Delhi District Court
State vs . Nafe Singh & Ors on 15 April, 2010
FIR No. 430/01
U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC
PS: Bawana
State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No. 430/01
U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC
PS: Bawana
State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors
Date of Institution of case:03.08.02
Date of Judgment reserved:15.04.10
Date of which Judgment pronounced:15.04.10
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of case :399/2 Date of commission of offence :22.11.00 Name of the complainant :Sh. Maya Ram Sundariyal Name and address of accused :1. Nafe Singh S/o Sh. Jhamman Singh, R/o H. No. 365, VPO Daryapur Kalan, Delhi.
2. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Jhamman Singh, R/o H. No. 365, VPO Daryapur Kalan, Delhi.
3. Sahab Singh S/o Sh. Jhamman Singh, R/o H. No. 365, VPO Daryapur Kalan, Delhi.
4. Ashok S/o Sh. Jhamman Singh, R/o H. No. 365, VPO Daryapur Kalan, Delhi.
5. Raj Singh Pg no. 1 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors S/o Sh. Jhamman Singh, R/o H. No. 365, VPO Daryapur Kalan, Delhi.
6. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Jai Singh R/o VPO Nangal Thakran, Delhi.
Offence complained of :380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty Date of order :15.04.10 Final order :Acquitted BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:
The accused persons namely Nafe Singh, Balbir Singh, Sahab Singh, Ashok, Raj Singh, All S/o Sh. Jhamman Singh & Joginder Singh, S/o Sh. Jai Singh have been sent up for the trial for the offence U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called IPC) on the ground that they on and before 22.11.00 at Gas Godown, Khasra no. 11/2, Mustif no. 901, Village Dariyanpura, near PS Bawana formed illegal assembly with common object & they all forcibly entered into the godown in order to commit theft and cause damage by their mischiever activities causing loss of Rs. 50/- and dishonestly removed 35 bags of cement and five windows without permission or consent of complainant and they all Pg no. 2 Contd/-.....FIR No. 430/01
U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors criminally intimidated employee of the complainant by accidening threat and they all thereby committed the offence punishable U/S 454 r/w 147 IPC/427 r/w Section 147 IPC/380 r/w 147 IPC/506 r/w 147 IPC and on the basis of which FIR no. 430/01 was registered at PS Bawana.
2. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons & after supplying the copies to them in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Cr.P.C), a charge U/S 454 r/w 147 IPC/427 r/w Section 147 IPC/380 r/w 147 IPC/506 r/w 147 IPC was framed against accused persons on 17.11.04, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW1 Umender Sharma, PW2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, PW3 Ct. Anil Kumar, PW4 HC Ranbir Singh, PW5 SI Umesh Malik, PW6 Ct. Ramesh, PW7 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sapra, PW8 ASI Ram Kumar, PW9 Sh. Pradeep & PW10 Sh. Rajinder Singh Beniwal.
4. PW1 is Sh. Umender Sharma. He is one of the public Pg no. 3 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors witness. He was cross examined by Ld. APP as well as counsel for accused persons at length. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution.
5. PW2 is Sh. Sanjay Kumar. He is another the public witness. He was cross examined by Ld. APP. He has also not supported the case of prosecution.
6. PW3 is Ct. Anil Kumar. He has deposed that on 23.11.01, he was posted as a Constable and on that day ASI Ram Kumar received DD no. 46 B and he alongwith ASI Ram Kumar reached at khasra no. 11/2, Village Daryapur, Bawana, where some construction work was going on. He has further deposed that 4 persons namely Umender, Vikram, Rajesh and Vikram Yadav met them and IO interrogated them. He has further deposed that Umender showed some documents to the IO and photocopies of the same were handed over to the IO and same were seized by the IO. He has further deposed that the photographs of the spot were taken by a private photographer on the instructions of the IO.
7. He was cross examined by the counsel for accused persons Pg no. 4 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors and in his cross examination he deposed that the musthil no. of the land, where the alleged construction was going on was about 90 but he did not remember the exact number of the same. He has further deposed that he did not know the exact area of the said khasra number either in sq. yards or in bighas or biswas. He admitted as correct that IO/ASI Ram Kumar kept the DD no. 46 B pending and no enquiry was done or made by him. He further deposed that he could not say when the investigation of the case was started after the registeration of FIR by IO SI Umesh Malik. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or that he had not joined the investigation. He further deposed that he could not tell under whose supervision the construction was going on. He admitted as correct that the said land was agricultural land.
8. PW4 is HC Ranbir Singh. He is the Duty Officer, who has registered the present FIR no. 430/01. He has proved the copy of original roznamcha and copy of DD no. 18A Ex. PW4/A and copy of the FIR as Ex. PW4/B. He was not cross examined.
9. PW5 is SI Umesh Malik. He is the IO of the present case Pg no. 5 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors and he has deposed that on 25.11.01, he was posted at PS Bawana as SI and on that day SHO PS Bawana handed over to him DD no. 13A dt. 23.11.01. He has further deposed that on the same day, complainant Maya Ram had come to the PS and he recorded the statement of complainant Maya Ram, Ex. PW3/A and made endorsement on the statement of complainant and handed over the same to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR. He further deposed that FIR was registered and further investigation was carried out by him. He further deposed that one Umendra Sharma, S/o complainant Maya Ram and ASI Ram Kumar accompanied him to the spot, where he prepared site plan Ex. PW5/C and recorded statement of Umendera Sharma, ASI Ram Kumar and two three more persons and searched for accused persons and arrested accused persons namely Nafe Singh, Sahab Singh, Ashok, Balbir & Raj Singh vide memo Ex. PW5/D, Ex. PW5/E, Ex. PW5/F, Ex. PW5/G & Ex. PW5/H from their houses and conducted their personal search Ex. PW5/J, Ex. PW5/K, Ex. PW5/L, Ex. PW5/M & Ex. PW5/N and recorded their disclosure statement Ex. PW5/O, Ex. PW5/P, Ex. PW5/Q, Ex. PW5/R & Ex. PW5/S. He further deposed that he arrested accused Joginder from his house and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW5/U. Pg no. 6 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors He further deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS and sent the accused persons to lock-up. He further deposed that on the next day they produced the accused persons to the concerned court and moved an application before the court for police remand of accused Nafe Singh and other accused except Nafe Singh were granted bail. IO has further deposed that after getting the one day PC remand of Nafe Singh, Nafe Singh took him to a khota & from there got recovered seven bags of Diamond Cements & iron ventilator, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/W & thereafter he completed the further proceedings. He was cross examined at length by the counsel for accused persons.
10. PW6 is Ct. Ramesh. He handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO of the case, which was given to him by the Duty Officer and conducted further investigation with the IO. He was also cross examined at length by the counsel for accused.
11. PW7 is Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sapra. He has deposed that he is a stamp vendor by profession and his licence no. is
471. He has seen the photocopy of one Non-Judicial stamp Pg no. 7 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors bearing serial no. 7061 dt. 02.11.01 of Rs. 50/- issued in the name of one Nafe Singh. This non-judicial stamp paper was also issued by him and he has further deposed that he could not produce the original record pertaining to the same as same has been deposited in the office of Collector of Stamp, 5 Shyam Nath Marg, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He was also cross examined by the counsel for accused.
12. PW8 is ASI Ram Kumar. He has deposed that on the day of the incident, he had received the DD no. 18-A upon which he alongwith Ct. Anil Kumar reached at the spot i.e in front of Gas Godam, PS Bawana, Village Daryapur, where he saw broken part of the constructed building lying on the spot. The said DD was kept pending on 25.11.01 as per the order of Additional SHO and the same was marked to SI Umesh Kumar, who registered the present FIR. He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons.
13. PW9 is Sh. Pradeep, the photographer. He has deposed that in the year 2001, he was working as a photographer in the Dahiya Studio, Opposite Petrol Pump, Bawana, Delhi. On that day, he went to the spot and had taken the photographs of the demolished godown, Bricks and pieces of Pg no. 8 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors bricks were also lying there. He had taken 5/6 photographs of the spot, same are collectively Ex. PW9/A.
14. He was cross examined and in his cross examination he admitted as correct that he was not the owner of the Dahiya Studio. He has deposed that he has no knowledge about the payment of charges of the photographs. He denied the suggestion that he had no knowledge of the photography at the relevant time. He also denied the suggestion that he had not taken the photographs of the spot / site.
15. PW10 is Sh. Rajinder Singh Beniwal, Notary Public appointed by the Central Govt. He has deposed that he was working as a Notary Public since August 2000. He has deposed that on 02.11.01, he had not attested any rent agreement of Nafe Singh, S/o Jhumman, R/o Village Daryapur, Delhi. He further deposed that he was not involved in the investigation of the present case at any point of time. He was turned hostile and was cross examined at length by Ld. APP but Ld. APP could not extract anything from his mouth.
16. After the completion of prosecution evidence, statement of Pg no. 9 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors accused persons were recorded U/S 281 Cr.P.C in which the accused persons have submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They further submitted that they do not want to lead defence evidence and as accordingly matter was fixed for final arguments.
17. I have heard both the parties. Record Perused.
18. In the present case, accused persons have been charged U/S 380/427/454/506 r/w 147 IPC and to convict accused persons, prosecution has to prove all the ingredients of the above said Sections. Present case was registered at the complaint of one Sh. Maya Ram but he could not be examined since he is stated to have expired. PW1 Sh. Umender Sharma & PW2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar are two public witnesses and their testimonies are material one. PW2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar has not supported the case of prosecution and he has demolished the case of prosecution as he has specifically deposed that he knew nothing about this case and he was cross examined by the Ld. APP and he has specifically deposed that his signatures were obtained on some blank papers by police officials. Hence, this witness Pg no. 10 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors has totally demolished the case of prosecution. Further, PW1 has deposed that quarrel was taken place between Nafe Singh and his brothers as they had taken the agricultural land on rent from Nafe Singh in Village Daryapur, near Bawana being the dispute amongst the brothers (accused) they refused them to give the land on rent and the godown, which was partially built on the land was demolished by brothers of Nafe Singh. He further deposed that he could not tell the names of the persons, whom he had seen later on. He has further deposed that he had only come to know about the demolition later on. He has further deposed that his father lodged a complaint with the police and police harassed all the brothers including Nafe Singh. He has further deposed that accused had not threatened him or his father. He has further deposed that he had come to the spot and had taken the photographs. He has further deposed police had seized the broken articles from the spot. He has further deposed that he compromised with the accused after 3/4 months of the incident. His examination in chief shows that nothing had happened in his presence. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and in his cross examination by Ld. APP, he has deposed that Sanjay told him that Nafe Singh and his brothers had come to the Pg no. 11 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors godown and threatened them to remove the goods from the godown. Further, he has deposed that he alongwith his father and Sanjay reached the godown, he found that the godown was demolished completely. But, Sanjay has not supported the case of prosecution and he has specifically deposed that he knew nothing about this case. Hence, the fact deposed by this witness does not get any corroboration from the testimony of Sanjay. Further, this witness was cross examined by the Defence counsel and in his cross examination, he has specifically deposed that at the time of construction of godown, the accused persons were in possession of the land in question and they were not in the possession. He has further deposed in his cross examination that the foundation wall was constructed by one of the accused Nafe Singh. He has specifically deposed that building material and labourers were brought by Nafe Singh and construction was going on under the supervision of Nafe Singh. He has further specifically deposed that no theft has been taken place in the property in question as the property itself belongs to Nafe Singh at the date of incident. He has further deposed that no demolition was taken place in his presence. Hence, the testimony of this witness shows that he has not supported the case of the prosecution. This Pg no. 12 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors witness has specifically deposed that the accused persons were in possession and the construction was done by Nafe Singh and the building material was also brought by Nafe Singh, then the question of forcibly entering into godown and committing theft does not arise. Further, the question of damage also does not arise. Further, it has not come on record that the accused persons formed illegal assembly with common object. Hence, question of forming illegal assembly with common object does not arise. Further, no evidence has come on record, which could show that accused persons have threatened any person. All other witnesses are formal in nature and they have not witnessed the incident and their testimonies are of no avail to convict the accused persons.
19. Hence, in view of the discussions made above & keeping in view the evidence available on record, I thus hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused persons are hereby acquitted of the said offence, for which they have been charged with. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Documents, if any be returned after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to Record Room.
Pg no. 13 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors (DEEPAK WASON) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Court,Delhi ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 15th April, 2010 Pg no. 14 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 430/01U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors FIR No. 430/01 U/S 380/427/448/506/411/34 IPC PS: Bawana State Vs. Nafe Singh & ors 15.04.10 Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Sh. Prateek Chaudhary, Ld. counsel for all accused with all accused persons on bail.
Arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment dictated to the steno today in the open court, accused persons are acquitted of the said offence, for which they have been charged with.
Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Deepak Wason)
MM (Outer)-01/Rohini
15.04.10
Pg no. 15 Contd/-.....