Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjay Mittal on 25 January, 2010
State vs. Sanjay Mittal In the Court of Sh. Ajay Garg, M.M (C01), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 637/02 P.S Karol Bagh S.No. Of the case 40/2A Date of commission of offence 15.12.02 Date of institution of challan 12.03.03 Name of complainant Chetan Kohli, S/o Krishan Kohli, R/o 17A/24, WEA Karol Bagh, Delhi.
Name of accused 1. Sanjay Mittal S/o Late Sh.
Purshottam Mittal, R/o 150C, Govind Garh, Dehradoon, Uttranchal.
2. Sanjay Sharma, S/o Amir Chand, R/o VPO Sadarpur, Sector39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P (Already discharged) Offence complained of 387/120B IPC Offence charged with 387/511 IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Arguments heard/ order reserved 14.01.2010 State vs. Sanjay Mittal Final order Conviction u/s 387 IPC Date of such order 25.01.2010 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1 As per the prosecution, on 15.12.02 a complaint was received at P.S Karol Bagh from the complainant Sh. Chetan Kohli regarding the threat extended to him for extortion. After lodging a complaint at P.S Karol Bagh, the complainant on the same day at around 3.00 p.m again received another threat call and was asked to pay Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was also informed that the caller will come at around 6.00 p.m to 6.30 p.m to receive the money. The matter was again reported to P.S Karol Bagh. Upon information, the police officials came to the house of the complainant and hide themselves behind the pillars and doors and waited for the culprits. At around 6.35 p.m, accused Sanjay Mittal came to the house of the complainant and rang the door bell. The complainant opened the door and the accused came to the drawing room of the complainant and demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. He threatened the State vs. Sanjay Mittal complainant that he had remained in jail for many years in a murder case and he used the words " Tera Kaam Aaj Kal Bahut Badh Gaya Hai. Kuch hamare Jaise Logon Ke Liye Bhi Nikalna Shuru Karo, Anyatha Tujhe Jaan Se Bhi Haath Dhona Pad Sakta Hai" .
Thereupon the police officials present in the house of the complainant nabbed the accused Sanjay Mittal. After following appropriate procedure, the accused Sanjay Mittal was arrested in this case after registration of FIR. During the course of investigation, another accused namely Sanjay Sharma was arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused Sanjay Mittal. 2 On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and copy was supplied to accused persons.
3 On the basis of the record, a charge for commission of offences punishable under Section 387/511 IPC was framed by my Ld. Predecessor against the accused Sanjay Mittal on 03.07.04 to which he claimed trial by pleading not guilty. However, accused State vs. Sanjay Mittal Sanjay Sharma was discharged by the Court on the same date as no incriminating evidence was found against the accused Sanjay Sharma except the disclosure statement of the co-accused Sanjay Mittal and accused Sanjay Sharma himself.
4 The prosecution examined PW1 Ct. Raghubir, PW2 H.C Ramadhar, PW3 H.C Subhash Chand, PW4 Chetan Kohli & I.O Sub Inspector Manoj Sinha as PW5 in support of its case. 5 PW1 Ct. Raghubir Singh deposed that on 15.12.02 he alongwith S.I Manoj Sinha and H.C Ramadhar reached at the house of complainant Chetan Kohli at 17A/24, WEA, Karol Bagh at 5.00 p.m where the complainant told the I.O about another extortion call received by him. He also deposed that the complainant told the I.O that the person who had made extortion call would come at 6.00 p.m. PW1 Ct. Raghubir Singh also states that he alongwith S.I Manoj Sinha and H.C Ramadhar hided themselves behind the door of the house of the complainant. PW1 further asserts that at about 6.35 p.m, State vs. Sanjay Mittal the accused Sanjay Mittal came at the abovesaid house of the complainant and demanded Rs.10,000/- as extortion money from the complainant by saying that the complainant had flourished his business and that he had remained in jail in some other murder case. PW1 also deposed that the accused Sanjay Mittal asked the complainant that he will inform him about remaining extortion money on telephone on next day and the accused also threatened to kill the complainant if he failed to pay the demanded money to the accused. PW1 also deposed that on listening the conversation of complainant and the accused, I.O aforesaid apprehended the accused Sanjay Mittal. This witness i.e PW1 went to P.S alongwith the rukka and got the case registered. PW1 also deposed that on interrogation the accused Sanjay Mittal told the I.O about co-accused namely Sanjay Sharma. Accordingly, accused Sanjay Sharma was also arrested who disclosed the I.O that the accused Sanjay Mittal had given him Rs.2,000/- for giving threat to the complainant. This witness proved the relevant documents prepared by I.O during investigation which are Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/G. He was not cross examined by defence State vs. Sanjay Mittal despite opportunity given.
6 PW2 H.C Ramadhar supported the testimony of PW1. Despite opportunity, he was also not cross examined by the defence. 7 The complainant Chetan Kohli (PW4) reiterated the contents of the FIR and proved his complaint Ex.PW4/A. He deposed that accused was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/B but he failed to identify the accused and he was cross examined on this point by Ld. APP for the State. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined by the defence.
8 FIR Ex.PW3/1 is proved by H.C Subhash Chand. His endorsement on Rukka Ex.PW3/2 was also proved. 9 Inspector Manoj Sinha is PW4. He also testified the testimony of PW1 & PW2. This witness deposed that the accused Sanjay Mittal came at the house of the complainant at about 6.30 p.m State vs. Sanjay Mittal on 15.12.02 and demanded Rs10,000/- from the complainant and stated that " Main Kafi saal murder case mein jail mein reh chuka hun. Tera Kaam aajkal kafi bad chuka hai. Kuch hamare jaise logo ke liy nikalana shuru kar de. Anyatha tera kaam khatam bhi ho sakta hai. Abhi filhaal das hazar rupee do, baki main tuje telephone par kal bataunga" . He is the I.O who investigated the case and arrested the accused persons. Site Plan Ex.PW5/A was also prepared by this witness. He proves the relevant documents prepared by him during investigation. He was also not cross examined by the defence.
10 The incriminating material was explained to the accused Sanjay Mittal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused Sanjay Mittal denied all the incriminating evidence. The only defence taken by him is that he was falsely implicated in the present case as he had gone to Hotel Welcome Plaza belonging to the complainant for taking meal but at that time he was not having money with himself and he was under the influence of liquor due to which the complainant State vs. Sanjay Mittal called the police officials and falsely implicated him in the present case. On option given, he opt to lead D.E. 11 In D.E, the accused produced one Sh. Dinesh who deposed as DW1 that he knew the accused since last 7-8 years as the accused used to perform puja ceremonies being a Pandit. He further deposed that he got to know from his neighbours that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case as he failed to pay for the meal which he had taken in some hotel. He was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
12 As DW2, Sh. Rajiv Kumar deposed that the he knows accused since the year 1998 as the accused used to perform puja ceremonies being a Pandit. He further deposed that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case as he failed to pay for the meal which he had taken in some hotel. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
State vs. Sanjay Mittal 13 I have heard final arguments and gone through the record very carefully.
14 Ld. APP submits that unassailed testimony of eyewitnesses i.e PW4, the complainant coupled with the testimony of Police Officials who were part of the raiding team proves the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Defence Counsel contended that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that PW4 i.e. the complainant is the only public witness who fails to identify the accused and no other independent witness is examined by the prosecution though it was a day time. He further doubted the prosecution story as threat calls are untraced. Ld. defence counsel also argued that there is no element of fear as no weapon is involved, therefore, no offence is made out.
15 Heard. Considered.
State vs. Sanjay Mittal 16 PW4 i.e the complainant stated in his examination that he cannot recollect the face of accused due to lapse of time i.e around 5- 6 years. He was cross examined by the prosecution on this aspect wherein also he stated the same. But at the same time PW4 admits that the accused was arrested by the Police on the spot in his presence and he signed the arrest memo. All the remaining PWs correctly identified the accused. Arrest memo i.e Ex. PW1/B also bears the signature of PW4. Even otherwise accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that " He had gone to Hotel Welcome Plaza belonging to the complainant for taking meal but at that time I was not having money with myself and I was under the influence of liquor due to which complainant called the police officials and falsely implicated me in this case with the collusion of police" . As per site plan Ex. PW5/A the hotel welcome plaza is just opposite to the house of complainant where the alleged incident took place. Defence taken by the accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.PC reflects his admission in respect of his presence and his arrest by the Police on that day. Arrest memo is already proved by all the PWs.
State vs. Sanjay Mittal Therefore the entire chain of evidence proves the identity of accused. 17 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of " Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 84"
held thus " It is well-settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a Court of Law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of Complainant or a Police Official but it is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police Official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of Police Officials merely because they belong to Police Force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of Police Officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more State vs. Sanjay Mittal careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence" .
Therefore, merely because no independent witness is examined though all the PWs stood the test of truth and veracity their evidence cannot be thrown out. Further as the offence was committed inside the house of the Complainant, availability of Independent witnesses do not arise.
18 Admittedly the threat calls are untraced. Therefore, the telephone calls cannot be connected to the accused. But threat extended by the accused to the complainant at his house stands duly proved by testimony of all eye witnesses including Complainant and members of Police raiding team.
19 Merely because no weapon was recovered from the accused, in itself cannot rule out the element of fear.
State vs. Sanjay Mittal 20 Section 387 IPC reads - Putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion:- Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Words used by the accused are sufficient enough to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt. Though there are minor contradiction in the testimonies of PWs in respect of the language used by the accused to extend threat, but it is quite natural due to lapse of considerable time. Verbatim reproduction is not essential. Evidence has to be read in totto and not in piecemeals. What has to be seen is whether all the PWs supported the prosecution version on material facts or not. 21 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of " Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi" held thus " Merely because of the State vs. Sanjay Mittal fact that there were some minor, omissions, which are but natural, considering the fact that the examination in court took place years after the occurrence the evidence does not become suspect. Necessarily there cannot be exact and precise reproduction in any mathematical manner. What needs to e seen is whether the version presented in the court was substantially similar to what was stated during investigation. It is only when exaggerations fundamentally change the nature of the case, the court has to consider whether the witness was telling the truth or not" .
22 Both the witnesses examined by the accused in his defence deposed only to the character of accused. They denied their personal knowledge in respect of the present case and are only hearsay evidence.
23 The version of the defence is also contrary to the admitted record. As per Ex. PW1/A i.e seizure memo Rs. 520/- was seized State vs. Sanjay Mittal from the accused whereas in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C accused stated that he was not having money on that day. He further stated that he was under the influence of liquor, however MLC states otherwise. Mere discharge of co-accused for want of evidence is not a ground for acquittal.
24 All the PWs corroborated each other in material terms. PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. 25 In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Sanjay Mittal is convicted for the offence U/S 387 IPC.
Be heard separately on point of sentence.
Announced in the Ajay Garg Open Court on 25.01.2010 M.M (C01)/ Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains fifteen pages and each page bears my signature.
Ajay Garg M.M(C01)/ Delhi 25.01.2010