Delhi District Court
State vs . Navneet Kumar on 24 May, 2012
In the Court of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, MM(Central)-04,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 407/07
U/s 170 IPC
PS NDRS
State Vs. Navneet Kumar
JUDGMENT:
A Sl. No. of the case 02402R1334672007 B Date of institution 22/12/07 C Date of commission of offence 02/12/07 D Name of the complainant Complainant Ram Sewak through State
E Name of the accused & his Navneet Kumar s/o Late Sh. Rakesh parentage and address Kumar Shukla r/o H. No. 108. Urdu Mohalla, Gali No. 3, PS Kotwali Etawah, Distt. Etawah, UP. Also at 30-2/47/14, Chandra Nagar, Locoshed, Moradabad, UP.
F Offence complained of U/s 170 IPC G Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty H Order Reserved on 26/04/12 I Final order Convicted J Date of such order 24/05/12 Brief reasons for the decision of the case. 1. In brief, case of the prosecution is that on
02.12.07, accused boarded 2003 Up Lucknow Shatabadi train from Etawah Platform and entered the C-3 coach thereof impersonating himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House, New Delhi and started checking the passengers. Accused also introduced himself in the said capacity to the ticket checking staff including the complainant Ram Sewak, the Chief Ticket Inspector. Upon suspicion, accused was asked for his I-Card and travelling authority letter which he failed to produce. The matter was accordingly reported to the GRP police, PS NDRS by the complainant PW1 Ram Sewak vide his complaint Ex. PW1/A. Upon the complaint,IO PW 7 ASI FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 1 of 10 Ashok Kumar made the endorsement Ex. PW7/A and got the FIR registered. During investigation, IO recorded the statement of witnesses, interrogated and arrested the accused. Finally, charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s 170 IPC was filed in the court against the accused for trial.
2. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 170 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then listed for PE.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined seven witness.
PW1 Ram Sewak is the complainant.
PW2 Shazzad Ahmad, PW3 Sanjay Kumar and PW4 D Toppo are the members of the railway staff who were on duty on the date of incident in the Lucknow Shatabadi train.
PW5 is Ct. Deen Dayal in whose presence IO recorded the statement of complainant, got the FIR registered and arrested the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW1/B & C respectively. IO also recorded the disclosure statement Ex. PW5/A of the accused in his presence. Nothing material came in his cross examination.
PW6 HC Pradeep Kumar is the DO who on 03.12.07(typographical mistake, written as 03.12.10) at about 12.10 am (midnight) recorded FIR Ex. PW6/A on the complaint of complainant Ram Sewak. Nothing material came in his cross examination.
PW7 ASI Ashok Kumar is the IO of the case.
Coming on to the testimony of complainant PW1 Ram Sewak, he testified that on 02.12.07 he was working as a Ticket Superintendent (in short, TS) on Shatabadi Express (Lucknow to Delhi) assisted by the other railway staff namely Shazzad Ahmad, Sanjay Kumar and D Toppo, all Dy. TS. He testified that at about 6.20 pm when the train reached Etawah Railway Station, one person boarded coach C-3 of the train and introduced himself as Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House, New Delhi to Shazzad Ahmad and asked about the TS. He further testified that Shazzad FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 2 of 10 Ahmad produced the said person who is the accused in the present case before him and the accused again introduced himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House and started checking the passengers who were present in the said coach. He further testified that the accused also stated that the Chief Vigilance Inspector will board the train from Aligarh Station. He further testified that when the train had passed through the Aligarh Railway Station and no Vigilance Inspector boarded the train, he became suspicious of the accused and demanded from him his I-Card and travelling authority letter which the accused could not produce. He further testified that the accused was brought to New Delhi Railway Station and was handed over to GRP, New Delhi. He further testified that he also made a complaint Ex. PW1/A to SHO, GRP. He further testified that the accused was arrested by the police in his presence vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW1/B & C respectively. In his cross examination by ld. legal aid counsel, he testified that there were passengers in the coach when he first noticed the accused. He testified as correct that they accompanied the accused in checking the passengers. He volunteered by stating that they accompanied the accused as he introduced himself as a Vigilance Inspector. He further testified that no passenger was found travelling without ticket during checking. He further testified that he made a written complaint to SHO, GRP New Delhi on 02.12.07 at about 11.20 pm. He denied the suggestion that the accused never impersonated himself as a Vigilance Inspector. He also denied the suggestion that as the accused intervened in the matter of a lady passenger with the TT, he was falsely implicated in the present case.
PW2 Shazzad Ahmad testified that on 02.12.07 he was working as Dy. TS on Shatabadi train from Lucknow to Delhi alongwith the other staff Ram Sewak, TS, Sanjay Kumar & D Toppo, both Dy. TS. Besides this, PW2 reiterated the prosecution case in its entirety by testifying about the accused boarding the train from Etawah Junction posing himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House, New Delhi and FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 3 of 10 checking the passengers in the coach. In his cross examination, he testified that he for the first time saw the accused in coach no. C-3 of the train at Etawah Railway Station as he was present at the gate of C-3 coach. He further testified that accused introduced himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House, New Delhi, however he did not ask for the I-Card or any other identity proof from the accused. He testified as correct that Baroda House is the Headquarter of Northern Railway and Kanpur Railway Station comes within the Northern Central Railways. He further testified that accused checked the tickets of the passengers inside the compartment and no passenger travelling in the train at the relevant time was joined as a witness to the proceedings, rather, they were checking the passengers on the instructions of the accused which is done in the routine course of business on the directions of Vigilance Inspector. He further testified that generally the Vigilance Inspectors check the railway staff in the train and not the passengers directly. He further testified that no monetary gain was made by the accused. He testified as correct that the accused was taken to the Generator Car Compartment / Guard Room of the train, however volunteered by stating that all the TE's after doing the checking work assemble in the Guard Room to do the necessary writing work. He also volunteered by stating that the accused himself went to the Generator Car Compartment / Guard Room with the TS as he was himself impersonating as Vigilance Inspector. He further volunteered by stating that in their department, they fear most of the Vigilance Inspectors than of the other officers. He denied the suggestion that the personal search of the accused was carried out in the guard room or that Rs. 30,000/- in cash, ATM Card, one Watch and other articles were kept under his custody. He further testified that during the entire length of his service which is of about 22 years, not more than 2-3 times he had come across and believed a person claiming himself to be a Vigilance Inspector without verifying or asking for his identity. He testified that the information of the apprehension of the accused was given by the TS to the Delhi RPF Control and during his stay FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 4 of 10 in the train, accused was handed over to the custody of GRP. He denied the suggestion that as the accused was beaten up by them and the other railway staff, accused was forced to make a plea to leave him on the grounds of his physical deformity. He further testified that he has no knowledge that one lady passenger by the name of Asha Belan was travelling in C-3 coach on seat no. 47 on the date of incident. He denied the suggestion that one TT misbehaved with the said lady passenger. He testified that accused was not found having in his possession ticket of 1st class. He denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated by the said TT who was misbehaving with the lady passenger and the accused tried to intervene in the matter.
PW3 Sanjay Kumar testified that on 02.12.07 he was working as Dy. TS on Shatabadi train from Lucknow to Delhi alongwith the other staff Ram Sewak, TS, Shazzad Ahmad & D Toppo, both Dy. TS. Besides this, PW3 also reiterated the prosecution case in its entirety by testifying about the accused boarding the train from Etawah Junction posing himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House, New Delhi and checking the passengers in the coach. In his cross examination, he testified that he saw the accused for the first time between Etawah and Aligarh and found him checking the tickets of passengers. He further testified that initially he did not ask anything from the accused, however, when the train had crossed Aligarh Railway Station, he asked from the accused about his I- Card and Travel Authority. He denied the suggestion that staff personnels namely Ram Sewak, Shazzad Ahmad and D Toppo were under the influence of liquor. He also denied the suggestion that the said staff members were quarreling with a lady passenger and when the accused intervened, he was falsely implicated in the present case.
PW4 D Toppo testified that on 02.12.07 he was working as Dy. TS on Shatabadi train from Lucknow to Delhi alongwith the other staff Ram Sewak, TS, Shazzad Ahmad & Sanjay Kumar, both Dy. TS. Besides this, PW4 also reiterated the prosecution case in its entirety by FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 5 of 10 testifying about the accused boarding the train from Etawah Junction posing himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House, New Delhi and checking the passengers in the coach. In his cross examination, he testified that he saw the accused for the first time in the train after crossing of the Etawah Railway Station. He further testified that he never made any inquiry from the accused regarding his ticket, identity, authority or any other proof of his traveling in the train as it was done by Sanjay Kumar, Shazzad and Ram Sewak. He further testified that TS Ram Sewak called the police from his mobile phone. He denied the suggestion that at the time when the accused was apprehended by them, they all were drunk. He also denied the suggestion that they had an altercation with a lady and as the accused objected to it, he was falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that 1st class railway train ticket was snatched by them from the accused.
PW7 ASI Ashok who is the IO, testified that on 02.12.07 at about 11.20 pm when he was posted and present at PS NDRS, TS Ram Sewak with three other persons came to the PS and handed over the accused to him. He further testified that they also handed over a written complaint Ex. PW1/A whereupon he made the endorsement Ex. PW7/A and gave it to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. He further testified that after registration of FIR, he recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW1/B & C respectively in the presence of Ct. Deen Dayal who was also present with him during the investigation. He identified the disclosure statement of the accused recorded by him as Ex. PW5/A. In his cross examination, he testified that whereas Ram Sewak was the Chief Ticket Inspector, the other three persons were Dy. TS. He further testified that all the proceedings were done in the PS on the same date. He further testified that apart from the statement of witnesses, no other incriminating evidence came on record. He denied the suggestion that he got the FIR registered without verifying the facts and in connivance with the said railway FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 6 of 10 employees.
4. In his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, while denying all the incriminating evidence against him and pleading innocence, accused stated that he has been falsely implicated because he intervened in a matter pertaining to misbehaviour by a TT with a lady passenger traveling in C-3 Coach on seat no. 47. He also stated that the said TT was under the influence of liquor. However, no witness was examined by the accused in his defense.
5. Heard the ld. APP for the State and the ld.
Legal aid counsel for the accused and perused the judicial record carefully.
Ld. APP submitted that the case as projected by the prosecution through the testimony of its witnesses clearly establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused not only pretended himself to be a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House knowing fully well that he does not hold such offence but also did some acts falling under the colour of such office.
Ld. Legal aid counsel submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated by the Railway Staff on duty on the date of incident in the Lucknow Shatabadi as the accused objected and intervened in their misbehaviour with a lady passenger traveling in the train in the same coach. It was also submitted that except the testimony of the railway staff there is no other independent witness / passengers traveling in the train on the date of incident to corroborate their testimony and in such an event, their testimony cannot be made the sole basis of arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was, thus, submitted that accused is innocent and he be acquitted of all the charges against him.
Before taking up the respective contentions, I deem it fit to make a mention of the legal provision u/s 170 IPC.
S. 170 IPC lays down that "whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 7 of 10 either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
It is, thus, clear from a bare reading of the legal provision that in order to prove an offence u/s 170 IPC, prosecution must prove the following:-
(i) that the accused pretended to hold any particular office as public servant knowing that he does not hold such public office or falsely personates any other person holding such office;
(ii) and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act,
(iii) under colour of such office.
Coming on to the prosecution evidence, the prosecution through the testimony of PW1 Ram Sewak, of PW2 Shazzad Ahmad, of PW3 Sanjay Kumar and of PW4 D Toppo had brought on record and proved that the accused on 02.12.07 at about 6.20 pm boarded the Coach C-3 of Lucknow Shatabadi train from Etawah Railway Station. The defence has not contradicted any of the four witnesses with respect to the said aspect of accused boarding the Coach C-3 of Lucknow Shatabadi train. Thus, the presence of the accused on the date and time of incident in the Coach C-3 of Lucknow Shatabadi Express stands conclusively established. Now, all the four witnesses have in alike terms deposed that the accused when boarded the train, introduced himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House and besides checking the passengers present in the coach, also asked for the TS. Whether or not the defence has been able to dislodge the said assertion of the four prosecution witnesses, their respective cross examinations holds significance. In the cross examination of PW1 Ram Sewak, to the suggestion of the defence, the witness stated as correct that they accompanied the accused in checking the passengers. This suggestion by the defence rather reinforces the prosecution case that the accused after posing himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House started checking the passengers. Going further, in the cross-examination of PW2 Shajjad Ahmad, the witness stated that after entering the coach of Lucknow Shatabadi, the accused checked the tickets of the passengers inside the compartment and FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 8 of 10 they also on the instructions of the accused started checking the passengers as the same is done in the routine course of business on the directions of Vigilance Inspector. One more suggestion given by the defence to PW2 Shajjad Ahmad in his cross-examination which again reinforces the prosecution case, was that the accused made no monetary gain. This suggestion by the defence clearly establishes that the accused not only posed himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House but went one step further in checking the tickets of the passengers. Merely because, he had not made any monetary gain does not mean that the offence u/s 170 IPC is not attracted. At this stage, reference can also be made to the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court cited as Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1998, Cri. L. J. 633. The said judgment pertains to the interpretation of the words "acts under the colour of office". It was held that it is not necessary that the act done should be such an act, as might legally be done by the public servant personated. The expression "under colour of such office"
need not have direct proximity with the duties of the office of the person impersonated. It is enough that a person pretends to tell others as to what he is when he in fact is not so.
Coming on to the other suggestions given by the defence to dislodge the testimony of PW1, 2,3 and 4, the same are with respect to the accused intervening in an act of misbehaviour by one of the TTs with one of the lady passengers sitting on seat no.47 of coach C-3 of the train. The suggestions given are bringing out inherent contradictions in the defence taken up by the accused. Whereas, in the cross-examination of PW1 Ram Sevak, the suggestion which was denied by the witness was that the accused was falsely implicated as he intervened in the matter of a lady passenger with a TT. Who was the said TT, whether he was the TS / Complainant Ram Sevak or the other three Dy. TS who were assisting the complainant in the train, there is no suggestion by the defence. Furthermore, whereas to one of the witnesses namely PW4 D. Toppo, the suggestion given was that all four of them were drunk at the time when they FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 9 of 10 apprehended the accused, there is no such suggestion to the complainant or to PW2 in their respective cross-examinations. Another contradiction coming to the fore through the suggestions is the suggestion given to PW3 in his cross-examination that the accused was falsely implicated as he intervened in the matter of all the four staff members namely Ram Sevak, Shazzad Ahmad, D. Toppo and Sanjay Kumar quarreling with a lady passenger. There was no such suggestion given to the complainant in his cross-examination, thus, clearly bringing out the case that the defence that the accused has been falsely implicated on his having intervened in an act of misbehaviour by the Railway Staff / TT with a lady passenger is an after thought and a cooked up story. There is nothing on the record so as to show or suggest or infer that any of the four witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 have had any previous enmity with the accused so as to falsely implicate him. Insofar as the non joining of the passengers is concerned, it would not have been possible for the railway staff to hold on any of the passengers to accompany them to the GRP, New Delhi instead of going to their respective destinations. Thus, the prosecution establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused not only pretended or personated himself as a Vigilance Inspector, Baroda House, Indian Railways but also did an act which falls under the colour of such office.
6. In view of the foregoing, I hold the accused Navneet Kumar guilty of the offence punishable u/s 170 IPC. He stands convicted of the offence accordingly. Be put up for hearing the convict on the point of sentence on 26.05.2012 at 2:00 pm. Announced in the open court on 24.05.2012 (SATISH KUMAR ARORA) Metropolitan Magistrate (Central)-04 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 407/07, PS NDRS State vs. Navneet Kumar Page 10 of 10