is not proved that specimen impression of the seal was deposited with MHC(M) along with the case property, it might result in miscarriage of justice and fatal to the prosecution. In the testimony of complainant, he deposed that accused met them at about 7.50 PM. At that time he was under the influence of liquor but PW4 who was on patrolling duty alongwith complainant stated that his statement was recorded in the PS at 7.50 PM, however, time of sending of rukka is also 9.30 PM. The Duty officer has put his endorsement on rukka vide DD No. 20A at 9.50 PM. How the statement of PW4 was recorded at police station in between the investigation has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The PW4 admitted that he had recorded his departure on the roznamcha himself but he cannot tell at what time they left from PS for the duty at village Jaitpur. Moreover, the said DD entry was not proved on record. PW4 also admitted that 1520 persons had collected at the spot. PW3 also admitted that when they reached FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 9 of 11 : 10 :
at the spot there were 23 public persons present at the spot. Neither statement of any of the public person was recorded by the investigating officer nor did he make any inquiries from the person who were present at the spot. PW3 also admitted that he does not remember how he took Ct. Peeraji Patil and the accused to the hospital for medical examination. He also admitted that from the hospital he took the accused to PS Sriniwaspuri to be locked up in the lock up. The public witnesses despite being present at the spot were not joined in the investigation without any justified ground. There is no cogent explanation why the independent witnesses were not joined which makes the statement of police officials somewhat unreliable. Moreover, there are material contradictions which have emerged in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, keeping in view the material contradictions emerging in the testimony of PWs and non examination of public persons create shadow of doubt upon the story of prosecution. It is well established law that benefit of doubt always goes to the accused.
FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 10 of 11
: 11 :
14. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, while
giving benefit of doubt to accused Harminder is acquitted of charge framed for commission of offence U/s 186/353 IPC.
Announced & Dictated in (Sunil Beniwal) the Open Court on 03.11.2011 M.M.01/(S.E.)/Saket/ 03.11.11 FIR NO. 357/95 PS Badarpur 11 of 11