Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil @ Soni on 30 April, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Sunil @ Soni
P.S.: J P Kalan
U/s: 224 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. FIR No. : 83/04
2. Date of Institution : 08.09.2004
3 Name of the accused, and
his parentage and residence : Sunil @ soni S/o Sh.
Ram Chander R/O Village
Mundela Kala, New Delhi
4. Date when judgment : 30.4.2011
was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 30.04.2011
was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : u/s 224 IPC
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Judgment : Convicted.
Present : APP for the state.
Accused Sunil @ Soni on bail
along with counsel Sh. I. S Gulia Advocate.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:
1 The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused was in police custody in case arising out of FIR No. 82/04 u/s 411 IPC. On 17.6.2004 the accused was taken to attend the call of nature by H C Manphool, Constable Anoop and Constable Gurpreet. He was taken out of the police lock up since 2 there was no facility of toilet inside the police station , he w as taken to the back side of the police station and then, he was brought back to the lock up. The accused pushed constable Gurpreet and Constable Anoop and ran away. The accused was chased by the said officials but he fled away by taking advantage of darkness. The police party kept on searching for the accused for about 1 and /12 hour but they could not locate the accused. Accordingly FIR u/s 224 IPC was registered in P S Jaffar Pur Kalan.
2 The I.O prepared site plan and recorded statement of the witnesses. On 18.6.04 the accused was arrested on the basis of a secret information. The challan was presented against the accused .
3 Copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 cr.pc. Thereafter, charge u/s 224 IPC was framed against the accused by the Learned predecessor of this court on 20.4.2006 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. PW1 H C Ram Rattan . He proved the copy of FIR as EX. PW1/A . 5 PW2 H. C Manphool Singh deposed that on 16.6.04 he was posted at P S Jaffar Pur Kallan. On that day, he was working as Duty Officer from 4 P.M to 12 night . The accused was in the lock up of Police Station in case u/s 411 IPC vide FIR No. 82/04 P S Jaffar Pur Kallan. At about 11.40 P.M accused requested him to pass urinal. The accused was taken out from lock up as there was no 3 facility of urinal by the said witness and two Delhi Home Guard constables i.e Constable Anoop and Gurpreet. The accused was brought back to the lock up. Accused escaped from the custody after pushing the said Delhi Home Guard constables Anoop and Gurpreet and started running away. They chased the accused but he ran away by taking advantage of darkness. He also proved DD entry no 29 A as EX.PW2/A regarding taking out of the accused from lock of the police station. He also deposed that on 16.6.04 he took the charge of Duty officer at 4.05 p.m and proved the DD entry no. 19 A as EX.PW2/B. 6 PW3 Constable Somveer deposed that on 17.6.2004 he was posted at P S J.P.K.. On that day, he accompanied with ASI Lakhi Ram in investigation of case FIR No. 93/04 . IO prepared site plan at the instance of H. C Manphool . Constable Gurpreet Singh and Constable Anoop Singh were thoroughly interrogated about the incident and their statements were recorded in his presence. I.O took into possession a Hawai Chappal EX.P1 vide seizure memo EX.PW3/A. 7 Pw4 Constable Naresh Chand deposed that on 18.6.2004 he was posted at P S J.P.K. He accompanied with ASI Lakhi Ram and reached at Mundela Road at 9.20 A.M . A secret informer informed that accused Sunil Kumar would pass through the said area . IO instructed him to prepare a raiding party . On the pointing out of secret informer, the accused was stopped and apprehended. I.O prepared arrest memo EX.PW4/1 and disclosure statement EX.PW4/2. He also conducted Jama Talashi vide memo EX.PW4/3.
8 Next witness examined by the prosecution is PW5 Constable Naresh. 4 He deposed that on 16.6.2004 he was posted as Santri at the gate of P S J.P.K. At about 11.30 P.M, some police officials raised a voice that " Muljim Bhag Gaya, Muljim Bhag Gaya". He saw accused was running away from the gate, he chased the accused alongwith H C Manphool but the accused could not be apprehended. The accused left his slipper at the spot. He identified the same and proved as EX.P2.
9 PW6 Constable Vijay Kumar deposed that on 16.6. 04 he was posted as DD writer at P S Jaffar Pur Kallan and he was doing his duty from 4 P.M to 12 night. At about 10.40 P.M H C Yashwant had arrested accused Sunil Kumar and he was put up in lock up in case u/s 411 IPC arising out of FIR No. 82/04. At about 11.30 P.M accused Sunil Kumar started shouting for urinating. He was taken out by duty officer H C Man Phool and two DHG constable Gurpreet and Anoop Singh as there was no facility of wash room in the police station, they took the accused behind reporting room in an open space. Accused brought back and when HC Manphool was in the process of opening the lock of the lock up and both the said Home Guard were holding the accused during that time the accused suddenly escaped from the clutches of home guards and ran towards main gate . Santri Constable Naresh shouts and he alongwith H C Manphool and both Home Guard constables chased the accused and tried to locate him for about 1 and ½ hours but failed to chase the accused. The accused left his chappals at the main gate and fled away.
10 PW7 Sh. Anoop Kumar though stated that he did not remember the date, time and year but deposed about the occurrence in unison as the other 5 witnesses deposed. He also deposed that he alongwith H C Manphool, Constable Gurpreet were taken the accused for urinating. The accused did not go for urinating, rather he pushed them and ran away in the darkness . On this he, H C Manphool and other Home Guard and constable Vijay and Santri raised alarm and chased the accused but the accused ran away. The witness was cross examined by the ld. APP . In his cross examination, he stated that as he turned for being taken back the accused towards lock up , he pushed him and other Home Guard Gurpreet Singh.
11 PW8 H . C Yashwant Kumar deposed that on 16.6.04 he arrested accused in case FIR No. 82/04 u/s 411 IPC and after coming back to P S he recorded DD No. 28 B Ex.PW2/DA. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 19.4.2011.
12 Statement of the accused was recorded by putting entire incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him on 23.04.2011. He did not opt to lead defence evidence.
13 I have heard arguments of Ld. APP for the state as well as Ld. Defence counsel and gone through the record. Ld. APP has argued that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. PW8 H C Yashwant Kumar has deposed that the accused was taken into custody in other case bearing FIR No. 82/04 u/s 411 IPC. It is also established on record by way of oral evidence as well as documentary evidence that the accused escaped from the police custody at 11.40 P.M on 16.6.2004. All the prosecution witnesses including H C 6 Manphool Singh , Constable Gurpreet Singh and Constable Anoop have categorically deposed that the accused had ran away from their custody. Other witnesses including PW5 Constable Naresh Chand and Pw6 Constable Vijay Kumar also deposed in unison that the accused fled away from police custody. He was tried to be apprehended but taking advantage of darkness , the accused ran away. The investigation has also been proved on record. PW1 has proved the FIR as EX.PW1/A. PW3 Constable Somveer proved the investigation carried out after the accused had ran away. He proved the case property i.e slipper of the accused as Ex.P1 as well as seizure memo of slipper as EX.PW3/A. PW4 Constable Naresh Chand also proved the arrest of the accused on 18.4.2004. Thus, the entire investigation has been proved on record. The chain of events not only stands proved by way of oral evidence but also proved by way of documentary evidence in the form of DD entry. Hence, the accused may be convicted.
14 On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in order to prevent the action being taken by H C Manphool Singh. He has argued that all the witnesses are police officials and there are material contradictions on record to show that they are deposing falsely. PW1 Constable Anoop Singh has deposed that the accused did not go for urinating and fled away from the place outside the police station. Whereas, the version of other witnesses as well as case of the prosecution is that the accused fled away from the spot when H C Manphool Singh was trying to open the lock up. The other witnesses have deposed that they 7 searched the accused for about 1 and 1&1/2 hours. Whereas, Anoop Kumar stated that they kept on searching the accused whole night but he was not traceable. He further argued that personal search memo of the accused alleged to have been prepared when he was subsequently arrested does not bear any date. Case property in the present case is merely the slipper which are easily available in the market and case property was produced does not bear any identification mark. Hence, prayed that the accused may be acquitted.
15 I have considered the rival arguments and gone through the record. It was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish that the accused was in custody of the police and he escaped from the same. In this respect, the prosecution examined PW8 H C Yashwant Kumar. He has deposed that on 16.6.04 he arrested accused in case FIR no. 82/04 u/s 411 IPC. He also proved the DD entry regarding lodging the accused in P. S as EX. PW2/DA. His testimony is duly corroborated with the contents of DD entry EX. PW2/DA and testimony of HC Manphool who was working as duty officer in the P S from 4 P. M to 12 night. The aforesaid facts clearly prove that the accused was arrested in case FIR No.82/04 u/s 411 IPC. Moreover, in the cross examination suggestion has been put to PW2 H C Manphool Singh that the accused was not lodged in police lock but he was allowed to go home by H C Yashwant Singh stating that inquiry was pending against him. This fact shows that the accused was in custody in police station under case of FIR No. 82/04. No suggestion has been put to any other witness that the accused was never in custody in the aforesaid case. Hence, the accused was in custody in case FIR No. 82/04 registered in P.S Jaffar Pur 8 Kallan stands proved.
16 In order to determine the fact that whether the accused escaped from the custody of police officials, scrutinization of testimony of all the witnesses assumed is highly important. As per prosecution version , the accused was arrested by H C Manphool and Delhi Home Guard Constable Anoop Kumar. The prosecution examined HC Manphool as PW2 and DHG Constable Anoop Kumar as PW7. In his testimony H C Manphool has categorically deposed that the accused fled away from the custody at about 11 p.m on the pretext of going urinal by pushing two Delhi Home Guard constables. They tried to chase the accused but the accused could not find. In this respect, his testimony is duly supported that of PW7 Anoop Kumar. Though, there are contradictions in the testimony but the said contradictions are minor and they do not go to the root of the case. The contradictions are high lighted by the defence that PW7 Anoop Kumar deposed that the accused did not go for urinating and ran away in darkness. However, in his cross examination by Ld. APP he has stated that the accused ran away when he turned for being taken back to the lock up. Their testimonies are duly corroborated to the extent that the accused ran away on the pretext of going to urinating. Both witnesses have been cross examined at length. However, nothing material or as to discredit the value of the testimony has been brought on record. Their testimony is duly supported by that of PW4 Constable Naresh Chand ,PW5 Constable Naresh and PW6 Constable Vijay Kumar. Both these witnesses have also submitted that on 16.6.04 they were present in Police Station Jaffar Pur Kallan. At about 11.30 P.M some police 9 official raised alarm that "Muljim Bhag Gaya, Muljim Bhag Gaya". They ran after the accused but accused ran away from the spot by leaving his slipper EX.P1 . All the witnesses categorically stated that the accused was being chased by PW5 Constable Naresh , PW6 Constable Vijay Kumar , PW7 Anoop Kumar and the other Delhi Home Guard constable Gurpreet Singh as well as H C Manphool. Their testimonies also find complete corroboration. In the documentary evidence, the prosecution proved the DD entry No. 19 Ex.PW2/B to show that H C Manphool was the Duty Officer and he took charge at 4.05 P.M on 16.6.2004. DD entry with respect to taking the accused out of the police lock up at 11.30 P.M has also been made vide DD No. 29 A and proved the same as EX.PW2/A. The subsequent arrest of the accused has also been proved by PW4 Constable Naresh Chand. He proved the arrest vide memo Ex.PW4/A and his personal search memo as EX.PW4/C. 17 It is pertinent to note that though the IO has not examined in this case but his non examination is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The entire evidence has been proved on record by the other witnesses. The taking of possession of the slipper of the accused as well as subsequent arrest of the accused on 18.6. 2004 have been duly proved by the other official witnesses. Though, the site plan has not been proved in this case but once again this has also not fatal to the case of the prosecution as the other witnesses have clearly proved that there was no facility of urinating in the police station and the accused persons had to be taken for urinal outside the police station. The testimony of prosecution witnesses appeared to be credible and worthy of trust. Testimony 10 duly corroborated each other . Testimony also remained unimpeached in their cross examination. Testimony of PW5 have also gone unchallenged. 18 Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has vehemently proved that the accused was taken in custody in case FIR No. 82/04 on 16.6.04 and at about 10.30 P.M accused escaped from custody by pushing the police officials when he was being taken for urinating. The accused was arrested subsequently on 18.6. 04. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is convicted u/s 224 IPC. To come up for hearing on the quantum of sentence on 4.5.2011.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN ( SUSHANT CHANGOTRA) COURT ON 30th April, 2011 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE